Over the recent decades, there has been a mounting concern that states allocate country’s income more on environmental research rather than medical observation. This essay will examine both sides of the argument and provide a logical conclusion.
From a more comprehensive perspective, medical advancement plays a pivotal role in people’s lives. Nonetheless, local authorities throw money around exclusively on researching the environment, whereas on medical studies they have not taken discernible steps whatsoever. Furthermore, they should take into account people’s health and allocate funds to improve medical healthcare. Unequivocally, the underlying rationales are the propagation of hazardous ailments and the deterioration of quality of life. First of all, many suffer widespreadly from neurodegenerative diseases which may possess a menace to contemporary society. Failing that, it may inevitably lead to fatalities and the population may decrease substantially. Secondly, by allocating financial resources on environmental issues, general life can deteriorate and other ramifications may arise.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, environmental problems are omnipresent at the current time and the government ought to grapple with them. The principal justifications are the hindrance of far-reaching repercussions and the establishment of a favorable environment. On the one hand, by identifying endangered species and rare plants, individuals would search for feasible ways to counteract it. On the other hand, it is essential to prevent air pollution along with climate change in the near future. I firmly believe that both environmental and medical research are paramount. Additionally, if the government were to invest more heavily in both industries, long-term benefits could be realised.
To conclude, taking into account all mentioned above, from my perspective, if states were to change their attitude towards both industries, considerable improvements could be achieved.