Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
The author above states that nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness area in their nature, I widely agree with the author based on following arguments.
First of all natural state of
environment is feasible for all kind of lives. Due to the natural tendency, people
have access to neat and clean environment. The deforestation may cause danger
to the lives of various species. Since last decade various species have been extinct,
and there is immense need to preserve it.
Due to the natural beauty,
various tourists attract towards country. We can take example of Asia, where
tourists love to visit, due to its natural beauty. A huge inflow of tourists would
help economies to earn enough foreign reserves, which help economies to build
up. Contrarily if there is deforestation, tourists will not visit such places
and thus there would be an opportunity cost.
Secondly, forestation helps to
avoid floods and land erosion. The strong roots of the huge forests keep soil together
through a robust bond, which combat land erosion. Alternatively, if there is
deforestation, it would easily take away soil with meager rain falls, and it
would cause floods.
Thirdly it is pertinent that
albeit we need to have constructions in order to cope with the rising
population, however the opportunity cost of the deforestation is far more. While
considering the both sides of argument it is therefore very important for the
nations to have laws to combat more destruction of nature and to preserve
remaining wilderness.
No comments:
Post a Comment