KEEP LAND ON ITS NATURAL CONDITION V.S.

DEVELOPING INDUSTRY
AND HOUSING

One of the most important discussions taking place between politicians,

environment activists and common people is the correct distribution of land. Some
politicians and corporations believe that land should be distributed for industrial
usage and additional housing projects to supply the demands of growing
population. Environment activists believe that land should be preserved and
expanded as well to keep wildlife safe.

First of all, creating more industry can bring more job opportunities for unemployed
people, which can decrease the unemployment rates. Thus, developing industry
and housing means an increasing stable economy attractive to investment
companies, improving people’s living conditions. Also, cities are getting crowded by
the people’s increasing number and the criminal activity as well, so giving job
opportunities can assure personal safety.

On the other hand, if nature is destroyed for farming, housing or industry, many
wildlife species will extinct which would be a significant effect for the environmental
balance. For instance, when we cut down trees birds would not have places to live.
Hence, there wouldn’t be a predator for hunting the insects. As insect’s population
grows, our crops will be destroyed and without food people will starve. It’s about
food chains impact.

In my opinion, natural resources that we consume should be cared by industry and

do something to preserve them. To give an example, companies that produce
wood can also renew this resource by planting new trees. This way we can
preserve our land. So, what I mean is that we must extend the production of new
goods without affect wild animals and their land.

WRITTEN BY: Alexander Caicedo – OPEN ENGLISH STUDENT