Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the m

It is popularly believed that nations ought to endorse laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their current state. Although this idea has many proponents who point on the necessity to tackle environmental problems, I cannot concur with it because of reasons which will be discussed in details below.

To begin with, for many of us today's ecological problems are conspicuous: the rain forests in Brazil have been cut down with astonishing pace, in fact, a similar situation we can see in Siberian woods as well. Moreover, we unearth and develop new deposits of fossil fuels such as natural gas, oil and coal. All of those activities have depleted the nature and deteriorated the biosphere. Consequently, it is easy to hastily accept the policy which promises to stop those detrimental activities of the humankind. However, does this proposal has some hidden disadvantages which make its realization unlikely?

Unfortunately, the answer is “yes”. Likely the gravest disadvantage is the fact that we need those areas in order to be able to sustain our development and progress. In fact, the humanity has been growing with unprecedented speed as never before and by 2050 we may expect an increase in population by one milliard. Even today our possibilities are not enough to avoid spreading famine and malnutrition in poor countries and perhaps the situation will deteriorate over time. In other words, we need to develop those wilderness areas in order to feed the growing population. Of course, such modern technologies as genetic engineering and fertilization may increase the yield of crops but nevertheless they have limitations and new territories will be inevitably required. Moreover, we need those areas in order to sustain our level of life as well. For instance, deposits of fossil fuels which are being developed today will be unavoidably depleted in nearest future and thus we will need to find new ones or create alternative sources of energy. But both case we will face a necessity to develop new areas, for instance, to increase usage of solar panels, we need to enhance production of the materials used for them because existing sources, perhaps, will not be satisfactory.

Furthermore, the claim promotes to preserve any wilderness areas. By this wording the author assumes that all territories are equally important but in reality some places ought to be preserved and some should be developed. For instance, national parks, which are homes for many wild animals, ought to be preserved. However, territories which are located near megalopolises may be developed in order to allow the cities to grow further. Consequently, the extreme wording of the prompt makes its unsuitable for usage in real life. Moreover, it rules out other possibilities, for instance, we may promote to plant new forests instead ones which may be destroyed. This policy may be a decent compromise.

In conclusion, the contemporary environmental problems are obvious for many of us and the proposed policy seems to address them; however, closer look at it reveals some shortages of it which make its realization unlikely. Moreover, the extreme language of the prompt rules out alternative ways which might have tackled the problem. Therefore, I disagree with the issue.