Some people hold the view that with human beings suffering from the deficiency in sources of food, money should be better spent on populations living in deprived areas of the world than on animal conservation.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
It is undeniable that animals play an important part in the sustainability of the biodiversity and the process of medicine-making. However, those oppose that opinion believe that the expenses for wildlife protection should be diverted to aiding populations living in adversity areas. This essay will discuss some arguments around this matter and present my stand.
It is generally acknowledge fact that wildlife protection is highly valuable to humans. One of the significant contributions is animals are used for experiments to test the efficacy of new medicine since they bear a close resemblance to humans in cell structure. Thanks to animal-assisted therapy, there have been great breakthroughs in medical technology which make profound contributions to various treatments for lethal diseases. In addition, it should be metioned that animals are also of vital consequences to creative domains such as art or fashion since they arouse countless inspirations.
On the other hand, many people argue that the fund should be better providing opportunities to the impoverished people than protecting wildlife. To put it another way, human life is more priceless than animal life. However, there is no doubt that human beings and animals live together in perfect harmony and become an indispensable part each other. If animals are on the verge of extinction, our descendants will have no chance to enjoy the vividness of nature and to find out the fulfilling resources for medical experimentations.
Clearly, debating about that problem will not be easily resolved. Since animals are one of the most essential factors in maintaining the ecosystem as well as helping scientist in drug experiments, it is feasible that protecting wildlife is an necessary part in our life these days.