issue83 [kb9.11]第十一次作业

qiuzirumengUID: 199691

I agree with the speaker's assertion insofar as wilderness areas play a significant role in our ecosystem and thus deserve be paid a lot of attention to ensure its development. Nevertheless, the speaker oversimplifies protection and extends it to the extreme cases to where only few people could have access. I believe that preservation involves complex interrelation of human and nature and government should take responsibility to regulate rather than restrict the activity of citizens to affect the nature.

To begin with, the speaker stands on a reasonable side to emphasize the importance to preserve wilderness areas for government. Human activity, such as mining, oil drilling and logde grazing, has indeed ruined many wilderness areas in the name of pursuing economic margin. These activities overlook the ultimate economic benefit brought by wildness for over thousands years in human's history. Wild forests could store great amount of carbon which would otherwise release to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide- a gas which is notorious for "greens house" effect. Besides, it could also serve as a watershed to prevent large-scale flood into the river when heavy down pooling or snowfalls happen. Furthermore, it has significant scientific research value as benchmark to assess the impact of human beings’ activity in non-wildness areas. The survives and even thrives of these wilderness areas requires significant effort by government.

Notwithstanding the benefit brought by wilderness areas, the speaker's assertion seems to oversimplify the protection taken by government. Admittedly, it is entirely reasonable for government to limit the exploration and commerce activity for people, but it is not say that any people could not enjoy the clean air and green forest in the wilderness area.  After all, human come from the nature and thereby have an essential desire to embrace the pleasure from natural environment, especially considering the ever-increasing pressure from every day life. In some sense, opening some wilderness area to people with control by government could in fact inspire the desire of people to protect environment as the speaker's caring about.  Therefore, encouraging people to have certain recreation such as hiking, running in the remote wilderness area without negative impact is a good way to promote citizens’ realization of environment protection.

Another contention with the speaker's assertion involves the necessity for government to protect wilderness areas where few people have access to. From my perspective, government should begin with accessing the impact of these few people in such wilderness area. If these people are actively hunting a kind of animal which is facing of exists, certain protection must be taken to ensure the survival of this animal.  In contrast, if these people are just go there for fun, or these people are scientists who conduct there research, it might be totally a waste of money which could be used to address many pressing social problems such as hungry, unemployment and literacy. In some sense, restricting the interaction between human and natural is certain disturb to the equilibrium of natural development.

In sum, the preservation of wilderness areas involves complexity of interaction between human and natural. Oversimplifying this relation to entirely restriction is not responsible to either human or wilderness area. In the final analysis, I believe the government should realize this complexity and take action to ensure the harmonious development of human and its surrounding environment.

perfumedewUID: 2381489

I agree with the speaker's assertion insofar as wilderness areas play a significant role in our ecosystem and thus deserve be paid a lot of attention to ensure its development. Nevertheless, the speaker oversimplifies protection and extends it to the extreme cases to where only few people could have access. I believe that preservation involves complex interrelation of human and nature and government should take responsibility to regulate rather than restrict the activity of citizens to affect the nature.

To begin with(用admittedly似乎好些，表让步吗), the speaker stands on a reasonable side to emphasize the importance to preserve wilderness areas for government. Human activity, such as mining, oil drilling and logde grazing, has indeed ruined many wilderness areas in the name of pursuing economic margin. These activities overlook the ultimate economic benefit brought by wildness for over thousands years in human's history. Wild forests could store great amount of carbon which would otherwise release(be released) to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide- a gas which is notorious for "greens house" effect. Besides, it could also serve as a watershed to prevent large-scale flood into the river when heavy down pooling or snowfalls happen. Furthermore, it has significant scientific research value as benchmark to assess the impact of human beings’ activity in non-wildness areas. The survives(survivance) and even thrives (blossom, bloom, flourish, prosperity最好不要想当然的把动词当名词用阿)of these wilderness areas requires significant effort by government.

Notwithstanding the benefit brought by wilderness areas, the speaker's assertion seems to oversimplify the protection taken by government. Admittedly, it is entirely reasonable for government to limit the exploration and commerce activity for people, but it is not say that any people could not enjoy the clean air and green forest in the wilderness area.  After all, human come from the nature and thereby have an essential desire to embrace the pleasure from natural environment, especially considering the ever-increasing pressure from every day life. In some sense, opening some wilderness area to people with control by government could in fact inspire the desire of people to protect environment as the speaker's caring about.  Therefore, encouraging people to have certain recreation such as hiking, running in the remote wilderness area without negative impact is a good way to promote citizens’ realization of environment protection.

Another contention with the speaker's assertion involves the necessity for government to protect wilderness areas where few people have access to. From my perspective, government should begin with accessing the impact of these few people in such wilderness area. If these people are actively hunting a kind of animal which is facing of exists, certain protection must be taken to ensure the survival of this animal.  In contrast, if these people are just go there for fun, or these people are scientists who conduct there research, it might be totally a waste of money which could be used to address many pressing social problems such as hungry, unemployment and literacy(illiteracy). In some sense, restricting the interaction between human and natural is certain disturb to the equilibrium of natural development.

In sum, the preservation of wilderness areas involves complexity of interaction between human and natural. Oversimplifying this relation to entirely restriction is not responsible to either human or wilderness area. In the final analysis, I believe the government should realize this complexity and take action to ensure the harmonious development of human and its surrounding environment.

呵呵，感觉有些用词像北美
论证给我感觉有点像argue, 尤其正文第三段，好熟悉的感觉
继续加油吧，人只要付出就会有收获的