Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion and examples from your experience.
In contemporary times, the focus seems to be shifting towards protecting wild flora and fauna, and putting other programs on the backseat. This has evoked a fierce debate whether this shift will fetch favorable, or unfavorable outcomes.
To begin with, there is widespread optimism being expressed by various quarters: it has become possible to ensure the continued existence of the human race on this planet. This policy is likely to help in sustaining a precarious balance of the ecology: both animals and plants are an integral part of the environment and food chain, and if one of them disappears, others will follow soon, jeopardizing the safety of mankind itself since this will allow the population of harmful beings to flourish and expose people to various hazards.
To corroborate, extensive hunting of wild birds in China during the 1960s, on the pretext that they were a threat to the crops, precipitated into an uncontrolled rise in the number of locusts that eventually destroyed thousands of acres of crop bearing farmlands, and caused a famine. This resulted in millions dying from starvation.
However, there are some counter views to this that point at the pitfalls this shift has brought along despite these being often termed as a fickle imagination, the most prominent being drying out of financial support for other more essential initiatives that target rendering essential amenities to those in need of food, education, employment, healthcare and above all, clean drinking water. This could hamper the progress of society in the long run, as the skeptics assume.
Overall, disputes aside, despite some fears being expressed about the non-existent darker side of this policy, it is quite prudent to assert that humans will only survive if their co-inhabitants do, and for that the damage must be undone.
