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

The actions of the humankind during the past few decades, has by far made this time the worst period for our environment. We have polluted the air, the water and the soil, hunted countless animals, destroyed the ecosystem, and made wildlife impossible in many areas of the world. In short, we have ruined the natures hierarchy, and we have done it for one reason: we thought the progress in economy and industry is worth the sacrifice. But there was a point when some people saw that this is a malfunctioning cycle, and needs to be readjusted somewhere - nations should start paying attention to the environment, and since fixing the ruined jungles and forrests and other natural landscapes will probably take hundreds of years, we should take extra care of the remaining parts.

Having all this in mind, the statement above is making a good point. Many people, from environmental activists to ordinary people who just care about the nature and wild life, would undoubtedly defend this statement and agree that governments should pass laws to preserve the remaining wilderness by any means possible. They would argue that the earth, the mother nature, has nourished us beyound our expectations, while in return we have torn it apart. Since no other organization would have the power to do so, it would logically be the goverments’ responsibility to pass laws to preserve the remaining wilderness, before they are occupied and destroyed by factories or incorporations seeking profit.

But looking deeper down the statement, there are many things that should be defined before passing such rules. For example, there are for sure countries in africa wich can not provide enough food for their people, and have acres of “wilderness areas” preserved, because people are unable to use them properly. in this case, there should be groups of experts studying the area, to define the fine line between the areas that should be preserved, and the areas that could be put to use in order to provide people’s basic needs. The other case, are the national parks, which contrary to public beliefs do have economic gain. So not all economic gains should be considered against preserving the nature.

So, although I believe that nature should be preserved from those who plan to destroy it for economic gain, I think there are expectations to add to the above statement. While the nature should be preserved “natural”, we should understand that the people of “today” should be respected as much as the people of “tomorrow”. Environmental mottos and quotes sound very pleasing when they preach about keeping the nature for the future generations, but they largely forget that we are not providing enough food for the present population. Let’s preserve the natural wilderness areas, but let’s do it correctly.