ISSUE83 保护远郊荒地 【求拍，有拍必回】

爱上千年的猫UID: 2476232

TOPIC: ISSUE83 - "Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people."
WORDS: 541
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010-3-13 15:32:59

When discussing how government should treat the publicly owned wilderness areas, we should first recognize the responsibility of government. Government, which essentially has the responsibility to serve its people, should first guarantee their legal rights and then make efforts to satisfy their needs, no matter in the economic level or the health level. When the wilderness areas play significant role in maintaining the natural balance, government should do its best to preserve them in their natural state, even if they are located in extremely remote areas. Otherwise, these areas should be planned for other use to meet the increasing needs of the public.

Wilderness areas sometimes serve as a natural accommodator-keeping the eco-system in balance-that once destroyed the cities and towns would suffer a lot from the changes, including the climate, the food-chains and so on. Consider the Amazon rainforests. Although these areas are often far from metropolis for human beings can hardly live in such environment-extremely hot and humid, the plants and animals there help a lot in keep the global climate. When the government failed to preserve those areas, we clearly saw the sad outcomes, namely global warming. In order to avoid such tragedy from happening, government should endeavor to preserve those areas, regardless how remote they are. It is not the small number of people living there but the majority of human beings would benefit from those wilderness areas.

Meanwhile, many kinds of rare species often inhabit in wilderness areas that far from cities. These animals are important elements in the eco-chain, which our human are included. To protect these animals being endangered is to protect our human beings. The last few centuries have witnessed too much extinction due to the devastation of such wilderness areas. Therefore, wilderness areas should be preserved to maintain a surviving environment for those endangered species. Diverse species also guarantee our human beings living in a safe world. In short, government should not hesitate to protect them.

But when wilderness areas neither have the function of keeping climate stable nor have animals inhabiting, government should carefully plan how to utilize these areas to better serve their citizens' needs. For example, if such areas are found near New York City, it is better to develop rather preserve. Simply building more apartments in those areas would mitigate the crowded living situation inside N.Y. Government could also turn these areas to serve as Silicon Valley, where firms of a particular industry could be centralized in those areas to increase the efficiency. Public not only have the basic needs for health and safety, but also the needs for economic development. When the wilderness areas can not meet the former needs, government should maximize the utility of those areas to satisfy the latter needs of its people.

To sum up, whether government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, it depends on a case-to-case study. If those areas play a significant role in keeping natural balance, such as global climate and endangered animals, government should devote to preserve them to meet the basic needs for health and safety. If not, those areas should be put into other usages in order to satisfy public needs other than health and safety, that is, the economic development.