issue83

keeyangUID：2120118

The speaker asserts that government should preserve publicly owned wildness areas in their natural state despite their remoteness and scanty of human activities. I agree that government should take actions to protect the publicly owned wildness areas. However, I think that to preserve them in their natural state is not practical or economical.  As we all know, the chief function of government is to protect its people's interest, both short-term and long-term. So in the standpoint of government, the extreme statement of preserving wildness areas in their natural state should yield to a more practical and constructive consideration-that is to establish a harmonious coexisting relationship between people and the wildness areas.

For the long-term interest, government should protect the wildness areas because wildness areas play a vital role in the ecological system. Forests can regulate climate, restore water and produce oxygen; wetland is a natural habitat of many spices. Once wildness areas are irreversibly destroyed, it will greatly harm our interest, and even endanger our survival. Today we are facing with severe environmental problem, such desertification, global temperature warming, shortage of clear water and food and so on. But because the social development needs large amount of natural resources and land, the remaining wildness areas are in danger. If government neglects its responsibility for protecting wildness areas, they doom to disappear.   

However, to protect wildness land does not mean keeping them in their natural state. Firstly, It is unrealistic. Motivated both by curiosity and cupidity for wealth, people have extended their activity realm into every corner of the earth during past hundreds of years. And today, human activities affect wildness areas more significantly, though perhaps usually in an indirect way. For example, certain chemical material produced in large cities are destroying primeval forests in USA and Canada though none have ever entered these forests. And as a result there no longer are any wildness areas in their original state.      

Secondly, to preserve wildness areas is not economical. Since our ancestor hunted the first animal for food, we human beings have been living by acquiring various resources from the nature. Today, because of the social development and the pressure of increasing population, we become more dependent on wildness areas. As we all know, primeval rainforest in South America is being destroyed by local residents. When a reporter asked:" Don't you know the consequences if the rainforest disappear tomorrow?" A local resident answered:" Yes, we do. But tell me, if I don't cut down these trees, where is my food for tonight?" Thus, even if the proposal of sacrificing the social development to preserve wildness areas in their natural state is acceptable, it is inhuman to separate those, whose survival depend on wildness areas, from wildness areas in the name of environment protection.      

Therefore, government should protect the wildness areas in a way that not only protect the wildness areas, but also is conducive to our present survival and future development The key is establish a harmonious coexisting relationship between people and the wildness areas. According to the specific condition of different wildness areas, there can be different developing measures. For example, some wild areas can be developed for tourism; some can be designated to cultivate extinct plantation and animal.

To sum up, to protect wildness areas is necessary for the long-term interest; However, in order to promote our present develop and survival, the government take its responsibility for make good use of wildness areas, instead of preserving them in their natural state.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-3 at 00:36 ]

dennyaimarUID：191857

晚点帮你改
另外我的83链接:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=309530

dennyaimarUID：191857

Issue 83

The speaker asserts that government should preserve publicly owned wildness areas in their natural state despite their remoteness and scanty of human activities. I agree that government should take actions to protect the public owned wildness areas. However, I think（最好不要用think，以前我的外教提示要避免用I think） that to preserve them in their natural state is not practical or economical.  As we all know, the chief function of government is to protect its people's interest, both short-term and long-term. So in the standpoint of government, the extreme（Extreme means to the very furthest limit is extreme.这个地方用extreme不妥） statement of preserving wildness areas in their natural state should yield to a more practical and constructive consideration-that is to establish a harmonious coexisting relationship between human beings and the wildness areas.

For the long-term interest, government should protect them because these wildness areas play a vital role in the ecological system. Forests can regulate climate, restore water and produce oxygen; wetland is a natural habitat of many species. Once wildness areas are irreversibly destroyed, it will greatly harm our interest, and even endanger our survival. Today we are facing with去掉 severe environmental problem, such desertification, global temperature warming, shortage of clear water and food and so on. But because the social development needs large amount of natural resources and land, the remaining wildness areas are in danger.（觉得改成the maintenance of these undeveloped lands is in danger, 是这些地方的保存受到威胁而不是本生受到威胁，我这么感觉，不知道对不对。） If government neglects its responsibility for protecting wildness areas, they doom to disappear.   

However, to protect wildness land does not mean keeping them in their natural state. Firstly, it is unrealistic. Motivated both by curiosity and cupidity for wealth, people have extended their activity realm into every corner of the earth during past hundreds of years. And today, human activities affect wildness areas more significantly, though perhaps usually in an indirect way. For example, certain chemical materials produced in large cities are destroying primeval forests in USA and Canada though none have ever entered these forests.（这句写的不好，应该不是materials，用waste好些，还有none指代的是什么？如果指人应该改成no one，用none有歧义） And as a result there are no longer any wildness areas in their original state.      

Secondly, to preserve wildness areas is not economical. Since our ancestor hunted the first animal for food, we human beings have been living by acquiring various resources from the nature. Today, because of the social development and the pressure of increasing population, we become more dependent on wildness areas. As we all know, primeval rainforest in South America is being destroyed by local residents. When a reporter asked:" Don't you know the consequences if the rainforest disappear tomorrow?" A local resident answered:" Yes, we do. But tell me, if I don't cut down these trees, where is my food for tonight?" Thus, even if the proposal of sacrificing the social development to preserve wildness areas in their natural state is acceptable, it is inhuman to separate those, whose survival depend on wildness areas, from wildness areas in the name of environment protection.   
这段的例子用的不错

Therefore, government should protect the wildness areas in a way that not only protect the wildness areas, but also is conducive to our present survival and future development The key is establish a harmonious coexisting relationship between people and the wildness areas. According to the specific condition of different wildness areas, there can be different developing measures. For example, some wild areas can be developed for tourism; some can be designated to cultivate extinct plantation and animal.
文章的重点应该放在这里，应该多费些笔墨论述harmonious是如何实现的To sum up, to protect wildness areas is necessary for the long-term interest; However, in order to promote our present develop and survival, the government take its responsibility for make good use of wildness areas, instead of preserving them in their natural state.

全文比较流畅，句式的变化不错，如果限时能写成这样很不错了，错误不是太多。
我觉得应该先定好文章的重点放在什么地方，多用写功夫，其他的点可以稍微略写
很佩服你的水平了呵呵