Line Chart provides Comparison of employment rates among women (15-64 years old) in five countries
Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals, and that this money could be better spent on the human population.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
There can be little doubt that in recent decades a lot of time and money has been spent on protecting wild animals. The question that is often asked is whether this is worth it or whether this should be spent on people instead.
Some people are keen to point out that we all live on one planet. They claim, with some justification, that by saving wild animals we are saving ourselves. Wild animals, for instance, may hold the keys to certain medical breakthroughs, just as many of our modern medicines are based on compounds found in plants. Moreover, humans and animals (and other forms of life) all form a giant ecosystem whereby each part can influence the others. If a certain animal becomes less common, then this reduces the population of the animals that prey on it, in turn.
However, it is sometimes difficult for people to accept that these perfectly legitimate reasons outweigh the immediate requirements of the human population. If money is not available to people who have problems such as mental illness, physical disabilities or to those living in dire poverty, it is inevitable that some will suggest spending less on wild animals. There is the strong argument that by spending more on the education of humans, we could make the world a better place for us and for wild animals.
Overall, I tend to agree with those who claim that too much money is currently being spent on wild animals at the cost of humans. This is not to suggest that we cut all funding of wildlife projects, since many of these projects can directly benefit humans. However, a key argument for me is that by spending money on people, we can improve the world generally.
290 words,Written by IELTS Key