A great deal of money is allocated to keep animals and their habitat by both authorities and people. However, an argument is prioritizing social essential problems such as poverty and healthcare. In my opinion, this should depend on the quality of inhabitants’ life in particular area to determine which money should be invested in.
As regards to poor areas, where people make ends meet difficultly, they could do everything to have a full stomach, including cutting down trees, hunting animals and even burning vast forests for cultivating, leading to further deforestation and extinctions. Therefore, the priorities of governments should be sparing no expense to reduce the poverty, the famine. As a result, people would less rely on nature, and animals, forests would be also retained. In Vietnam, thanks to the supports of local authorities in highland region such as monthly payments per area of a forest that a person have responsibility for, creating jobs and so on, the dwellers could improve their quality of life and concentrate further on protecting forests, the house of varied local species of country.
On the other hand, if the inhabitants have full and wealthy lives, the money should be spent on preserve animals and their habitat. Not worrying about necessities every day, citizens could align with the governments to save from the street animals to endangered one. The authorities could allocate the large amount of money to many projects, such as breeding programs in zoos to increase the number of threatened species’ individuals, or modernizing forest-ranger force with more cutting-edge technology to protect the forests more efficiently.
In conclusion, for the poor regions, confronting social issues is more urgent than conserving animals and their habitat. But for the wealthier one, governments and people could mutually spare no expense at the conservation. The mission for the governments and individuals is flexible in the way they choose to retain their natural beings.