- 最后登录
- 2008-9-3
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 708
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2006-9-22
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 1
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 564
- UID
- 2254956
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 708
- 注册时间
- 2006-9-22
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 1
|
The arguer shows his or her kind-heart in the pursue of banning fishing in Tria Island. Unfortunately, the evidences he or she collected to support the conclusion are neither irrelevant nor pointless(双重否定了neither revelant nor sufficient).
First, there is not(no) any material in this argument can prove that overfishing is the chief reason in (for)the decline of fish population, or that overfishing has ever exsited. Perhaps the very reason why Tria Island's regulation did not forbid fishing was that the habitants merely fish. Thus, banning fishing would not solve any problem actually. Even I concede that overfishing does harm the living of fish, there are other equative elements which would lead to the same phenomenon as well. For instance, the global warming climate would make the animal, including fish obviously, escape(migrate) from their original habitat. In this hypothesis, the appropriate approach to this issue is not emending a local regulation but persuading the international cooperation.
Second, even if the banning of overfishing is beneficial to the Tria Island's ecosystem, adopting the Omin's regulation, which is advocated by the arguer, is inrational and sightless. To read the details of the Omni's regulation, one can find that while overfishing is forbidden, dumping or oil drilling is not so strictly conserved(restricted) as Tria Island's. It is possible that manufactures and residents in Tria Island are far more than those in Omni. Hence, unless the Tria Island's governer keep strainning the dumping of waste water, a even greater disaster may come to(befall on新概念上看的,不知对否?) the creature in the marine sancturary. Needless to say the other diffences in geography that the arguer neglect to tell us in the argument, adopting the same regulation in two different terrain would cause endless tragedy.
Finally, the arguer seems to forget the very purpose to set up the marine sancturary, which is to protect the certain marine mammals. So far as I know, some marine mammals is---delete live on small fish, thus the mammals we tend to protect is the real murders to those decreasing fish. In this premise, since we are set in those inoptional dillema, the proper action we should take to save the dying spices of marine wildlife, is to move a part of the mammals to another sancturary.
In sum, the aruger is rush to accuse the overfishing for decline, but(and?) not ever noticed other possible relevant reasons. In my opinion, since the decline is still covered, we should know more details.
dd 的思维就是好!! |
|