Issue83 兄弟姐妹们,互拍!请留连接

lilian1904UID: 179160

Issue83: 421 words  
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.

Should government preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state? Should the areas that are extremely remote and accessible to only a few people also be on the preserving list? As far as I am concerned, government should selectively preserve those areas, considering other aspects of a state.

To begin with, it is government's responsibility to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas, even when they are extremely remote and accessible to only a few people. For one thing, the biosystem in the wilderness areas connect with the country even with the earth as a whole. They may effect the weather in a country or in a field. For example, the tropic forest help to maintain the moisture in the air, and the kunlun maintain shields the cold wind blowing from the west. If those areas is destroyed without the preservation, the weather would change a lot and then may lead to declination of a series of plants or animals. For another, in developed places, human beings destroy biosystem a lot, thus only in those wild areas can we see some extinct plants and animals. If the government do not preserve them, the species of plants and animals will be less and less. Admittedly, preserving those areas will take government a large amount of money and they will gain few obvious benefits. However, besides the government, who else will have the interest and the ability to preserve those areas?

Although it is government's responsibility to preserve the wild areas, the government should preserve them selectively. Because the function of government consist with many aspects, including economic adjustment, keeping the state stable, military affairs, science research assistance and other public enterprise, it is not wise to put too much money on this point. For example, in the economic depression, government should take money to maintain the stableness of the market. Also, improving weapons need the government's help. Meanwhile, without the government's assistance the science research could hardly go further. Moreover, improving the city environment and pollution still call for the money. Government should balance the weight of preserving the wild areas and that of its other public functions to make the best use of the money.

All in all, since biosystem in the wild areas effects many aspect of the country or a state as a whole, government can not put it aside, even though only few people access them directly. At the same time, government should consider other aspects of its public functions to maintain the best environment both healthy and stable .

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-20 at 12:26 ]

nksisiUID: 2101023

很有启发，这个题我想了两天了，也没什么想法
^_^
不过我觉得你的第三段和题目关系不大啊，不是要讨论政府的责任吧？