Issue83 Thrive小组第5次作业

westwindyiUID: 2453478

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."

提纲：
1.       保持荒野的原始状态有助于维持生态平衡；
2.       但是，因为它们比较偏远，人类活动影响较小，所以政府不应该投入太多；
3.       政府应该关注其它更紧迫的社会问题。
      
Recently, the issue that whether government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state is fiercely debated. As the author asserts, government should take this responsibility even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people. In my opinion, these publicly owned wilderness areas do need to be protected; however, government should not devote too much into preserving these wilderness areas, they should focus on something more immediate because these publicly owned wilderness areas are extremely remote, and are not accessible to most of the people.

Admittedly, so important are they, there is no doubt that the government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are essential to maintain the balance of an ecosystem. And, to preserve the wilderness areas is also a mean to protect the environment that human being are living in. Since the unbalanced ecosystem becomes to threaten the survival of human being, government should take certain restrictions to protect the ecosystem.

However, there is also no need to devote too much to preserve these publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, since, as the author asserts, these areas are always extremely remote and they are not accessible to most of the people. In other words, it is because these wilderness areas are extremely remote, that the influence of human being activity is rare. It is entirely possible that there would be few people in these wilderness areas for years, to say nothing of the harm that comes from human being. Therefore, there is no need to take certain restrictions to protect these areas. The web of life there can take good care of itself if there is no human interference.

Further more, extremely remote as they are, only few people will benefit directly from the devotion of the government or there would be a long time before the effect of the preservation starts, so the government should focus on more immediate issues. The responsibility of the government is to enhance the well-being of its people. While there are so many social problems, such as unemployment, crime, poverty, and so forth, urging to be settled down, it is not the proper time to cost too much money on such kind of long-term projects.

In sum, on one hand, the wilderness areas are essential to human being and need to be protected; on the other hand, these areas are always extremely far away from the habitat of human being and thus not accessible to most of people, and considering the immediate social problems, it is true that the government should not cost too much on this issue. Thus, a balance is needed.

[ 本帖最后由 westwindyi 于 2008-2-14 18:58 编辑 ]

z12y12l12UID: 2452277

Recently, the issue thatwhether government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas intheir natural state is fiercely debated. As the author asserts,government should take this responsibility even though these areas areoften extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people. In myopinion, these publicly owned wilderness areas do need to be protected;however, government should not devote too much into preserving thesewilderness areas, they should focus on something more immediate becausethese publicly owned wilderness areas are extremely remote, and are notaccessible to most of the people.

Admittedly, so importantare they(个人感觉没事不要用倒装), there is no doubt that the government should preservepublicly owned wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are essential tomaintain the balance of an ecosystem. And(我觉得逻辑上thus更好), to preserve the wildernessareas is also a mean to protect the environment that human being areliving in. Since the unbalanced ecosystem becomes to threaten thesurvival of human being, government should take certain restrictions toprotect the ecosystem.(感觉逻辑上可以再提炼一下，preserve area->protect ecosystem->benefit f)

However, there is also(删) noneed to devote too much to preserve these publicly owned wildernessareas in their natural state, since, as the author asserts, (some of) these areasare always extremely remote and they are not accessible to most of thepeople. In other words, it is because these wilderness areas areextremely remote, that the influence of human being activity is rare.It is entirely possible that there would be few people in thesewilderness areas for years, to say nothing of the harm that comes fromhuman being. Therefore, there is no need to take certain restrictionsto protect these areas. The web of life there can take good care ofitself if there is no human interference.(最后这一句没看懂...就那个the web of life...最好查一查有没有这么个用法)

Further more, extremelyremote as they are, only few people will benefit directly from thedevotion of the government or there would be a long time before theeffect of the preservation starts, so the government should focus onmore immediate issues.(这句逻辑有些混乱，我感觉是先remote,另外由于long time，因此few people benefit，从而government focus) The responsibility of the government is toenhance the well-being of its people. While there are so many socialproblems, such as unemployment, crime, poverty, and so forth, urging tobe settled down, it is not the proper time to cost too much money onsuch kind of long-term projects.

In sum, on one hand, thewilderness areas are essential to human being and need to be protected;on the other hand, these areas are always extremely far away from thehabitat of human being and thus not accessible to most of people, andconsidering the immediate social problems, it is true that thegovernment should not cost too much on this issue. Thus, a balance isneeded.

(谈一下感觉，就是整篇文章比较空洞，每个点都没深入...如果能深入的话就很好了~)