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.

Over the past several years, there have been increasing debate over wilderness protection and exploiting pristine areas for economic gain. It has been said that the wilderness should be protected at the expense of economic gain. I agree with this position for two reasons and disagree with it for another reason.

First, it is important to protect wildlife which resides in the wilderness. For example, the bees depend on forests that though could be cut down for cheap and locally produced raw materials (mainly wood), will instead produce a negative impact on the environment. This is because the bees are the primary pollinators of flowers and the trees that were cut down will worsen global warming. Thus, since the environment is at stake when wilderness areas such as forests are cut down for economic gain, it is reasonable to preserve the trees to eschew CO2 levels in the air and to keep bees pollinating their flowers, which is important for farmers and the prosperity of many species of plants.

In addition, wilderness areas are important for basic human needs and can be lost if exploited for economic gain. For instance, if an oil rig is errected precariously close to a fresh water river, it threatens to soil the drinking water of a population the size of a big city. Though oil is said to be a major driving force for economic power, it is not worth sacrificing drinking water if gas prices go down by two hundred percent. In fact, there could later be economic downturns if the wilderness is exploited this way since fresh water is used for many other goods in the economy such as coffee and soft drinks.

On the other hand, exploiting the wilderness could potentially be worth the economic gains. For example, going out to the desert to build factories and to build giant solar panels will create more jobs and produce greener energy. Many hot deserts almost support minimal life and there may be little that can be disturbed if such a noisy factory or large solar panels are placed there. As for the employment opportunities, it is a major economic benefit since people will get well paying jobs which they will spend at other businesses and make them flourish and do their part for contributing to the economy. Solar energy can create cheap electricity which can increase economic output since more energy can be used for production at a lower cost. What is anyone concerned about in those barren and dry lands anyway? These kinds of wildereness are just waiting to help make our economy grow after being exploited.

In conclusion, there is mainly a cost-benefit analysis that should be done before considering whether or not a given wilderness should exploited for economic gain. This is because there could be major environmental damage that may occur as a result or that the economic gain initially invested in could end up backfiring and causing economic damage. However, a given pristine wilderness could essentially be exploited without any consequences at all. It is these cases where using them for economic gain is acceptable.