Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state.

The above[wrong word   ] statement has sparked[ how do you know that?  ] a long-running[wrong word   ] dispute about the remaining wilderness area[ unclear  ] . Admittedly, preserving wilderness areas could protect nature. However, wilderness areas[ repetition  ] could be used (to develop to boost )[  redundant ] the economy. Thus, I generally[ redundant  ] disagree with the opinion that a nation should preserve any remaining wilderness( if the people there are in poverty and need more housing space)[unclear/wordy   ] . [ poor connection  ] As for developed countries, conservation programs, instead of preservation programs, should be implemented.

First of all, nations, where people are fighting against poverty, should utilize the unused wilderness land to foster economic growth rather than not be preserved. I want to call attention to the fact that the people’s welfare is crucial to the prospect and stability of the nation. To illustrate, I will use the example of the early United States. When the United States first established, is still in the recovery of the war against other nations like Britain, and most of the people are poor immigrants. To strengthen the nations’ power and improve people’s quality of life, the government initiated many projects to turn wilderness areas into towns to increase employment and attract investment. In this circumstance, if the early government decide to preserve the wilderness areas rather than exploit them, United States would not overcome the economic hardship and become the strongest nation within 200 years. As a result, it is quite obvious that for economically struggling nations, wilderness areas should be utilized to improve people’s welfare.

In the second place, for places where people need more land for basic needs, this policy is not sensible. Specifically, in cities with high population density like Hong Kong, wilderness areas should be turned into residential areas. The average space per person in Hong Kong is less than 1 square meter, and many poor people have to squeeze them in tiny apartments that could only fit a twin size bed. Common sense has told us that the spare land should be used to build more buildings to accommodate the housing needs of the residents. Consequently, the case discussed above demonstrates that the preservation of wilderness areas should give place to people’s basic needs.

Though I concede that wilderness area is beneficial to the nation, this is true, especially in well-developed industrial nations. In addition, wilderness areas are precious for countries which have aggressively exploit natural resource and damaged the environment. However, the above argument does not constitute sufficient support to claim that nations should preserve wilderness areas. Instead, countries should build natural conservation areas. In this way, the wilderness area could attract tourists, increase local income, elicit awe towards nature from visitors’ minds, and inspire people to protect nature. Therefore, nations should pass laws to build natural conservation rather than purely preserve wilderness areas.

In sum, although wilderness areas deserve to be protected, due to economic situation, people’s primary demand, and the benefit of building environmental conservations, it is impractical for nations to preserve any wilderness areas.