|
83."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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should publicly owned wilderness areas be preserved in their natural state? If so, is it the government’s obligation to take such preservation? As far as I am concerned, because of the importance of those areas and the efficiency of the governments’ participation, it is no doubt that publicly owned wilderness should be preserved, and by governments’ strength.
To begin with, publicly owned wilderness areas, even extremely remote, play an active role in keeping the balance of the nature and ecological system. It is well known that our world is a whole integrity, damage of any part of the ecological system, even the remote areas, will lead to the damage of the whole world. Take the depletion of ozone layer in Antarctica as example. Due to the wildly use of refrigerator, a lot of gases spread to the atmosphere and thus leads to a thinner Ozone Layer. The Ozone Layer helps prevent unwanted ultraviolet radiation; hence the temperature of the world is not too high. However, because of the depletion of Ozone Layer in Antarctica, the temperature in this area raises, therefore the iceberg in this area thaw out and consequently results in a higher level of Ocean, which means a disaster to human beings.
What’s more, even some of these areas are extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people, damage in those areas is rather serious. Generally, there are many precious animals or plants in those areas. Consequently, many people contrive to reach those areas in order to obtain those valuable animals and plants, which could bring immeasurable wealth. One of the famous examples of the remote areas which are damaged by people is Cocoa Syli, a rather remote area in Qing Hai Province of China. There is a fairly rare animal, in Cocoa Syli the Tibetan Antelope. The skin of this animal has a very good use of keeping warm, so there is a great demand in its skin in many areas. As a result, many people prey on this animal although it is quite difficult to enter into this area. It is reported that the number of the Tibetan Antelope decreases dramatically.
Due to the weak strength of non-governmental organizations, it is necessary for governments to formulate principles and policies to protect those areas. Non-governmental organizations can help realize the importance of protecting remote areas and to some extent stop some behaviors that would be harmful to those areas. However, the energy of their members is limited, and what’s more important, they have no right to punish people whose behaviors harm publicly owned wildness areas. Yet, governments can employ numerous people and they can enact laws to punish those evil behaviors. Also take Cocoa Syli as example. There is a long-standing non-governmental organization called wild yak team. Although they do many things to combat with those evil strugglers, their efforts are slim. The amounts of evil strugglers are far more than the number of its member. They do not possess sufficient energy to struggle with so many evil strugglers and even if they catch the evil strugglers, they can do nothing to punish them. Things would be much better if governments make effort to preserve this area. There will be adequate people to deal with those evil strugglers. Meanwhile, wrong crowds would be punished by laws. And some people, who once have the ideas of some wrong acts, will be frighten from doing anything wrong.
To sum up, due to the analysis above, apparently, in order to keep the balance of natural and ecological system, the remote areas should be preserved and only with the support of governments, there will be some achievements.
| 
发表于 2006-12-26 22:23:30
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
