Conservation of wild animals and their habitat is claiming sizeable amounts of money from the treasury every year. But it is argued that wild-life as such does not contribute much in accordance with the size of money it takes ever year.
Essay 083
• How do you look at this argument?

Conservation of wildlife and their habitat is very much in the agenda of all governments. That itself is reason enough to prove that it is warranted. Looking at wild life in monitory terms is a kind of isolating man from the rest of the world.

Basically, man is a social animal as other animals are of their respective habitats. Unfortunately, today we think that our habitat is confined to our society, and that society is able to sustain all by itself. It is a foolish idea. There are innumerable examples to prove that conserving the wild is like conserving what is modern. For example, it is the habitats of wild animals that make carbon recycling possible. Actually, wild animals and their habitats are what make man’s life livable.

Coming to monitory benefits of conservation outlay, it is right to say that contribution of wild life and their habitat to man cannot be equated in terms of anything. It is a fact that governments spend much for wild life protection. If we look at the size of money they allocate and the quantum of service they get in return, we can understand that there is a huge difference not by way of the size of the money spent, but by way of the benefits reaped. In simple terms, it is more like conserving man himself than conserving the wild.

Looking at the argument in the light of the above inferences, it is right to conclude that man does not have separate existence. So whatever he spends for conservation of wild life and its habitat is much more worthwhile than what ever amounts he spends, and on what.

280 Words
Ajaypeesdoc