There has been much debate about states had better to invest excessive capital on defending endangered types, while supporters of the second view argue that this currency should be utilizes so as to deal with issues confronted by individuals. I firmly hold the view address the problems of people who are faced with pitfalls is much more essential than protecting vulnerable species.
On the one hand, according to some protecting endangered animals is essential for maintaining ecosystem health. In other words, extinction of some animal species can lead to devastating consequences for entire environments. For example, if most of the predators are destroyed , it can cause overpopulation of the species. Another key factor is that if people cut down trees which are more famous, it can lead to deforestation. In the light of the fact that for example in the Alanya tourist’s bonfire in the forest led to the destruction of thousands of hectares of land.
On the other hand, l strongly believe that government should invest heavily to solve dwellers’ problems. The first and foremost, human needs are more urgent. It means that desperation, hunger and scarcity of healthcare demand millions of dollars. As an example of in Togo majority of residents struggle with poverty. Another key justification is that states have to pay for for the construction of new parks. This means that, city dwellers particularly older adults suffer from lack of mobility, by means of new green areas they can be encouraged so as to possess hectic lifestyle.
In conclusion, while endangered species have key advantages in the environment, l mostly believe that it is more important for the state to solve the problems faced by the people.