ISSUE83 [Victors小组]第九次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

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: 600         TIME: 1:30:00         

Who should take the responsibility of environmental issues such as wilderness areas' preservation? Or what kinds of regions deserve more attention for maintenance? The speaker alleges that government should play an indispensable role in preserving wild lands, places far from personal life, in the natural state. I concede the author's merit of pursuing government access to deal this worldwide problem, however, more aggressive proposal including the whole biosphere, other than leaving those dysfunctional natural systems alone, should be carried out in an international level.

Admittedly, human activities, especially in years after Industrial Revolution, have put those wilderness areas at great stake and the only institution that could give a hand to rescue the nature is the government. Presidents of commercial corporations and manufactures care more about their annual sales records, other than what byproducts they might have produced, and whether wild lives have been disturbed by such activities. Although private organizations and foundations, such as 'GreenPeace Organization', have been standing at the front line of protecting environment for decades, they seem to be too feeble to addressing this global problem. Passionate protesting or even agitating expostulations could do little in achieving the purpose of preserving the nature. We've seen them constantly against whale hunting for years, but Japanese ships keep appearing in the area for whales, or never could those volunteers stop chasing ivory smugglers near the borderlines in Africa.

For the counterparts in government, they not only have the abilities to use different levels of social resources to restore the environment, but can process proposals for legislation to prevent further damages. More importantly, only through international governmental cooperation could human being make some progress in preventing further environmental deterioration. We all live in Earth valley sharing the same atmosphere and water system. No action against environment problems could be fully accomplished without international collaboration. That's the point for Kyoto Protocol and global efforts in controlling greenhouse gases production.

Nevertheless, simply stopping noxious human interference and leaving for the nature to deal with itself are far behind what should been done by governments. After years of overloading, the nature is losing its self-revision potential and more efforts are needed to the environment recovery. If Chinese government hasn't given a hand in preserving natural environment for bamboo growing in specific region in China, pandas would have already been on the list of extinct species. Or never should the reason of being the hinterland and little impacts on civilian's daily life overweigh the necessity for governments to keep an eye on the environmental issues. Any event happened on this planet closely relates to us. Melting of a corner of the iceburg in Arctic Ocean might make Maldives another legend of Atlantis, regression of glacial on Himalayas could be the boding of another drought in the Indochina region. For that matter, it is challenging for every government to hold a provident view while confronting with environmental problems. Aggressive attitudes towards environmental maintenance should be more preferred than those conservative ones.

In sum, government participation should be the optimal choice for human being in the combat with environment. The international society has already found the merit of pursuing governmental level cooperation to compensate our ancestor's misbehavior in destroying the Eden God bestowed us. Active human interference to the environment is better than nothing applied for preserving the endangered region. One small modification of our daily life, like abandoning the popularity of feather coats, might be a far-reaching inception of reversing the deterioration of the environment or a remarkable change in human history to make ourselves more compatible to the life system on this planet.

solartorchUID: 2244205

Who should take the responsibility of environmental issues such as wilderness areas' preservation? Or what kinds of regions deserve more attention for maintenance? 两个问句，body的两个大方向就很自然得出来了，不过第二个问句好像和body3说的不是一个意思？The speaker alleges that government should play an indispensable role in preserving wild lands, places far from personal life, in the natural state. I concede the author's merit of pursuing government access to deal this worldwide problem, however, more aggressive proposal including the whole biosphere, other than leaving those dysfunctional natural systems alone, should be carried out in an international level.

Admittedly, human activities, especially in years after Industrial Revolution, have put those wilderness areas at great stake and the only institution that could give a hand to rescue the nature is the government. Presidents of commercial corporations and manufactures care more about their annual sales records, other than what byproducts they might have produced, and whether wild lives have been disturbed by such activities. Although private organizations and foundations, such as 'GreenPeace Organization', have been standing at the front line of protecting environment for decades, they seem to be too feeble to addressing this global problem. Passionate protesting or even agitating expostulations could do little in achieving the purpose of preserving the nature. We've seen them constantly against whale hunting for years, but Japanese ships keep appearing in the area for whales, or never could those volunteers stop chasing ivory smugglers near the borderlines in Africa. 第一段写government在保护widerness areas时起的作用。不过关于hunting, 其实美国widerness area试允许hunting的，<open season>不知lz看过没有，其实那种地方就是wilderness area的典型，分时段允许打猎。不过我这样讲也许有点吹毛求疵了。楼主这段按正常思路来讲还是很convincing。

For the counterparts in government, they not only have the abilities to use different levels of social resources to restore the environment, but can process proposals for legislation to prevent further damages. More importantly, only through international governmental cooperation could human being make some progress in preventing further environmental deterioration. We all live in Earth valley sharing the same atmosphere and water system. No action against environment problems could be fully accomplished without international collaboration. That's the point for Kyoto Protocol and global efforts in controlling greenhouse gases production. 这段正面分析政府在保护环境方面的作用，不过会不会有点偏呢?题目只是说wilderness areas, 并没有涉及到整个环保，Kyoto Protocol是关于climate change的，控制CO2排放量更多是城市里面的问题了

Nevertheless, simply stopping noxious human interference and leaving for the nature to deal with itself are far behind what should been done by governments. After years of overloading, the nature is losing its self-revision potential and more efforts are needed to the environment recovery. If Chinese government hasn't given a hand in preserving natural environment for bamboo growing in specific region in China, pandas would have already been on the list of extinct species. Or never should the reason of being the hinterland and little impacts on civilian's daily life overweigh the necessity for governments to keep an eye on the environmental issues. Any event happened on this planet closely relates to us. Melting of a corner of the iceburg in Arctic Ocean might make Maldives another legend of Atlantis, regression of glacial on Himalayas could be the boding of another drought in the Indochina region. For that matter, it is challenging for every government to hold a provident view while confronting with environmental problems. Aggressive attitudes towards environmental maintenance should be more preferred than those conservative ones.呃，是不是我太狭隘?还是觉得这段放在任何一个有关环境保护的topic里面用都可以 。况且，是不是government对wilderness areas就是划一块地然后不管不问了呢？也不见得。

In sum, government participation should be the optimal choice for human being in the combat with environment. The international society has already found the merit of pursuing governmental level cooperation to compensate our ancestor's misbehavior in destroying the Eden God bestowed us. Active human interference to the environment is better than nothing applied for preserving the endangered region. One small modification of our daily life, like abandoning the popularity of feather coats, might be a far-reaching inception of reversing the deterioration of the environment or a remarkable change in human history to make ourselves more compatible to the life system on this planet.

我对这个题目的整体理解是，政府之所以要preserve wilderness areas,并不是因为环保的问题，而是人类对自然的干涉太多，所以需要wilderness areas这样一个相对排除了人类干扰的概念。同时，人类的impact也并不一定就是破坏环境的，比如说新加坡，花园城市，环保很好啊，可是什么都是造出来的，sentosa的沙子是运来的，changi airport填海的，这种人类的impact使得自然本身的面貌被掩盖了，而前由于人口增加，科技发展，如果不保护，更多的wilderness areas会留下人类的痕迹。这不是一个关于普通环保的题，不知道楼主怎么看？