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 you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.


Some people believe that strict legislations should be enforced by nations to prevent natural ecosystems from depleting, even at the risk of economic losses. While it may seem at large like a stance that is beneficial for the environment, and thus for mankind, it is difficult to articulate and enforce fruitful laws that will preserve wilderness while supporting much needed development of a nation. In this modern era where every nation strives to give its population the best amenities, proper judiciary system, and a bright future, passing stringent laws that hinder any development on wilderness areas is a harsh and detrimental step.
For developed nations like the United States, where the economy is well balanced and areas have been delineated for preservation, it seems easy enough to enforce a strict law. But lets take a much more global perspective, and try to understand the needs of developing nations like India, for example. The developing country is onerously supporting its ever-burgeoning population and struggles with provide basic amenities. For such a country, to restrict natural areas so that no housing, no industries, and no farms develop, would mean that it restricts its citizens the opportunities for food, employment and housing.
A dearth in jobs would eventually lead to the economy bearing the brunt, and hinder the development of a nation. As very rightly said by the Chinese Business Magnate, Jack Ma, “We should keep on going on the path of Globalization. Globalization is good… When Trade stops, War comes.” If the economy plummets, very surely it affects the trade scenario for a country, and for countries that have tense relationships with neighbours, it could cost them dearly.
Even if somehow the problem mentioned above is eradicated, and enough livelihood is available, restricting wilderness areas will require heavy security arrangements, stringent law enforcing officers, and a task force that would specialize in dealing with miscreants active in illegal activities such as hunting and poaching. Not every nation can afford it. Nations that are struggling with major issues such as education, malnutrition, famine, etc. cannot afford to allocate funds for specialized training of task forces.
An urgent need for preservation of wilderness areas has arisen nonetheless, considering the planet is facing increasing average temperatures every year. Global warming is an issue that does make one think about preserving as much wilderness as possible, but to impose compulsory bans on changing any kind of wilderness area is impractical and harsh. Whereas if proper identification of areas is done, with panels of environmentalists as well as prominent business leaders, to find a sustainable solution to the issue of depleting forest covers, then that would result in much more beneficial and fruitful preservation rather than the harsh compulsions of laws.