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.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns wi

One part of population deeply adheres to the idea that government ought to preserve wilderness areas in their today's state. The second part of people avers that we should develop these areas in order to get economic gain. Although the first viewpoint has some positive facets, the second claim is closer aligns with my position due to the fact that its fulfillment will bring much more benefits than drawbacks.

To begin with, the planet's population is growing rapidly and soon more than seven milliard of people will inhabit the planet and the government's major goal is to reassure that our level of living will remain the same or even grow despite the increase in our population. From this viewpoint, the government ought to develop the wilderness areas to meet our growing needs because we need more metal, fossil fuels, minerals, and land for farming in order to secure our economic growth and consequently, prosperity.

Of course, someone may assert that because we are all connected with the nature we have to protect it from our own actions due to the fact that we have caused the rising of sea levels, depletion of ozone layer and extinction of many species of animals and plants. However, the preservation of the wild nature in its today's situation will seriously threat our well-being because we may not meet our needs with resources used today. In other words, the policy will lead to our hardships, shortage of sources of energy and food. What is more, even if we agree with this price and fulfill the policy, perhaps, the damage is too grave to save the planet. In fact, the probability exists that we have started processes which are irreversible and mere stopping hurting the nature may not safe it.

However, if we decide to develop these wilderness areas, perhaps, we will have enough resources to tackle our future problems; in fact, we have won many battles for our survival via our development. For example, today we have conquered plague and other diseases which used to harass our species and probably, if our development proceeds, we will find new means to combat issues of the future. For instance, today we have a grave problem with the greenhouse gases, perhaps, the mere preservation of woods will not tackle the problem but our scientists have successfully tried to use plankton to reduce volume of those gases and create oxygen. This example illustrates how we may address our future problems without hurting our interests; consequently, the fulfillment of the second policy is more logical.

In conclusion, many of us naively believe that we ought to preserve the nature in its today's state; however, this action may not only be insufficient but even harmful for our species. Therefore, it is reasonable to develop wilderness in order to reassure our prosperity and development.