Issue83

htpengUID: 2115584

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.


The speaker emphasizes the importance of the preservation of publicly owned wilderness areas even though they are far to reach for the most. I fundamentally agree with the speaker.

First of all, to preserve the publicly owned wilderness is important to maintain the environment. In the modern society, with the development of industry, more and more forests are destroyed; with the increasing demand for milk and wool, more and more grasslands are also destroyed. As a result of this, the greenhouse effect occurs and the increasing temperature of the earth has drawn many scientists' attention. In order to prevent the deterioration of the situation, government should preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas and leave them in their nature state. From the economic perspective, save these wilderness areas can make great profit by reducing the investment in improve our environment.

Moreover, to preserve the publicly is necessary to maintain the ecology balance and preserve more species. As scientists told us, when cities are growing up, the species once lives there may move out or be extinct as a result of pollution. In such way, human beings have lost a lot of resources which may other benefit people. It is told by biologists that new drugs may be made from these extinct species or some of them may have some useful genes.  When the ecology is demolished to a certain extent, nature begins to revenge us. Flood, drought and the like come immediately to mind. So if government wants to leave a better world to the offspring, keeping publicly owned wilderness areas is undoubtedly a good way.

Even these areas may extremely remote, they still have education and science meanings. Though only a few people can access there, they can enjoy the nature and know its value. By realizing this, they will publicize the importance of preservation of the nature by their own experience. And also professional camerists may go there to show the beautiful side of nature to the audiences by recording the wonderful moment. In such way the view of preserving the nature is propagandized. When it comes to science, biologists and ecologists may come to these wilderness areas to investigate the behavior, habit, social system of the animals or even do some microcosmic research. By doing these, our scientists can know more about the nature and then make use of them to make our lives better.

In the final analysis, to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in the natural state is fundamentally right. From the comprehensive analysis above, we know that preservation of these natural areas contributes a lot to environment and ecology. On the other hand, they are tools for propagandize the importance of protect the environment and offer investigation materials to scientists. In sum, to preserve these natural lands can benefit human beings.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-18 at 23:12 ]

OB叔UID: 188695

占座先

OB叔UID: 188695

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.


The speaker emphasizes the importance of the preservation of publicly owned wilderness areas even though they are far to reach for the most. I fundamentally agree with the speaker.

First of all, to preserve the publicly owned wilderness is important to maintain the environment. In the modern society, with the development of industry, more and more forests are destroyed; with the increasing demand for milk and wool, more and more grasslands are also destroyed【disappeared】. As a result of this, the greenhouse effect occurs and the increasing temperature of the earth has drawn many scientists' attention. In order to prevent the deterioration of the situation, government should preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas and leave them in their nature state. From the economic perspective, save these wilderness areas can make great profit by reducing the investment in improve our environment.【语言很流畅。逻辑上有一下问题：1。保护荒地一般情况下是很耗钱的，而非有利可图 2。举例后的分析还略现单薄。总体而言不错】

Moreover, to preserve the publicly is necessary to maintain the ecology balance and preserve more species. As scientists told us, when cities are growing up, the species once lives there may move out or be extinct as a result of pollution. In such way, human beings have lost a lot of resources which may other benefit people. It is told by biologists that new drugs may be made from these extinct species or some of them may have some useful genes.  When the ecology is demolished to a certain extent, nature begins to revenge us. Flood, drought and the like come immediately to mind. So if government wants to leave a better world to the offspring, keeping publicly owned wilderness areas is undoubtedly a good way.

Even these areas may extremely remote, they still have education and science meanings. Though only a few people can access there, they can enjoy the nature and know its value. By realizing this, they will publicize the importance of preservation of the nature by their own experience. And also professional camerists may go there to show the beautiful side of nature to the audiences by recording the wonderful moment. In such way the view of preserving the nature is propagandized. When it comes to science, biologists and ecologists may come to these wilderness areas to investigate the behavior, habit, social system of the animals or even do some microcosmic research. By doing these, our scientists can know more about the nature and then make use of them to make our lives better.

In the final analysis, to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in the natural state is fundamentally right. From the comprehensive analysis above, we know that preservation of these natural areas contributes a lot to environment and ecology. On the other hand, they are tools for propagandize the importance of protect the environment and offer investigation materials to scientists. In sum, to preserve these natural lands can benefit human beings.

写的很不错。想提出几点思考：
1。保护荒地的成本和你所提到的好处相比，是否值得。
2。如果在一个练温饱都不能解决的国度里，去保护荒地是否很荒谬。
3。保护并非意味着绝对的“禁止开发”，在某种程度而言，开发，只要在一定的范围内也是很好的保护，一味的保留是不现实的，也很难做到

htpengUID: 2115584

感谢版主的修改,拓宽了我的思路:)