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 wi

Many people believe that State forest areas should not be harmed and that the government should preserve them while others feel that these areas should be used for urban construction. Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages making this issue quite controversial. Were I to choose sides I would probably converge with preserving and securing the well being of these habitats. The main advantages of both sides are presented in the paragraphs below.

On the one hand, preserving the state natural forests and habitats is essential for the sustainability of these wild areas. These areas, depict the natural beauty of our planet, without forests and wild areas Earth would be a naked planet like Mars or Venus. For example, Yellowstone, Yosemite and other National Parks in the United States are being protected from individuals who want to cut the trees in favor of urbanization. What would happen if these parks were not protected by government laws? Probably these locations would have been stripped naked and huge buildings would have emerged posing serious threats to a variety of factors. By not protecting these areas the main procedure of nature which produces oxygen, photosynthesis, would be seriously in lower levels. This would have as an effect the carbon dioxide levels to rise and therefore more illnesses such as asthma may occur. The above examples indicate that preserving a forest area such as National Parks and protecting them by government and State laws is quite essential for their sustainability and for the people living nearby.

On the other hand, there are many people who believe in urbanization and the use of these lands as lands for city growth. Their main points include a variety of reasons such as poverty, growth in population and the development of new work positions. For example, these lands could be used by the government in order to build houses for the poor and homeless people. These shelters would help the rates of homeless people to drop and therefore contribute to the society. Another example is that instead of preserving these lands Malls and community centers could be built and thus more work positions to be generated and the local economy of each state to be benefited and the poverty rates to drop. These examples and others like these indicate that wilderness areas especially near large cities could be used in order to raise the living standards of those who now live below poverty rates and those who are homeless.

In my opinion, while those in favor of urbanization may have gentle causes such us lowering the homeless and poor people rates the implications of deforesting these areas are quite large. For example, if a forest near a city is used in order to build a mall all the living species inside this forest will be homeless leading to a serious environmental issue regarding their future and their lives. Even trees and plants which can be used to hold off the gorund during rain will no longer be present and therefore the probabilty of a flood near urban areas will be larger. A middle solution of this issue could be the use of old and unoccupied buildings found in many numbers in large cities in order for them to be used for the purposes examined in the above paragraph. By this way, the forests will be preserved and the poverty rates will be significantly lower.

To sum up, in this essay both sides of the issue about preserving forests and forming laws in order to protect them or use these lands for city growths were presented mostly through examples. Using these areas as lands for city growth is an easy solution to many problems regarding poverty and economic growth however the implications are quite many. Therefore more viable solutions have to be found in order to preserve these natural habitats as much as we can.