Issue83

bananatreeUID：208398

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.

正文：
Wilderness areas preservation has been a controversy for a long time. Whether government has the duty to preserve them is the focus of the controversy. The author suggests that the government should do this and I fundamentally agree with this view.

To begin with, it is common sense that wilderness areas are full of nature resource. Some of them are well known for their precious value, such as some plants which can cure certain disease. But some of them may not be found the potential value because of the limit of our humans' knowledge. So preserving wilderness areas can not only help us protect those precious species but also help us preserve these species from being extinct before we realize their values. Because these nature resources will be the wealth of the nation, the government will also could get benefit from preservation of the wilderness areas. Furthermore, in the long run, keeping the wilderness areas can maintain the balance of the nature. As we know, the biology in the world is interactive and correlated. The wilderness areas in a certain region will have contributions both to the local nature and to the nature of the entire world. For example, the ruin of the tropical rain forest of Africa affects the climate of the whole world. No matter to the local development or to the human beings' progress, the government should preserve the wilderness areas.

In addition, the government may be the most proper one to preserve the wilderness areas. Firstly, only the government has the right to ban these deeds which may bring some damages to the wilderness areas. For example, in order to preserve some extinct animals, the government could announce these species are the national animals so any hunting deeds are illegal. Similarly the government could ban the deforestation so as to protect the forests—the lung of the earth. Secondly, the government also has the power to appeal to the public to preserve wilderness areas. The government can arouse the notion of preserving wilderness areas of the public so that everyone can make some contributions to the preserving of the wilderness areas. Thirdly, besides the government few of the groups or individuals have enough funds to do this. Because it is a program that will cost much money but receive little, many groups or individuals either have no enough money or have no interest in such a poor-profitable program. So due to the above reasons, the government is the best one to play the role of preserving the wilderness areas.

Admittedly, there are also many difficulties for the government to take message to preserve the wilderness areas. The most serious ones might be the conflict with the need of the economic development. If we want to preserve the wilderness areas, the forest cutting and the animal hunting will be banned. So the income from the woods and the animal trading will decrease. But the government can take other message to make remedy, such as the environmental tourism, especially in the areas which is extremely remote, because the environmental tourism can help the economy progress so as to better protect the environment.

To sum up, the wilderness areas should be preserved no matter for our own benefit or the benefit of the whole world. The government has the duty to play the key role in the program.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-31 at 22:39 ]