issue83 aw狂人社第五次作业 simahui

simahuiUID: 2208751

题目：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."
字数：536          用时：1:34:28          日期：2007-3-19

With the mechanization and industrialization of the world, now we humans have such powerful influences  of nature which usually are negative to ecological balance, at the same time have the capability to change our future but do not known how to use it correctly. Before we left the imprint of humans’ activities all over the word which might lead us to an unsustainable development future, keeping wildness areas in a certain degree is a wise choice whether in moral factor or ourselves-interest.

On the one hand, there are not only human, but also other life-forms such as plant and animal on which we survive, on the earth. The inhabitation of human will inevitably disturb the other existed life-forms by modifying nature for our survival, even lacking the ability to adapt to new circumstances which were influenced seriously by human, certain weaker species cannot survive. As the most intelligent species, however, by no means do human have rights to eradicate any other species, no matter plant or animal, useful for us or even harmful. Nature gestures and nourishes all lives of which human is the only part as equally as other species. Therefore, in the moral aspect, it is our responsibility to provide space without disturbing for other species survive and keep publicly owned wildness in their natural state.

On the other hand, other species is also important for our survival and future development. The animal kingdom is an intricate matrix of interdependent relationships, in which each species depends on many others for itself survival, of course, including our human. So many species which play a pivotal role of ecological balance can only inhabit in wildness areas. If we do not keep wildness areas in their natural state, the decrease of these plants will cause a chaos of ecology in the future in which we might hardly develop and even survive. For my experience, my home locates in a beautiful country which kinds of plants. But during these years, the more factories have been established, the less threes there are, and local residents could hardly breathe fresh air and usually have headaches because of noxious gas form factories can not be absorbed by adequate threes. Thus, if governments do not keep wildness areas form modifications, all people as a whole would not have enough plants to generate fresh air on which we survive.

In addition, various kinds of plants and animals have a significant impact on pharmaceutics and biology. It is possible that scientists might found a certain gene which is extracted form fish in wildness areas can effective treat against cancer tomorrow. Or perhaps biologist could discover some new species of plant which have existed during Jurassic and can provide a clear clue about the extinction of dinosaur.

Some will argue that it is not necessary to protect remote areas. Admittedly, hardly is it access to people inhabit in. But, if there is not a counterpart law enacted by congress to limit activity in wildness areas, for commercial interest, even the extremely remote place might be used for establish mines and factories.
To conclude, it is necessary to take counterpart measures to protect wildness areas whether accessible or not, no matter for ourselves or other

[ 本帖最后由 simahui 于 2007-3-21 13:00 编辑 ]

billfigoUID: 2264887

With the mechanization and industrialization of the world, now we humans have such powerful influences  of nature which usually are negative to ecological balance,（个人更支持用have negative effects on）, at the same time have the capability to change our future but do not know （or use " never know"） how to use it correctly. Before we left the imprint of humans’ activities all over the word which might lead us to an unsustainable development future???, keeping wildness areas in a certain degree is a wise choice whether in moral factor or ourselves-interest.

On the one hand(可以改为 First of all, 后面可以用 on the other hand 转折，原来用法比较死板), there are not only human, but also other life-forms such as plant and animal on which we survive, on the earth？？？？有点Chinese. The inhabitation of human will inevitably disturb the other existed life-forms by modifying nature for our survival, even lacking the ability to adapt to new circumstances which were influenced seriously by human, certain weaker species cannot survive. As the most intelligent species, however, by no means do human have rights to eradicate any other species, no matter plant or animal, useful for us or even harmful. Nature gestures and nourishes all lives of which human is the only part as equally as other species. Therefore, in the moral aspect, it is our responsibility to provide space without disturbing for other species survive and keep publicly owned wildness in their natural state.

On the other hand, other species are also important for our survival and future development. The animal kingdom is an intricate matrix of interdependent relationships, in which each species depends on many others for itself survival, of course, including human being. So many species which play a pivotal role of ecological balance can only inhabit in wildness areas. If we do not keep wildness areas in their natural state, the decrease of these plants will cause a chaos of ecology in the future in which we might hardly develop and even survive. For my experience, my house locates in a beautiful country which kinds of plants???. But during these years, the more factories have been established, the less threes there are, and local residents could hardly breathe fresh air and usually have headaches because of noxious gas form factories can not be absorbed by adequate threes. Thus, if governments do not keep wildness areas form modifications???合适这么用么？？, all people as a whole好像不妥 would not have enough plants to generate fresh air on which we survive.

In addition, various kinds of plants and animals have a significant impact on pharmaceutics and biology. It is possible that scientists might found a certain gene which is extracted form fish in wildness areas can effectively treat against cancer tomorrow. Or perhaps biologist could discover some new species of plant which have existed during Jurassic and can provide a clear clue about the extinction of dinosaur.

Some will argue that it is not necessary to protect remote areas. Admittedly, hardly is it access to people inhabit in. But, if there is not a counterpart law enacted by congress to limit activity in wildness areas, for commercial interests, even the extremely remote place might be used for establishing (或者直接删除)mines and factories.
To conclude, it is necessary to take counterpart measures to protect wildness areas whether accessible or not, no matter for ourselves or other


词语，用法都很丰富，注意到很多地方用了倒装，很不错。

Some will argue that it is not necessary to protect remote areas. Admittedly, hardly is it access to people inhabit in. But, if there is not a counterpart law enacted by congress to limit activity in wildness areas, for commercial interests, even the extremely remote place might be used for establishing (或者直接删除)mines and factories.

这段逻辑上也不算是让步，放在那里，好像不妥。

simahuiUID: 2208751

看来写的还是比较毛糙，有的句子没有完成，我也快考了，继续突击！感觉速度好难提上来阿