Certain individuals advocate for wildlife protection, asserting that funding should go towards safeguarding of wild creatures.Conversely, some argue that resources should be better utilized on human population. This essay will scrutinize the justifications behind the two contrasting perspectives before the conclusion why my position lies on the former statement is reached.
On the one hand, animals are mostly affected by human activities, they should be seriously conserved. This is because animals do not have the ability to protect themselves from man made activities, so it is our responsibility to protect themselves by spending resources on their living conditions. For Example the construction of activities damage the habitat of many animals and led to extinction of susceptible species. As a result resources should be spent in converting abundant forests into their natural habitat in order to prevent the extinction of some wild animals.
On the other hand, human population and their demands are increasing rapidly, so resources are required in order to support their living conditions. To explain when human population explodes, it requires more accommodation, food supplies and other resources in order to maintain their daily needs. For instance, more residentials areas are being built with respect to total number of projected people as expense of natural sites. This proves that resources should be distributed more to support human lifestyle needs instead concerning about wildlife.
In Conclusion, taking both aspects into consideration, I am inclined to believe that animals are dependent on humanity to spend resources on their protection rather than spending on human themselves. If regulatory authority could effectively control the destructive human activities which affect animals in first place, there is no need to worry about protecting wildlife as much as in present.