The blank statement claims that government should not permit exploitations of wilderness land even the area is too remote for most people to have access to. I partly agree with the author. I consider that even the areas lies in remote areas deserve government's protection. However, I believe the blank statement to be overly simplistic. Government should still develop wilderness, but whether to develop or to preserve the natural state of a land should be judged by whether the development or preservation will benefit people in a long-run, not whether it is accessible for most people.
Exploitation of an untapped land does not necessarily cause detrimental effect on environment. Exploiting a land rightly, it can bring people much benefit. Las Vegas is a good example for making a barren land into a city of fortune. If people had left the little oasis in the desert of Nevada in its natural state, there would not be the city for entertainment now and Las Vegas now definitely provide more than water and a place to rest for the people passing by. It now offers millions of employment and contributes greatly to the revenue of Nevada.
Protections of areas in remote places can benefit people who have never been there. Various plants in protection areas provide good studying data for scientists, which the key for making scientific breakthrough may lies in. What is more, forests and other kinds of wilderness land serve as natural air conditioners for the areas around them, even though people will benefit from better air quality without going to the area being protected.
To sum up, government should use the nature resource to achieve better lives for its people. Since whether the exploitation of a certain area will benefit its people in a long-term is important, government to establish a system to evaluate the merits and demerits of exploiting a wilderness area.