悲剧啊~求拍issue83

@@@UID: 2772645

Whether government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their nature state for the sake of our descents or for a better environment or government should not preserve it attribute to the expanse and some other things are emergency? The question is really complicated one. From my perspective, whether to preserve it or not depends on the specific situation.

From a perspective of science, it is vital to preserve remote areas, because these areas are always abundant in natural resources, such as rare animals, special plants and valuable ores. All these will provide great samples for scientific study and will multiple the Gene Resources. Scientists could find new method to cultivate useful plants, such as fern plants, which have a superior function in the process of avoiding cancer. Scientists could also colony some rare animals, which might in the rage of extinction. Scientists could apply new finding ores to our daily use fuel. All these benefits of preserving remote areas would bring huge and profound value for a country and its citizen.

If government preserve remote areas for the sake of rockets the local economy, the value is depends. If it is a place where our ancestor once lived there, being a relic and government preserve it as a history museum. It is worthy to do so. By preserving, the area would not being damaged by some nature forces, such as, flood, erosion. If government want to protect wilderness as a nature resort, it might be unwise. As a consequence, more visitors will influx, and we will easily to see rubbish are randomly everywhere, cars pushing toxin gases into the air and the resort is packed with chaotic population. Under these two circumstances, the former one might be an appropriate way to boost local economy, thus, benefit local residents. However, the latter one is just on the contrary. We will leave endless problems to descents, water pollution, greenhouse effect, and a truly “wilderness”.

In the portion of multiple the variance of culture, government might to choose protecting wilderness. Those remote areas are sometime the place where authentic ethic culture origin form. And some minorities lives there. It is a nonseparable part made up of the country’s culture. Without it, there will be a loss for both government and citizen. Form this stance; government might regulate several policies for better preserving, in order to guarantee effectiveness.

Furthermore, government might preserve all wildernesses for their uniqueness and fundamental value. However, it is unrealistic to do so. There might be some emergency problems more important than preserving wilderness. Such as, solving the problem of starving, enact laws and rules to preserve the right of ethic people. All these are desperate for money, and government should invest money in the problems which are handy. Thus, choices are made. Fulfill the basic requirement for citizen, allocates fund for hospitals to treat patients, appropriate fund to supporting education. Then, government has to drop the plan of preserving remote areas.

In sum, whether to preserving wilderness, where these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people counts on gains and loss. The complicity lies in not alternatively economy gain or environment loss. Myriads of factors needs take into consideration, the effect of future, the cultural complacency, the willing of local people and the affordance of expanse. If the majority of factors being thoroughly consider, and the future of wilderness is promising, at that time, we can claim it is worthy to preserving a specific remote area.

@@@UID: 2772645

2# Bela1229

thx~

@@@UID: 2772645

2# Bela1229

@@@UID: 2772645

2# Bela1229


要不bz顺便帮改改？~