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

As industrialization continues in nations around the globe, the question of whether to preserve wilderness areas or to prioritize economic growth becomes ever pressing and controversial. The prompt posits that nations ought to take legal actions in order to protect whatever wilderness areas yet remain. I mostly agree with this stance on the issue for two reasons; however, I do concede that particular scenarios may exist in which this may not be the wisest course of action to pursue.

First, it is of utmost importance to many species’ survival that we as humans protect whatever remains of their dwindling habitat. Migratory birds, for instance, cannot survive with merely one patch of wildlife refuge; they must have access to food and safe landing zones across their vast migratory paths in order to survive throughout the seasons. Similarly, non-migratory species, such as mountain lions, often still require vast territories which must retain connectivity; without habitat connectivity (i.e. protected wilderness pathways leading between larger preserved areas), their available range is effectively reduced to whichever disconnected patch into which they happened to find themselves cornered, an area which is likely inadequate to meet their needs. Such habitat protection measures must be enforced legally if they are to be effective.

Moreover, even if one insists on presuming that the desires of homo sapiens ought to always be prioritized over the needs of other species, one would be wise to recognize that the two are not necessarily at odds with one another. The juxtaposition between wilderness conservation and economic development which the prompt presents is, to some extent, a false dichotomy. Splicing the two apart as supposedly disparate goals fails to recognize how often laws protecting wilderness areas actually serve human’s economic goals. We must look no further than the role forests play in carbon sequestration to find an example of such an ecosystem service. As nations allow deforestation to continue, it is left to human ingenuity, along with inordinate investments, to attempt to invent creative back-up solutions for sequestering carbon. Or on a smaller scale, one could examine France’s success with protecting forests which bolster the truffle industry. Again, though, without legal protections large areas of land are unlikely to remain protected.

However, there may very well be situations in which it would be unwise for a struggling nation to restrict economic development in the name of environmental conservation. For example, if such little habitat currently exists, and all of that which does is so disconnected, that it is of little use to the few species’ populations still holding on, then it may not be worth the sacrifice in attempting to legally protect these patches of land. Assuming that these remaining areas offer no economic value or ecosystem services as described in the paragraph above, a cost-benefit analysis might reveal that installing legal protections would be crippling and to little avail.

To conclude, nations should, generally speaking, preserve their remaining wilderness areas. These legal protections would benefit innumerable species, including, in many cases, humans ourselves. It does not necessarily hold true that this prioritization would be at the expense of the economy; on the contrary, a nation would be remiss to ignore valuable ecosystem services. However, particular cases may exist in which the blanket statement that nations should always push for legal protections might be inadvisable.