While one school of thought holds that not only the authorities but also everyone has a responsibility for saving endangered species, others believe that solving human issues is way more crucial. Personally, I support the latter view.
On the one hand, there are good grounds for conserving animals on the verge of extinction. The primary reason is that these animals play critical roles in maintaining biodiversity and ecological balance. Their extinction can have a cascading effect on other species, ultimately impacting humans as well. Moreover, proponents of securing animals have the contention that natural habitat degradation stems from people’s activities. For instance, thousands of hectares of forest are destroyed each year due to logging for wood and the expansion of urban areas, and this leads to the restriction of wildlife habitats. Therefore, for these reasons, animal activists believe that all people have an obligation to conserve wildlife animals from dying out.
On the other hand, I side with those who say that resolving human problems including poverty, hunger, and disease should be favored. In many developing countries, if the limited government budget is allocated to animal conservation, many people will face huge difficulty making a living or the necessity of basic healthcare. Taking Africa as an example, a significant portion of its inhabitants unfortunately suffer from homelessness, famine, epidemics, and premature death on a yearly basis. This highlights why protecting human basic needs must be the top priority.
In conclusion, while there are justifications for preserving wildlife animals from being vanished, I would contend that dealing with pressing human issues is more vital.