issue83 V6站队 7.30

zehuaUID: 199246

题目：Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural states, even though these areas are often extremely remote and accessible to only a few people。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Should government preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural states, even though these areas are often extremely remote and accessible to only a few people? In my view, protection of the environment is very important, especially when such actions could benefit human existence and society. However it is not economically possible to protect every piece of wilderness land. Government should protect such areas selectively. Moreover, it should actively remodel such areas when this action is beneficial to human.

It might seem tempting to agree with the speaker, on the basis that protection of environment is vital. For the purpose of tourism development, preservation of such publicly owned wilderness areas would attract many visitors. The statistics show that in average 43% of the tourists travel to see the natural landscape worldwide, instead of modern cities or historical heredities. Therefore we cannot imagine the harmful affections for economy, once such wilderness areas are all destructed, especially for the countries whose economy largely depends on development of tourism. In addition, preservation of natural land is also important in terms of human existence. Environmentalists say that destruction of forest and grassland would lead to extinction of animals and turn such lands into deserts. Since the nature food chain is so complicated that extinction of one animal would inevitably result in extinction of others, and since human is an animal involved in such food chains, we could not predict if extinction of certain animal would harm the existence of human beings. Therefore, government has the responsibility to preserve the wilderness areas.

However, we should understand the difficulties for government in doing so, because such lands are so massive that it is not realistic for a nation to preserve every piece of it.
Preservation of such areas requires massive labor forces and large sums of money, it is best to selectively protect the lands. That is to say, from the self-economical view, government should evaluate the harm to our society and environment, once such areas are destructed, and then choose the most valuable lands to preserve or solve the most emergent environmental problems. After all, if destruction of certain areas does not have much impact on our living and economy, why should we spend large sums of money to protect it? Moreover, government should evaluate the benefits in land preservation, and the cost involved. If the cost/reward ratio is too high, it is still not necessary to preserve such lands.

In addition, the speaker fails to thoroughly understand the real purpose for preserving natural lands. The environment has been altered and reconstructed massively by human activities. If alterations of certain wilderness areas are beneficial to both environment and human society, why not actively reconstruct such lands, but to preserve it? Imagine that we turn every acre of desert into grassland, every wilderness hill into forest, and animals thrive in such places, what a beautiful scenery it is! Thus if preservation of wilderness areas is not beneficial to human society and environment, we should try to alter them.

In the final analysis, the speaker's statement is partly true. Sometimes, preservation of publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural states are vital to human existence.
In that case, we should try every effort to protect it. However, government needs to estimate the cost and benefits in such activities. In addition, if active alterations of such areas are beneficial to both human and environment, we should do so, instead of preservation.

nickaaronleeUID: 183378

占个位

nickaaronleeUID: 183378

（哈哈，这片我也写过）
Should government preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural states, even though these areas are often extremely remote and accessible to only a few people? In my view, protection of the environment is very important, especially when such actions could benefit human existence and society. However it is not economically possible to protect every piece of wilderness land. Government should protect such areas selectively. Moreover, it should actively remodel such areas when this action is beneficial to human.

It might seem tempting to agree with the speaker, on the basis that protection of environment is vital.（ For the purpose of tourism development, preservation of such publicly owned wilderness areas would attract many visitors. The statistics show that in average 43% of the tourists travel to see the natural landscape worldwide, instead of modern cities or historical heredities. Therefore we cannot imagine the harmful affections for economy, once such wilderness areas are all destructed, especially for the countries whose economy largely depends on development of tourism.不错，这个数据是你查阅的？） In addition, preservation of natural land is also important in terms of human existence. Environmentalists say that destruction of forest and grassland would lead to extinction of animals and turn such lands into deserts. Since the nature food chain is so complicated that extinction of one animal would inevitably result in extinction of others, and since human is an animal involved in such food chains, we could not predict if extinction of certain animal would harm the existence of human beings. Therefore, government has the responsibility to preserve the wilderness areas.（写得不错，角度选得很好，如果一定要找毛病，那么in addition后面这部分，如果人们仅仅没有保持natural state，只是有选择的开发，也许不会影响生态，当然是这鸡蛋挑骨头，呵呵，问题不大）

However, we should understand the difficulties for government in doing so, because such lands are so massive that it is not realistic for a nation to preserve every piece of it.
Preservation of such areas requires massive labor forces and large sums of money, it is best to selectively protect the lands. That is to say, from the self-economical view, government should evaluate the harm to our society and environment, once such areas are destructed, and then choose the most valuable lands to preserve or solve the most emergent environmental problems. After all, if destruction of certain areas does not have much impact on our living and economy, why should we spend large sums of money to protect it? Moreover, government should evaluate the benefits in land preservation, and the cost involved. If the cost/reward ratio is too high, it is still not necessary to preserve such lands.（哈哈，和我的写的角度差不多）

In addition, the speaker fails to thoroughly understand the real purpose for preserving natural lands. The environment has been altered and reconstructed massively by human activities. If alterations of certain wilderness areas are beneficial to both environment and human society, why not actively reconstruct such lands, but to preserve it? Imagine that we turn every acre of desert into grassland, every wilderness hill into forest, and animals thrive in such places, what a beautiful scenery it is! Thus if preservation of wilderness areas is not beneficial to human society and environment, we should try to alter them.（发散得不错）

In the final analysis, the speaker's statement is partly true. Sometimes, preservation of publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural states are vital to human existence.
In that case, we should try every effort to protect it. However, government needs to estimate the cost and benefits in such activities. In addition, if active alterations of such areas are beneficial to both human and environment, we should do so, instead of preservation.
（你的文章越写越好了，我能够给的意见也不多啦，哈哈，加油~~~）

11yvetteUID: 2102418

题目：Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural states, even though these areas are often extremely remote and accessible to only a few people。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Should government preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural states, even though these areas are often extremely remote and accessible to only a few people? In my view, protection of the environment is very important, especially when such actions could benefit human existence and society. However it is not economically possible to protect every piece of wilderness land. Government should protect such areas selectively (这个观点太赞了) . Moreover, it should actively remodel such areas when this action is beneficial to human.

It might seem tempting to agree with the speaker, on the basis that protection of environment is vital. For the purpose of tourism development, preservation of such publicly owned wilderness areas would attract many visitors. The statistics show that in average 43% of the tourists travel to see the natural landscape worldwide, instead of modern cities or historical heredities. Therefore we cannot imagine the harmful affections for economy, once such wilderness areas are all destructed, especially for the countries whose economy largely depends on development of tourism. In addition, preservation of natural land is also important in terms of human existence. Environmentalists say that destruction of forest and grassland would lead to extinction of animals and turn such lands into deserts. Since the nature food chain is so complicated that extinction of one animal would inevitably result in extinction of others, and since human is an animal involved in such food chains, we could not predict if extinction of certain animal would harm the existence of human beings. Therefore, government has the responsibility to preserve the wilderness areas.这段的思路很清晰,只是觉得第一个旅游方面有点漏洞:很多wilderness areas被政府保护后(事实上也是开发的一种过程),这样会招致更多的游客,而游客数量的增多也会对环境造成一定的危害,不过如果按照你的思路进行:因为有游客所有更需要政府的保护(不知我理解的是否正确),那么最好再加一些笔墨,期待讨论

However, we should understand the difficulties for government in doing so, because such lands are so massive that it is not realistic for a nation to preserve every piece of it.这方面观点提得好,是我在习作中没有考虑周全的地方Preservation of such areas requires massive labor forces and large sums of money, it is best to selectively protect the lands. That is to say, from the self-economical view, government should evaluate the harm to our society and environment, once such areas are destructed, and then choose the most valuable lands to preserve or solve the most emergent environmental problems. After all, if destruction of certain areas does not have much impact on our living and economy, why should we spend large sums of money to protect it? Moreover, government should evaluate the benefits in land preservation, and the cost involved. If the cost/reward ratio is too high, it is still not necessary to preserve such lands.

In addition, the speaker fails to thoroughly understand the real purpose for preserving natural lands. The environment has been altered and reconstructed massively by human activities. If alterations of certain wilderness areas are beneficial to both environment and human society, why not actively reconstruct such lands, but to preserve it? Imagine that we turn every acre of desert into grassland, every wilderness hill into forest, and animals thrive in such places, what a beautiful scenery it is! Thus if preservation of wilderness areas is not beneficial to human society and environment, we should try to alter them.个人感觉这段有点牵强:其一,这段淡化了政府的行为,其二,政府对于natural lands的preservation和对于文物的preservation在概念上是有很大差别的,因为自然是一个发展的环境,而文物放着不会再有变化(当然变得更加古董那就另当别论了^_^),那么在政府的preservation下,那些自然环境会朝更好的方向发展,而不是停滞不变的,呵呵,一家之言了

In the final analysis, the speaker's statement is partly true. Sometimes, preservation of publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural states are vital to human existence.
In that case, we should try every effort to protect it. However, government needs to estimate the cost and benefits in such activities. In addition, if active alterations of such areas are beneficial to both human and environment, we should do so, instead of preservation.结尾升华了主题,强

学习了队长的文章,感觉写得真的很不错,遣词,句型都很让我admire啊~~
而且对这个题目的认识也拓宽了好多,selective~~赞,而且,这一段的论证很严密,学习ing
存在的问题期待共同讨论:handshake