Some people argue that governments should allocate more public expenditure to protecting wildlife, while others believe that financial resources should instead be directed towards improving human welfare. This essay will discuss both views before presenting my own opinion.
On the one hand, prioritising human needs can be justified from a practical perspective. Many countries still struggle with poverty, limited healthcare systems and inadequate social infrastructure. If governments invest more in education, medical services and housing, the quality of life of citizens will significantly improve. In addition, supporting vulnerable groups may reduce illegal activities such as poaching. When people cannot meet their basic necessities, they are more likely to hunt wild animals in order to survive or earn income. Therefore, spending money on human welfare can indirectly contribute to environmental protection.
On the other hand, wildlife conservation plays a crucial role in maintaining ecosystem balance. The extinction of endangered species may lead to irreversible damage and create long-term consequences for human survival. Biodiversity supports agriculture, climate stability and natural resources that future generations will depend on. From an ethical standpoint, humans also have a moral responsibility to protect other living organisms. Conservation programs and nature reserves are long-term investments rather than a waste of resources, as they ensure sustainable development.
In my opinion, a balanced approach should be prioritised. Although improving living standards is essential, neglecting environmental protection would eventually harm humanity itself. Governments should therefore divide the national budget so that both human welfare and biodiversity preservation are supported.