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

Nowadays, many of the natural habitats and wilderness areas are under the danger of total destruction. The question is that whether it is worthwhile to save such areas or they are just some part of nature that can be used for more beneficial purposes. Personally, I assume that helping these valuable parts of nature to survive, is of critical importance and I would like to review some of my major reasons here.

First of all, wilderness areas are remarkably valuable for natural scientists. We know that more or less in such areas, there are many species which are facing the danger of extinction. However, if somehow, we manage to protect these habitats and consequently these species, this can result in many scientific advances. For example, in the north part of my country there was a species of tiger called "Mazandaran Tiger", which extinguished in spite of all made efforts. Shortly after that many scientists showed their regret because they believed that if these tigers could survive for a few generations, plenty of information could be gathered from them such as their adaptations in order to survive in the environment. And undoubtedly such observation could bring significant improvements to evolutionary theories.

Second of all, abandoning these lands could bring imbalances to the environment. Balance is one of the most important characteristics for an ecosystem to stay healthy and without it unknown problems can come along. For example, if in an area, hunters insist on hunting a wild predator for a period of time, after that the preys of that predator become safe and hence their number will increase. Such and increase could be at an unimaginable rate that causes these animals to become the dominant species and destroy the whole ecosystem.

However, one might say that protecting these areas is quite costly. But I think when it comes to the choice between knowledge and money, human beings with their curious nature will choose the knowledge. Hence, it is better to spend such money to obtain a knowledge that maybe someday can save a billion lives. Or perhaps some would say that hunters have to live and limiting their actions can cause them many problems. But in fact when protecting an area they are just not allowed to hunt every animal they see. They can still hunt those species which are not rare and those animals which are old and near death already. And this way they will not affect the food chain of the area.

All in all, I suppose that protecting wilderness areas can result in gaining valuable knowledge about nature which might become of critical use in the future. Besides, by keeping these areas safe for animals, human beings can maintain balance in their environment and guarantee their own safety at the first place.