- 最后登录
- 2013-5-16
- 在线时间
- 146 小时
- 寄托币
- 1093
- 声望
- 8
- 注册时间
- 2007-9-21
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 159
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 977
- UID
- 2402936
- 声望
- 8
- 寄托币
- 1093
- 注册时间
- 2007-9-21
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 159
|
2011年1月27日 周四:- {' p# H* z9 {* W+ N) E
独立:
09.6.270 g! s0 T+ h/ T
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The government should support scientific researches even though there is no practical use?
There is permanent debate as to the matter that whether government should support scientific researches even though there is no practical use. It is tempting to say that if scientific researches have no practical value, government should not fund them at all. However, I would agree that even though some scientific researches are of no use, they should be supported as well.
Admittedly, especially taking the limit resources available in our nation into consideration, government has lots of other matters to take care, such as improving the environment, protecting animals from extinction, improving the rate of employment and so on, which require lots of money from government. Nobody should deny that these matters are more emergent than scientific researches, however, it doesn’t necessarily mean that scientific researches that have little or no practical value shouldn’t be supported. The value should not be judged merely by whether it is practical or not, in fact, scientific researches have more potential values in the long term.
Everybody will never forget the great discovery given by Copernicus that the sun is the center of the universe, rather than the earth. It brought revolutionary changes of people’s mind toward the world. Now let’s check this scientific discovery, is it useful or practical? Of course not. Nobody’s daily life would be influenced by this great discovery, however, it was so crucial in the aspect of changing people’s mind and stimulating the progress in the field of astronomy. Great scientific researches, without changing people’s daily life, would instead change our way of life gradually, even without noticing. We can find that the mind modern people have changes significantly with mind of ancient people, and it is the scientific researches that are responsible for the changes.
Besides, it is not easy to see whether one scientific research is practical or not. As the whole society changes, those researches that were not useful at all would become practical in the future. History is replete with examples to support my statement. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest physical scientists in the world, was famous for his theory of relativity. However, when the theory was first introduced, nobody would able to imagine how great it is today. However, now people could make use of this theory to explain atmosphere that cannot be explained before. In another word, as time goes, researches that were once thought to be useless would turn out to be practical.
Last but not least, scientific researches could be a sign for the strength of a nation. The obvious example would be projecting satellite. As everyone knows, projecting satellites into universe is of no use, and we cannot become richer by doing this, however, our nation injects large amount of money and preeminent scientists to the study of this field, why? Just because projecting satellites is a sign for the strength of a whole nation. It represents the level of scientific research and ability to explore new things autonomously.
All in all, it is attempting to say that as long as there are more other matters that government has to deal with, scientific researches of no use could be omitted. However, the value should not be judged merely by whether it is practical or not, there are more aspects that we have to take into consideration. Scientific researches, especially those great ones, would change people’s view toward the world, they would turn out to be useful in the future, and they are one aspect that could prove the strength of a nation.
TPO17综合作文
In the lecture, the professor claims that the information provided in the reading material is unconvincing. She gives three reasons to support her idea.
First, it is true that as human populations and settlements continue to expand, more bird's habitats give way to homes and malls and so on. However, urban provides better and larger areas for some birds, and the population of birds grows after human's settlement. There is no uniform declination of bird's population, although populations of some birds decline while other species of birds have more populations.
Second, although agricultural activities increase as human population grows, the pace of growth in agriculture is not as soon as mentioned in the reading. In fact there are fewer lands used for agriculture. One of the reasons for the slow growth is the emergence of more productive crops, which can provide more food for humans, so they don't need to take wild areas, which are bird's natural habitats.
Third, admittedly, the use of chemical pesticides increases as human settlements expanded and agriculture increase, however, people are more aware of the possible consequence of using pesticides, so they make two changes. The first one is to develop new pesticides; the second one is the invention of pest-resist crops. This new kind of crops is not attractive to pests so no pesticides will be used, as a result, there will be no harm to birds at all.
In conclusion, although in the reading material, the author argues that with the steady growth of human population and the increase in agriculture and pesticide, wild lands which are natural habitats for birds would be destroyed and the population of birds would decline correspondingly, the professor casts doubt on the statements in the lecture. She illustrates her opinions by giving three reasons which are contradictory with messages given in the reading. |
|