Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position

The statement is creating a dilemma that nations should put efforts on environmental protections rather than increase their speed on economic development or vice versa. Some people deem that nations should keep wilderness areas in their natural state, even with the help of compulsion by law, while other people criticize this move because it is somewhat cruel for people who still living under poor conditions. The thing as I see it, the wilderness areas may contribute to survival and economy. Protecting them may bring more advantages than merely develop economy.

Firstly, the whole ecosystem is highly influenced by the human activities during the last centuries. Agricultural expansion, wood harvest for domestic fuel or charcoal and infrastructure expansion such as road building and urbanization are the primary reason for deforestation. Because of deforestation, several species, animals and plants become completely extinct. Without trees, more carbon and greenhouse gasses enter the atmosphere, increase flooding and inability to farm and decrease local water quality. Therefore, if the policy were implemented, the consequences would be good for ecosystem.

The stunning sceneries, specific animals and plants for particular country are highly attracted by tourist. It increases the economic level of a country. For instance, the Sinharaja forest is a national park and a biodiversity hotspot in Sri Lanka. In this forest, endemic species of mammals and butterflies, as well as many kinds of insects, reptiles and rare amphibians are preserved. While this forest is obtaining large profit through eco-tourism, tourists also gain eco-consciousness during their trip. Moreover, the government can make use of this revenue from the park to do more eco-development. So, if the policy were implemented, the consequences would be good for wild animals, species, flora and fauna as well as country’s economic level.

However, when it comes to conserving any wilderness areas, it seems a little bit unrealistic and unnecessary. If all remaining wilderness areas within one country cannot be utilized anymore, this country is bound to be stagnant and can hardly thrive henceforth. Deforestation and destroying these waste wilderness areas may provide a larger area to set up the factories and industries, which will solve the problem of unemployment and hunger. The nations will soon develop into the developed nations. Industrialization, good economic growth, employment to a larger section of people is the general marks that one can see.If the policy were implemented, there would also be these negative consequences for the development of country.

In conclusion,For the above explored reasons I partially agree that nations should protect every remaining wilderness area, but agree that many such areas should be protected or used in a way that is environmentally friendly.