Too much attention is paid to and too much money is spent on keeping pets while people throughout the world are starving. Discuss the arguments for and against keeping pets To what extent do you agree or disagree

Individuals have different methods to console themselves. While there are benefits to keeping pets, some people believe that these funds should be spent for alleviation of famine or starving people. In this essay, an attempt shall be made to analyze both sides of the debate.

On the one hand, those who argue in favor of pet keeping do have their own point. Pets are good friends for people who suffer loneliness, isolation and stress. Firstly, pets are the reliable companions for lonely. When going shopping or traveling, they can go with their pet dog to have a chance to meet and socialize with others. For instance, in European countries, people live independently and lack close family relations. Therefore, they always keep a pet as a close friend in order to decrease mental and social problems. Secondly, when having a pet at home, children can learn to relate to animals and nature which will develop a close bone with the world of nature.

On the other hand, those who argue against this also make some valid arguments. They strongly believe that money should be spent to reduce porverty and starvation. Hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on keeping pets such as feeding, giving medicine, whereas goverments should spent these money on providing food, education and medicine for impoverished people. For example, in Western countries, millions of dollars are spent on food and medication for pets, while people in Sudan, Somalia and other less developed nations live in hunger.

In conclusion, I myself believe that goverments should spend money on saving pets in parallel with helping people-starving.