- UID
- 679531
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-10-7
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and support your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implement the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position
The recommendation in the article asserts that it is necessary to pass a law to preserve the wildness, ignoring the possibly commercial profits in any case. It might be tempting to agree with the assertion on the view of ecology. However, the speaker fails to consider the local circumstances, and even overlooks the possibilities that the economic development and the wildness protecting are not contradictory.
The implicit rationale behind the speaker's statement seems to be that commercial development is the bane of the extinction of animals, and also the terrible environmental problems. Admittedly, the development of the wildness areas, actually damaged the balance of the nature. While developing the areas, humans, focusing on the economic values, fails to account for their natural or ecological values, which might influence much more profoundly. The law, being used to penalize the one who destroy the wildness, would more powerful than the moral eduction of preserving them.
On the other hand is a compelling argument that it is hasty to take the recommendation without considering the local circumstances, especially the economic one. Though for some countries such as American, the government have enough budget to preserve the wildness, the countries or provinces struggling against the starvations or poverties would take the economic development at the first place, while they could not afford the disbursement to preserve the remaining wildness at the same time. For instance, in southeast China, people who live in the deep mountain, would lose their jobs if hewing the trees in the forest is forbidden. In this condition, the law for preserving the wildness, would get a sort of contradictions , and even might not be passed in the certain areas.
Furthermore, rather than choose one side of the commercial and environmental values, we would likely prefer to get a eclectic way, which preserves the wildness and make the area profitable. Here comes a compelling example, the Yellowstone National Park. Established by the U.S. Congress and signed into law in 1872, Yellowstone, widely held to be the first national park in the world, is known for its wildlife and its many geothermal features. Since the mid-1960s, at least 2 million tourists have visited the park almost every year. Hundreds of employees work for Yellowstone National Park, managing hotels and also gas stations, stores and most of the campgrounds. In this case, preservation of the wildness could settles the problem of employment and propels the locally economic development, as well.
In final analysis, as we evaluate whether to develop the area of remaining wildness, we should include both the natural value and the economic analysis. A eclectic way, which get both sides of the values, would be the best solution, in my view.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-3-17 21:45:37
收藏
收藏
楼主
