Conservation of wild animals and maintaining of their habitat are claiming a sizeable amount of money every year. But it is argued that wild-life as such does not contribute much in accordance with the size of money it consumes every year.
Essay 011
How do you look at this argument?

I for one am of the opinion that the money nations around the world allocate for the upkeep of wildlife and their habitat is the wisest of allocations in several different counts. The argument that wildlife does not contribute proportionally is premature.

Let me prove the point by citing a small example from our surroundings. The much talked about topic across the world is excessive carbon emission and its myriad ramifications on the Planet. Unfortunately, the only solution is protecting the existing green cover. So, we need forests. Forests are the habitat of wild animals, and they both do a great job in maintaining the ecological balance of the whole Planet. Obviously, no amount will be a bigger amount if spent in this direction.

On the other hand, the argument that animals and their habitat need to produce visible material benefits in terms of the money spent is childish. We need to do ask a few simple enough questions ourselves. Firstly, what all things money is able to generate and what all things wild life and their life are able to generate? Can we re-generate forests as old as thousand years? Can we bring back an endangered species? Do we have enough money to buy out an Amazon jungle or a Silent Valley? I am sure the argument is proved unfounded.

In short, allocation of funds for the upkeep of the wild and their habitat is much worthwhile than anything else. Man has great limitations, but nature does not have any. So it would be wiser if we protect our wild life and their habitats.

270 words
Ajaypeesdoc