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

The debates between developers and environmental activists are one of the seemingly endless arguments. Both parties and the proponents of them have their own logic whether to preserve a region’s wildness or use it otherwise. In what follows the both ideas will be dealt with.

To begin with, environmental activists and their followers give a primacy to preserving the nature. To save the nature in its intact shape, they have their own reasons. Main reason of these groups relates to biology. There are flora and fauna each in a balance of a region, when we eliminate that part we have tilted the balance of that area and in long term this could even lead to the extinction of the species. Hence, even if there is financial gains, these group of people believe that the nature should not bear the brunt.

On the other side of the spectrum there are developers who find some places with the capacity of a better use. These group of opinion also has their own reasoning in altering the nature. The region can be economically apt for building a factory which may give many jobs and would bring money for that town. With that earnings in turn, the town would be able to solve many of the problems. Better economy accompanies a better hygiene for the town, better education, better safety, infrastructures and so on. Therefore to deny such benefits for the town sometimes preserving the nature might not be a firm excuse.

As far as I’m concerned, nature needs to be preserved in any region unless the economic issue of that region is gravely at stake. Nature is important to preserve and it also can benefit us economically. We can bring many tourists to spend their holidays in the town with wonders of nature. With this approach we have made a win-win situation; both the nature is maintained and the money follows to the town.

However, this solution is not a panacea for all the similar situations. There are exigencies that allows no alternative way other than changing the wildness of a region. Consider when there is a mine that is capable of providing money for a poor country which cannot met the primary needs of the nation. We cannot turn the blind eye to the poverty and the consequences of it like starvation, anarchy, and malady and so on, not to develop and use the mine. Therefore, sometimes the gravity of the economic needs justifies to alter the wildness.

In short, we should preserve the wildness as much as we can. However, when the financial needs are so grave, the preserving of nature would not be justified since many other issues are at stake. Issues such as the feeding of the people, their safety, and their health which are affected negatively by the lack of a decent income.