Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the
position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe
specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or
would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your
position.
Ever since the Industrial Revolution, modernity has been wiping out wilderness areas to develop them for human use. Nowadays, a heightened concern for the environment has been calling for preservation laws. Such laws presume that preserving nature in its state is the responsibility of mankind and that it is in the long-run better for humanity. However, pressing such laws may not always be the best. Nations should contain laws to preserve wilderness areas that are not harmful to the lives of humans.
One of the cardinal reasons for preserving wilderness areas is the idea that humans--at the top of the food chain and able to exercise morality--hold such a responsibility. Furthermore, taking care of the environment can, in turn, be beneficial to humanity. With present-day hours replete with technology, concrete buildings, and asphalt roads, the modern person retreats to a replenishing vacation in the comfort of Mother Nature. Preserving the wilderness means preserving the variety of animal species. An extreme example is the De-militarized Zone (DMZ) in the border of North and South Korea. The land has been left at its wartime state for nearly half-a-century; the DMZ shows the vast array of wild animals and plant species that are impossible to observe in industrialized towns and cities. In such cases that nature enriches human lives, nations should preserve wilderness areas in their natural state.
However, nations should take precaution in deciphering the effects of certain wilderness areas. The law should not enforce the preservation of all wilderness areas without discrimination. Some areas may be deleterious to human life. Some areas in Africa have mosquito-ridden swampy areas that are dangerous for nearby inhabitants. Such areas, if left at their natural state, fosters Malaria, a fatal disease. In such cases, the government should work to develop those areas for the welfare of its people.
Not all wilderness areas are alike. Nations must not pass laws that indiscriminately call for a preservation of all wilderness areas. Preservation laws should mandate that one consider the area's effect on the lives of its people. All in all, as long as the wilderness in question is not harmful to humans, nations should preserve nature in its state to ultimately enrich the lives of modern-day people.
No comments:
Post a Comment