125. Some people claim that a nation’s government should preserve its wilderness areas in their natural state. Others argue that these areas should be developed for potential economic gain.

The problem about the conflicts between preservation of wilderness and develop economy is always controversial and complex. For the reason that benefits of wilderness and economic gain are hardly quantified and comparable, some people support the government should preserve wilderness as much as possible to preserve the diversity of nature and some precious creatures, while others argues that economic development has greater significance than wilderness preservation.

At the first place, preservation of some wilderness is necessary to rescue out environment and the nature. On the one hand, there is less and less wilderness in our planet, to some extent; wilderness is another kind of property. Although wilderness cannot foster the increase of GDP directly, it can ameliorate the environment of a certain area, which attracts many elitists and improve the life quality of local residents. This is a chain reaction to prompts the development in several aspects. On the other hand, well-preserved original wilderness can improve the economic by attracting plenty of visitors. For example, there are many national parks in the US such as Yellow Stone National Park and Crater Lake National Park, and the visitors attracted by those national parks significantly prompts the local financial development. If these national parks were not preserved so well, the residents could not have enjoyed economic gain and wonderful scenes simultaneously.

However, preservation of wilderness areas may also stun the development of local economy. Without reclaiming wilderness areas, the government can hardly guarantee the productivity of agriculture. For the countries which depend on the domestic agriculture, the government has to encourage farmers to reclaim wilderness areas to develop agriculture, after all it is not worthy to preserve wilderness at the expanse of high-price import food. Furthermore, the development of industry needs some space to build factories, which means the waste gas and water will be released and they will pollute the wilderness and local environment. There is no government willing to abandon the economic improvement and decide to preserve all wilderness areas.

Another issue should be considered is that the government should find a balance point. For the wilderness areas which are of great beauty or precious animals, it is more beneficial to preserve them rather than reclaim them. However, for wild areas which are of fertile soil or at proper geographic positions, the government can encourage farmers or coorperations to utilize them appropriately. At the balance point, the government can maximize the benefits of wilderness areas.

In conclusion, both advantages and disadvantages coexist about the issue of exploring wilderness areas. The decisions about which wilderness areas should be reclaimed and which are not should be considered in accordance of the specific conditions. The wise and justifiable government can always use this double-edged sword perfectly to improve the life quality of the residents.