In recent years, there has been growing debate about whether governments ought to allocate financial resources to protect endangered species. Some find that this expenditure is wasteful, whereas I personally believe that it is necessary due to ecological interdependence.
On the one hand, the proponents of not spending expenditure on preserving endangered species argue that public funds should be allocated for urgent human needs, such as healthcare, education, and poverty alleviation. Authorities in developing countries tend to struggle with limited financial budgets, being less essential of conservation projects compared to social issues. For instance, the World Bank reports that numerous low income states spend less than 5% of their GDP on healthcare, showing the importance of human problems. Therefore, diverting funds to wildlife protection is likely to have a slow progress in social challenges.
From an ecological perspective, I think that protecting endangered species lays a solid foundation for preserving global ecosystem. If one species disappears, it disrupts natural balance, thereby triggering a chain reaction in the food system. Taking bees as an example, which are responsible for around 70-75% of food crop pollination according to the research conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization. If their population declines, crop production decreases significantly, leading to reduced food supply like honey and higher costs.
In conclusion, even though spending money on social difficulties can be necessary, I still believe that the governments should not be neglected to solve animals’ categories extinction since such expenditure plays a crucial role in ecological balance.