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

Should a nation exchange its remaining wilderness for economic gain? What would be more beneficial for the population? Despite the assertions of many that economic growth is a must for supporting the population in their needs, others would say that the nature is the biggest asset of a country and so should not be spoiled. In my view, no economic gain is worthy of getting rid of a nation’s biggest resource: the nature.

Some may argue that there is no need for preserving remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, as these areas could be developed for economic gain. Examples are countries concentrated in small areas and still with a strong economy like Japan. Formed but hundreds of island and covered in about 80% of non-cultivable areas, Japan has a huge demographic concentration and some of the biggest cities in the world. For sure this country exchanged part of its wilderness for economic growth. However, one aspect that must be kept in mind is that this had a price for the country and they depend on a lot of other countries for their most important consumables.

Consider now the example of some countries in Africa. While there is no laws that prevent the natural state of their wilderness to be preserved, there is no benefit for the population as a whole. This is one of the most critical cases where preserving the nations' nature should be ensured by political strengths. The consequences of such lack of laws - or the fact that they are not followed - is that these countries destroy their most valuable goods and they get nothing in exchange, since the allowance of destroying the nature doesn't assure any economic gain.

A second example where the preservation of nature is worthy and doesn't keep any country from economic growth is the United States. Recent researches show that the USA has one of the biggest percentages of preserved areas per total territory in the world. And, there could bo no doubt that the US economy is still the biggest in the world. Additionally, it must be considered that the population of the USA is one of the five biggest in the world and the average quality of life is way above the majority of other countries.

Ultimately, considering the evidence of the facts, it must be concluded that no economic gain is worthy of getting rid of a nation’s nature, as this is the biggest resource a nation can have. The consequences in getting rid of nature in exchange for economic gain may be dependency on other countries for resources, and it may, at the end, bring no benefit for the population as a whole. And, alternate means of economic development may be implemented without any damage to a nation’s wilderness.