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

We live in a world where there are a limited amount of resources but we consumers are increasing day by day and there’s no sign of reversal of this rapid growth. As we grow in numbers, we try to make space in previously unexplored territory. Human beings are the most powerful creatures on this planet and we tend to achieve what we think. The direct effect on this falls on wilderness which is diminishing gradually for this reason. It is duty of any nation to pass laws to preserve remaining wilderness in their natural state irrespective of the possibility to develop it into habitable place for humans.

Wilderness is the most important resource any country possess. We humans are born with intelligence to develop any place according to our needs. But in the process of doing so, we are focussing on smaller journeys without looking at the bigger outlook. It is same as saying “You may be winning a battle, but you’re loosing the war”. Natural resource cannot look for themselves and it is duty of nature to preserve it looking at larger picture. Generation will come and go and any particular man will think of himself only to achieve something in his lifetime. But nation will be there suffering with limited wilderness long after demise of a certain generation. If we look at Sunderban, a mangrove forest naturally grown up in the delta of Ganges may look to be a wastage of space to us and we ‘re responsible for ever-decreasing area by removing them in order to make space for ourselves. But when the Tsunami came to grasp all of the coastal area in 2004 , it was seen that there was much less damage done as mangrove forest being deep rooted in the ground, reduce the power of waves to a large extent. This event proves that as a part of natural evolution mangroves are grown stronger to prevent waves to wash them away and in term saved thousands of humans by creating an obstacle standing between them.

We humans created political boundaries ourselves to maintain peace among us. But once we remove this boundary mentally, we are all part of same planet. If one nation is reluctant to preserve its wilderness, it indirectly effects the other one too. Natural wilderess are homes for a large number of species which take part in our lifecycle. Reduction in available spaces to live actually contribute to decline in life forms and disrupts the life cycle. For example, Amazon rainforest houses over 75% of worlds habitats. But because of global warming , its total area has reduced to 50% of its original area resulting in loss of many species. It is true that South American countries like Brazil, Argentina are rellatively weaker in economy and would agree to give up natural wilderness for any apparent development. But looking bigger perspective, any nation should help up these nations to follow certain rules for overall good of our species.

The strongest reason for which nations are unwilling to impose such laws to preserve wilderness is fear; fear that their economy will go weaker if spaces are not utilized properly. If we look at Japan, being small in size compared to its burgeoning population, it has traded its space to make its economy stronger. But at the same time, one may argue that this has made Japan extremely dependent to import almost every product from other nations. This dependence will look worse when same situation will happen to all countries and there will be no more excess to export. We can look upto United States of America in this case where average area preserved per sq. Km is largest among other nations. Inspite of this, USA maintained a high quality of life for its citizens and is one of the strongest economy in modern world. This proves that if nations are careful to devise its laws, merely preserving natural wilderness wouldn’t prevent them achieving success to other aspects. Rather this decision can become beneficial to them in future.

In conclusion, nations can and should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness. Not doing so can have an adverse effect on human life quality which is the primary reason of us refraining from doing so. We do not have to fear about weaker economy in preserving wilderness as USA as a nation has proved otherwise. Also preserving wilderness can prove unexpectedly beneficial to us as mangroves in Sunderban proved. Lastly, as supreme powerful species that ever lived on the planet, it is our duty to preserve weaker species to avoid Darwinian theory of struggle for existence to make our lifecycle going undisturbed.