issue83 Gter四月''无名''小组第43次作业-Expire7

expire7UID: 2160574

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: 467          TIME: 上午 12:35:13          DATE: 2006-3-26

In accordance with the title of assertion, although some publicly wilderness areas are remote and accessible to only a few people, each government should protect those areas in their natural state. This is a hotly debated issue in that it affects everyone daily lives. In my observance, preserving those places is sound and worthwhile to ourselves and our descendants.

The threshold reason for my fundamental agreement of the contention of the speaker is that not only do those areas influence some animals and trees, but they dramatically affect human beings as well. For one thing, public wilderness areas can provide natural place to many animals and plants to propagate and live. Almost everyday there are some valuable and precious species vanished. On the basis of the evolution, some species go to die and extinct that is the natural election and normal phenomenon. But some of whom do more or less impact human endeavors. Furthermore, since all the biosphere is a whole system, parts of it are damaged and turn to abnormal state, which will pave a grave way to have something with human beings. Thus, governments ought to protect publicly owned wilderness areas.   

For another, due to human incessant explorations, manufactures and activities badly influence the environment of the Earth. Pollution and emission lastly lead to destroy the ozone layer in atmosphere, which will lead to global warming to increase the temperature of the Earth. If that condition keeps on and the ozone layer has been continuously damaged, the ice will melt and the sea level will rise. Then, our world inevitably damaged and human beings will be true history. Consider, for example, the Amazon forest have been cutting to develop their country economy and improve people life. The short-term unsound behavior bring about nice performance, yet many people predict that the continuously cutting forest will stimulate and evoke worse consequence not only to its country but also to the world in the long term.

Another reason why I essentially tend to favor the speaker's statement is that even though some wilderness areas can not be accessed by many people, under some circumstance those areas will be damaged and can not be restored. We can not take it granted that those wilderness areas will be fine and keep its healthy condition to supply everything to animals and trees. As a matter of fact, some environment pollutions are not limited and restricted in certain fields. They can be transmitted and conveyed to those areas by other mediums and methods, such as animal migrations, water recycling and the like. Moreover, even if only a few people, they generate uncountable bad consequences to those places. Suppose that some people accidentally ignite fire in there, or lose a terrible radical material. Depending on those conditions and assumptions, our government should and must preserve those areas for other animals and trees and for us.

To sum up,没写完.