issue83 【勇往直前】

nornsUID：2325187

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: 523          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-8-9 11:10:48

Someone says that the wilderness areas which is of great value and importance should be preserved, despite that sometimes they are remote and hard to access. I largely agree, most of the time we should preserve them, only in rare conditions, can we not do so.

First of all, preservation of these lands is of importance. Although they seem to have little to do with our daily life, they might be very closely relevant to man kind's survival. For example, the forest in Amazon. Although they seem so far always from our country, . As is called the lung of the earth, they absorb carbon dioxide and provide oxygen. In this way they keep a balance in the conditions of the air, which is of vital importance for our living. Unluckily, not until the deforestation is so severe that the function of these forests is seriously impeded do we really pay attention to it. But when we really notice it, owing to the lack of preservation before, it might be a little late-a phenomenon called warm house effect has already come into our eyes. Caused by the rise of carbon dioxide to some extent, the global warming has raised series problems, like the melting of the polar ice and the rise of the surface of ocean. If, let us assume, we had pay enough attention to these wildernesses early enough, the forest would function well so that the warm house effect might have no chance to happen. So, the preservation of the wildness is quite important and should be paid enough attention to.

What's more, the preservation of these lands is the duty of government. As we know, communities and individuals are driven by their own benefits largely, so they might ignore the importance of wilderness and even sometimes destroy it for fortune. For example, hunters in China often kill Tibetan antelope for its fur and bones, they do not know or do not care at all that they are destroying ecologic state. These people are surely to blame. But if we think more deeply, it is somewhat understandable-if a man is fully driven by money, can you image that he would care the common treasure of the man kind? No, because the nature of individuals and certain communities would decide that they might act according to their interests and harm these wilderness. In this condition, the government, which is known as of power and control, can use his power to rule all these people efficaciously,

But there are several exceptions, sometimes people of a nation are suffering poverty and starvation, we have no reason to blame these people for the destruction of wilderness. Again let us come back to the example of deforestation of Amazon. When we are blame them for their stupid deeds, they might be thinking: cut down two more trees and I might earn enough money for a meal. In this case they might have no other to care the preservation of wilderness.

In sum, in most cases, I believe the preservation is a duty of the government. Only in rare cases, when the basic need of a nation is not fully meet, can the government put aside the benefits of wilderness first.

zhangjing106UID：2157010

主要是同意观点，提反的部分有些弱。