issue83 [Jet小组]第13次作业

sallytxhUID: 2360795

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."


I completely agree with the author’s assertion that government should preserve some publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural states, no matter what the publicly owned wilderness areas are often exceedingly remote and accessible to only a few people. Since the wilderness areas may be the habitat of some rare species, and may play a crucial role in the eco-balance of wider areas.

To begin with, there are various animals and plants living in the wilderness areas, which have important values for our life. In fact, many species are extinct mainly due to the changes of their living environment such as lack of the preys and air pollution, which, if we get down to the detail, are caused or accelerate by human behaviours to a great extent. For instance, air pollution becomes serious by the exhaust of the vehicles and factories. Thus, ozone hole absorbs harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sum and it bed for human healthy. Another example is that excessive hunting has a relation, more or less, between the lacks of preys for many species. Since every species has its own contribution to keeping the balance of ecosystem such as a kind of dung beetle. If the certain dung beetle is endangered, the meadow which plants a certain kind of grass in Australia will disappear because only this kind of dung beetle can treat with the problem of dejectas of animals. Therefore, government should preserve these areas.

Secondly, preserving some publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, to some extent, has a close relation the problem of human survival. For instance, Amazon tropical rain forests in Brazil, which are called  ”the lung of the earth”, produce twenty percent of oxygen we breathe every year. Without relative protection of the government, the precious tropical rain forests have reduced quickly. Though there are few people living there, even accessible to those areas, the government should still preserve the wilderness areas in their natural state for a large degree preserving ourselves.

On the other hand, if alterations of certain wilderness areas are beneficial to both environment and human society, the government certainly should not insist keeping natural state. The improvement such as transforming deserts into grassland making the bare mountain full of mountain plants and the like would definitely lead the earth a more suited place to live, both for human and other species. Under the circumstance, it is not only right but also necessary to alter the condition of some wilderness areas rather than keeping them in their natural states.

To sum up, sometimes government has responsibility selective preservation of the publicity owned land, for the species living there and for human being ourselves. We should do our utmost to preserve the natural areas that are vital to our environment and existence, and meanwhile remodel the wilderness areas that are harmful for the live of creatures in the Earth.