Does it is worth to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in nation natural state and ignore these areas' potential to promte economic？  In the author's opinion, remaining wilderness areas is equal to original environment, which is invaluable asset to human, so government should preserve these areas by passing laws, despites these areas could be developed for economic gains.  Certainly,  this is a quite resonable opinion, because wilderness areas contain many valuable plants and animal that could make us happy. However, I'm not agree with the author entirely, since wilderness areas could divided to a different kind of wilderness areas, such as a wilderness areas that locates around cities, a wilderness areas that easy to be destroyed.  So, government should take different policies to different wilderness areas.
Government should spare no effort to preserve wilderness areas.  If only our technology was sophiscated enough to find out plants' value which gorwed in wilderness areas, then we wouldn't recognize these wilderness areas are useless.  As a consequence, that we haven't figured out these areas included value isn't equal to they are valueless.  For instance, some kind of animal that lived in wilderness areas play a considerable role  in biology chains, if we destoryed wilderness areas, then these animal also disappeared and the whole biology chain would be ruined.  In addition, some kind of plants could cure diseases that nowadays we have no idea how to treat it.  We will regret when these plants and animal disappeared, if government didn't preserve these wilderness areas sufficiently, and the loss couldn't be represented by money.
However, I don't deny that some kind of wilderness areas should be developed for economic gains.  Some kind of wilderness areas circumvent cities, which have a possibility to turn into a place that are full of litter, and this phenomenon do harm to human's health who lived by these wilderness areas.  What's more, this action also waste its location resource, for if these wilderness areas were developed to residents or CBD, this action  not only mitigated the preasure produced by large population, but also promote economic gains, also improve standard of living of human.  As a consequence, if government leave these wilderness areas alone, the disadvantages are more than advantages.
On the contrast, these wilderness areas are located in a place that only have a little amount of population or its envirnment are easy to be destroyed, if true,government shoud preserve these areas by passing laws.  Because, human can have an eye feast of splendid vision and enjoy fresh air.  For example, Yellowstone National Park attracted a large amount of traveler every year by its impreccable preservation which result in Yallowstone National Park has a fabulous beauty. Form this action, Yellowstone National Park gained both beautiful vision and money.  Besides,  Tibet's environment is easy to be destroyed, what's the worset, if the environment was destroyed, it is impossible to cure it. Under these circumstances, government should spare no effort to preserve this kind of treasure.
Even though the author's opinion is provisional, but the author didn't thoroughtly consider of this issue.  As far as I can see, government should develop wilderness areas embracing cities, and preserve those wilderness areas which are far away city or the environment of areas are easy to be destroyed.  Otherwise, human will loss a treasure of nature.