Some people claim that a nation s government should preserve its wilderness areas in their natural state Others argue that these areas should be developed for potential economic gain Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns wit

The author of this statement presents two opposing points of view. On one side, the author states that a nation’s government should preserve its wilderness in its natural, pristine condition. On the other side, the author presents the perspective that these areas should instead be further developed for economic gain. While both opinions have their merits, ultimately the former provides a more sound perspective on the issue of environmental preservation.
Firstly, as the most abundant and most capable species on this planet, we have a duty to preserve it so our species and others may continue to flourish into the future. While this may seem like an optimistic viewpoint, it is not beyond the realm of reason that we should do our best to protect the world in which we live. Failing to do so and instead depleting the earth of its resources and vitality as quickly as possible will only degrade the quality of life for species not only alive today, but in the distant future as well. Our future ancestors will inherit a desiccated world which is void of precious natural resources like water, livestock, and lumber.
Furthermore, losing natural resources is only one of the most obvious ways our planet will suffer from overproduction and encroachment on wild land. Such actions will also have far more widespread effects as well. For example, destroying forests will cause a dearth of oxygen-producing species, therefore severely hindering any organisms such as our own which depend on it for survival. In addition, a paucity of vegetation will also prevent carbon dioxide from being taken up as it is produced, and the excess build up will have detrimental effects on the environment, such as an increase in global warming. Neglecting wild life for the sake of further human expansion will clearly cause nothing but a cascade of negative effects.
Supporters of the author’s latter viewpoint, however, may present some valid arguments. For example, they may argue that preserved land may be utilized for economic gain. The site of current wilderness areas may turn into bustling shopping malls, business centers, or other economic metropolises. However, these supporters should not overlook the fact that wilderness preservation may also lead to economic growth. For example, wilderness sites such as the Grand Canyon or the countless national parks across the United States serve as major national if not international tourist attractions. It is not enough to argue that supplanting national parks with business developments is enough to justify their demise when they may also be providing economic benefit.
Conclusively, the author presents two valid arguments. With the land that is protected as wilderness reserves, building developments could lead to massive economic growth. However, preserving these lands as national parks may also lead to economic growth. In addition, protecting wilderness areas is a far more humane and morally justified course of action than bulldozing them for the promise of monetary gain. Finally, destroying these lands could lead to widespread environmental decay, which could be detrimental to not only our generation, but future generations as well.