- UID
- 677080
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-9-28
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
67. Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
1. 应该尽力保护动物，因为有价值，有责任
2. 不能不惜一切代价保护动物，要量力而行
3. 不能无区别保护动物，应以实际情况出发，选择性保护
The protection of living species is a long-lasting topic for us human beings. Some people consider it worth paying anything to save any living things, no matter from what reasons, while some people believe that it is unreasonable for the whole society to make exorbitant efforts on this issue with respect to the titanic costs. I concede both of their opinions are worth thinking about carefully, but I tend to the latter standing more than the interior.
Now many living things have been extinct, and maybe many others are dying right at this moment. As many people consider, these endangers of animals and plants are partially or even mainly caused by our human activities, like the pollution we made, the excess hunting and other terrible deeds. Therefore, they suppose we humans bear a responsibility to compensate the faults we made before to protect and keep the other living things a better life, and surely it is correct. Other people may also consider that, as the superior species in the earth, we human beings should not only consider our own well-being but take care of other creatures as well, let alone the merits and values of the species diversity. These reasons are all fairly convincing, making the protection so urgent that any payments made is worthy.
Although it is generally true that we human beings should really act to guarantee a better life for other living creatures, it does not make sense that we should do anything without considering whether we can tolerate the cost or not. After all, some payment could be too large for us to bear, such as the well-being of people. Given a situation that the living zones of humans and of the animals are seriously overlapped, and we cannot co-exist with them, what should we do? Migrate our city to somewhere else? Regardless of the huge costs, this measure simply cannot make sense since there may be no more area suitable the settlement for people, let alone the splendid culture we created there. In this light, such expensive payments are simply too exorbitant for us, maybe fairly beyond our tolerance, and people should act based on their ability.
Moreover, not any living species are worth our protection, given the existence of the harmful ones. Issue like trespass of external species is always a horrible harm to the whole bio-system, making the protection to this species meaningless. Euphorbia follows, for example, in the grass field now spread in a fast speed, kill the animals eating it and deprive the nutrient of other plants for living. With respect to such harmful species, the blind protection is unreasonable.
In sum, despite the protection of species generally valuable, we should also make a case-by-case scrutiny on it in order to elude the unreasonable cases considering the payments on it, and the possible effects. The extreme goal for us, as Michael Jackson sings, is to achieve a better living place, and create a better day for all the living things.
(499---36min 改过) 以后要尽量把字数控制在500之内 |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-10-11 13:59:18
收藏
收藏
楼主
thank you~
