issue83 留链互拍

zyczuccgreUID: 2427194

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."

The speaker asserts that publicly owned wilderness areas in the natural state should be preserved by the government. It has merit from a normative standpoint, and I agree that it is necessary for government to take certain actions to preserve the wilderness areas. However, the statement is indefensible and in my view government should also choose the right decisions when protection of the wilderness areas conflict with the national policies.

One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that government preserves publicly owned wilderness areas could ensure the diversity of species. The wilderness areas include various kinds of animals and plants which are essential for the whole human being. Since only their coexistence with us make this world richer and more colorful. Take the Yellowstone natural park for example; the park is one of the most popular national parks in the United States. It is derived from an ancient and extremely violent volcano and is known for its wild life and geothermal features, especially Old Faithful Geyser. Hundreds of species of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles herd been documented, including several that are neither endanger or threaded. In short, without the preservation of the government, the wilderness areas would be remains rather than the home of all kinds of species.

Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that the destruction of even a remote area could result in unforeseeable effects on the larger environment. Since the fast pacing development, the population in nowadays society is increasing at a breakneck speed. The people have to live in a choky life style and more narrow space. This is why people have to expand and exploit new land to utilize. They cut the world’s rainforests, destroy numerous important food chains among countless species and also ruined their inhabitancies. These violent activities lead to terrible tragedies, such as cyclone, flood and landslide around the world. The largest Yangtze River flood happened in 1997 could be the best example to prove this point. This is a matter of death and life- a matter no country can afford to overlook.

Beyond this concession, however, I disagree with the statement because it seems to encourage the government to focus on the wilderness areas rather than the national policies. The government’s goal is to strengthen the whole nation, provide well-being for the people of the whole society. For example, if a nation is experienced destructive warfare, the people suffer from starvation and panic, or even their lives are under dangerous. The task of the government is to suppress the war and rebuilt the home, instead of investing money to protect the wilderness areas. While such cases are rare, they do occur occasionally. Indisputably, when the government faces with a problem that associated with the national fate, the government should consider the benefit of the country at first.

In sum, I concede that certain effort should to preserve the wilderness fields. Nonetheless, the speaker’s claim overstates the importance of preservation of the wilderness fields. In final analysis, the optional approach, in my view, is a balance one that the government should pay certain attention to preserve the wilderness areas, at the same time, should ensure the benefits of the whole society.