Both exhibit their own merits, which complement the overall welfare of human beings.

– animal conservation:
● Long-term benefit: equilibrate the ecosystem
● Allowing the flourishing of certain species will help control the population of those
seen as threats to human beings. These include pests which plague crops and
disease-carrying ticks. Therefore, conserving practice would safeguard humans
against crop loss and diseases, which is auspicious to their survival.
● Protecting endemic animals is akin to strengthening the driving forces of ecotourism,
which offers profuse employment opportunities to indigenuous habitants. In turn,
these people can secure a better life while contributing economically to their
countries. In this way, preservation programmes can also discourage poaching - a
potential menace to local ecosystems.
– social issues:
● The impact of such problems is more direct and far reaching.
● In particular, people in intractable indigence, desperate for relief, may retreat to
crimes and barbaric diversions, namely …
● Others face the prospect of pestilent diseases and eventual demise when living in
insalubrious conditions, medically unassisted.
● The ultimate consequence …
● In contrast, improvements in the healthcare system are rigidly associated with the
nation’s overall economy. One of such changes concerns employees’ regular receipt
of medical check-ups and treatments at the earliest notice of illnesses. This ensures
that they can work with maximum efficiency while not taking excessive absences,
which apparently leads to desirable, lucrative outcomes for the firms. In other words,
the increased expenditure on healthcare increases the productivity of human capital,
thus making a positive contribution to economic growth.

“Wildlife habitat in the world is being destroyed at a rate of approximately 5,760 acres
per hour and about 30.000 species per year are being driven to extinction.”. Such
staggering figures are more than enough to allure governments and the public’s
investments into wildlife conservation. However, a part of the population suggests
that resolving societal conundrums should be the prime candidate for these funds. In
my opinion, both practices exhibit their own merits, thus should receive equal
subsidiaries from the authorities and civilians alike.

On the one hand, protecting wild animals and their territories proves an effective
cushion against certain species’ threats and a means to improving locals’ lives and
their countries’ economies. Firstly, humans can minimize the chance that some
animals may affect their health and their cultivations through preserving wildlife. To
illustrate, all animals are related to one another as food or enemies, which means
that the flourishing of some will help control the population of others. These may
include pests which plague crops and disease-carrying ticks - potential menaces to
humankind. Therefore, conserving practice would safeguard humans against crop
loss and diseases, which is auspicious to their survival. Meanwhile, this enterprise of
supporting inferior creatures contributes to the overall economy of certain regions, as
well as the lives of their inhabitants. In particular, protecting endemic animals is akin
to strengthening the driving forces of ecotourism, which offers profuse employment
opportunities to indigenuous habitants. In turn, these people, financially independent,
can access better education and healthcare while making profits for their countries.
In much the same way, preservation programmes can also discourage poaching,
which would otherwise require excessive cost and efforts from the authorities in the
form of regulations and propaganda campaigns. All in all, not only would a particular
region benefit from an enhanced economy, but their citizens would also earn
desirable privileges that follow an independence in finance.

On the other hand, sufficient funds should go into circumventing societal issues,
namely poverty and healthcare, due to their far-reaching impact and the benefits of
successfully tackling them. Firstly, extreme poverty can be a catalyst for further
problems felt by its victims, leading to hampered socioeconomic growth. In particular,
people in intractable indigence, desperate for relief, may retreat to crimes and
barbaric diversions, namely robbery and drug abuse. Others face the prospect of
pestilent diseases and eventual demise when living in insalubrious conditions,
medically unassisted. This segment of the citizens, despite making no economic
contribution, drains governments’ funds, in the form of money invested into
reformatory camps or prisons. In contrast, improvements in the healthcare system
are rigidly associated with the nation’s overall economy. One of such changes
concerns employees’ regular receipt of medical check-ups and treatments at the
earliest notice of illnesses. This ensures that they can work with maximum efficiency
while not taking excessive absences, which apparently leads to desirable, lucrative
outcomes for the firms. In other words, the increased expenditure on healthcare
increases the productivity of human capital, thus making a positive contribution to
economic growth.

To encapsulate,