Some people claim that the nation s government should preserve its wilderness areas in the natural state Others argue that these areas should be developed for potential economic gain

The wilderness is a home to the country’s wide variety of flora and fauna and preserving it might give the upcoming generations a chance to get one with it. Here the topic questions whether a nation’s government should preserve its wilderness in the natural state or use it for economic gain. Personally, I agree that preservation of nature, is the best way to guarantee human civilization exists cordially with nature for a longer time, but I completely do not want to eradicate the possible and safe economic gains. Thus, I agree with conserving the nature but the all or nothing attitude around it seems to be a stretch.
Firstly, sadly humans are the top ones that nature and its wilderness need to be most protection from. Humans for their own gains have been encroaching into the wilderness, for time immemorial. It started with the cavemen, building weapons to hunt animals, or using leaves to create body coverings. Whenever humans have had an opportunity to exploit nature for their quotidian needs, then have not backed down. With time this exploitation kept on increasing to oil, medicine, barks, animal skins etc. If using the flora and fauna wasn’t enough, humans have now made this misuse into leisure activities by introducing wildlife safaris, nature camping and trails, hikes etc. This dwindles the space for animals and increases the chances of combat significantly.
Secondly, when we start encroaching their spaces, the animals have lesser and lesser spaces to adjust within, which goes on to cause major shifts in the ecological and food chain across the forests. Per instance, lesser forests mean the apex predator have higher chances of hunting down the animals in the food chain, causing a shift in dynamics across the spectrum. Along with that, they will then start coming into human civilizations, causing an increase in animal related accidents every year. The best examples for this are the increased frequency in visits by bears in the USA, snakes and pythons in Africa, or the leopards in India where they frequently visiting human establishments. Furthermore, during the pandemic, when humans were trapped inside their houses, we could see nature healing itself with time. Dolphins had returned to Venice, sparrows had come back to India etc. This is the scenario when humans are removed as a factor, imagine if we actually bolster natural wilderness’ flourishment.
Finally, before concluding, humans are known to usually put their needs at the top, thus the sooner we understand that saving the wilderness is beneficial for us, the better off we will be. The trees and animals are of major use to us, in our daily life activities, like oxygen, barks, domesticated animals etc. Even though most of the arguments seem to convince you to support the government’s attempts to save the nature, but this shall not be done without knowing all the shortcomings of the all or nothing attitude. Saving the nature is a huge monetary investment, and if governments are forced to invest the money into this, then they should also look into safe, regulatory and non-encroaching ways of making money from the wilderness. This will help them generate some revenue, to keep funding this project.
In conclusion, I support that the government should intervene to preserve the wilderness of the nature, but there should not be a carpet ban on making ethical monetary gains from the same nature.