Please check my essay task 2. Thank you so much

Task 2: 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?

It is believed that states should channel a lot of sources to human population instead of wildlife restoration. I totally with this statement because it is fundamentally flawed.

There are two legitimate reasons why the protection of animals in the wild should be placed at the top of its agenda. First, when brink of extinction occurs meaning that an influx of animals would be wiped out in the forests that result is an ecological crisis and affect human survival. For instance, given that the huge sources of food come from nature, partly original from an animal and when it is depleted leading to starvation and epidemic in the human community would suffer. Second, protecting wild animals plays an important contribution to preserving habitat. Rainforests and wetlands which affect the climate would be stable within the prosper of wildlife. Otherwise, agricultural production would be failed by a harsh climate.

Wildlife preservation, moreover, stands to greatly benefit the human community at large. Once wild animals are protected in national park promoting ecotourism give rise to many visitors want to pay a visit. To meet the growing demand of travelers, there exists more vacancy for labors that opens a great opportunity for local jobs. Furthermore, if states only pay attention to investing human communities what would compromise the nature is not necessary. The destruction is permitted and the enforcement to build those high-rise building then it dominates the land and takes up their animal shelters. What may follow is mass migration.

In conclusion, It is more to lose than gain from allocating time and financial budget to invest in human’s activities.