Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the m

Preserving remaining wilderness areas in their natural state is vital to ecosystems. The over-industrialization has proven to be detrimental to certain species and thus not protecting the remaining wilderness will yield effects that will be seen for decades. However, this law alone would not prevent other factors that will affect species population or global warming conditions.

The rain forests, wetlands and the arctic ice caps are all important habits for many species. If laws were not enforced to protect these species there would be consequences not just for animal life, but human life as well.

For example, new home developments have taken the place of woods, forest and deserts. These places are home to millions of species who are being displaced and in turn, looking for a new place to inhibit. This often leads to species to places where they are not accustomed to living in and sometimes intercepts with human beings that can have dire consequences.

On the contrary, laws can’t merely be the only means to protect the wilderness. Laws will not protect against global warming or poachers who hunt certain animals illegally. Laws protecting the Arctic will not slow down the melting of the ice caps or slow down the decline of the Polar Bear population. Other laws must be forcefully enforced such as emission laws and pollution to protect the wilderness.

In conclusion, laws protecting the wilderness would protect endangered species and the ecosystem, but this could not be the only means of protection. Other laws regarding the environment would need to be enforced as well.