As the world continues to progress at an exponential rate, many environmental activists, scientists, and philosophers have proposed radical solutions to our growing environmental crisis. Some are calling for a complete halt to industrial activity, while others propose that humanity should withdraw to other planets. Yet others, such as the writer of this piece, believe that setting aside a small portion of land as wilderness should be preserved as is

While I agree that some wilderness areas should be preserved, I question the wisdom and effectiveness of establishing laws to protect the remaining wilderness areas. Though it may be easy to believe that we are incapable of destroying all of the Earth’s natural resources, this does not appear to be the case. It is not as if a specific area will be spared from destruction. Any given country has a finite amount of resources, and any attempts to restrict industrial activity in one area will inevitably produce unintended consequences. For example, some nations have long supported laws that protect forests and waterways from logging and pollution. However, these laws have restricted the activities of some industries, such as fishing, which has led to a decline in fish populations. This decline has harmed the economies of many coastal communities, and many of these communities have gladly accepted subsidies from governments to compensate them for the loss of jobs. Rather than protect the remaining wilderness, these laws have hurt many more people than they helped. Furthermore, these laws do not take into account the fact that technological advances may eventually render any laws limiting industrial activity obsolete. For example, in the not too distant future, it is possible that robots will be capable of performing industrial operations as effectively, if not more so, than the humans who currently perform the same tasks

These problems are not unique to industrial activity, however. Another challenge in preserving wilderness areas is that many environmentalists have underestimated the impact that human activity has had on the environment. A famous example is the quagga mussel, a small but effective invasive species that was introduced to the Great Lakes in the 1980s. These mussels have displaced native mussels, causing water levels to rise, and the waters have become polluted and unfit for human use. In 1994, the government responded to this problem by prohibiting any further imports of the mussels. As was mentioned earlier, however, technological and scientific advancements may render this prohibition obsolete. This means that by the time that the ban is lifted, any remaining mussels will have spread to every lake in the lakes and have rendered them useless for human use

The author suggests that wilderness areas should be protected because they provide “a sanctuary for wildlife.” It is true that wildlife has benefited from the existence of wild spaces, but wilderness areas are not without their drawbacks. The wildlife that lives in these areas have adapted to their environment, and they have evolved to be dependent on it. For example, wolves, bears, and cougars cannot survive in urban environments. Similarly, birds evolved to be dependent on seed-eating animals, and these creatures cannot survive in open areas without sufficient grain. If we are to truly preserve the wilderness, then these areas must be repopulated with species that are compatible with them. This will require us to interfere with their natural habitats, and we must do so in a manner that does not disrupt the natural balance of the ecosystem. Unfortunately, current conservation efforts, especially in the United States, are proving to be inadequate in preserving existing wilderness areas and replacing them with species that will preserve the integrity of the ecosystem

The writer claims that wilderness areas provide a “safe haven” for wildlife. While it is true that wilderness areas provide a temporary respite for wildlife, all animals need food to survive, and wilderness areas do not provide a bounty of food. Also, the habitat of wilderness areas may change frequently, and this could cause the animals living there to become homeless. Furthermore, wild animals may migrate to other areas in search of food, and this may cause an ecological imbalance. For these reasons, I believe that wilderness areas should be left untouched, and laws should be passed to preserve them for future generations.