issue 31--拯救濒危动物？ 让拍来得更猛烈一点吧！！

queenie0126

31.Society should make efforts to save the endangered species only if thepotential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.


My outline:
观点：反对
1.      很难确切地区分哪些物种的灭绝是该归罪于人类活动的，因此只拯救该类物种也就无从谈起了
2.      生物链是精确而复杂的；有些物种的灭绝即使不是由于人类的干扰，它们的消失也会引起灾难性的连锁反应，从而对整个生态环境造成损失
3.      但是，在保护濒危动物的时候，我们不应不加选择、一味保护


The speaker asserts that if the extinctionof some species is due to the activities of human being, our society shouldtake actions to protect them and try to pull them back from the endangeredlist; meanwhile, the speaker also implies that if the extinction is not thefault of human, we then should ignore it and let the destiny of those speciesto the nature's decision. In my point of view, however, this assertion isunadvisable. In another word, I disagree with the author’s claim. The followingreasons can explain my disagreement.


 Thefirst reason for my opinion is that, no one, even if the scholar or erudite,has the capacity or  the right to decidewhich result is due to the activity of human being and which is not.Environment, or to be more accurate, the ecosphere, is an unimaginably complexand organic whole system. Any tiny change can make a difference to faraway. Wedo not need to go further to have an effective example: the famous ButterflyEffect can prove my point perfectly. Just as the Effect reveals, the flutteringof a butterfly's wings in America can cause a storm in Pacific; analogously,for instance, if a worker cut down a tree in Amazon, some migrating birds fromArctic may lose their summer habitat, and unfortunately, they are the only onesof this flock. Years later, researchers are unable to find these birds anymore, and thus claim pitifully that this species are extinct. This chaineffects show no hint of interference of human activity, but can we gainsay the disturbanceform us? And thus, how can we save those endangered species whose extinction isattributed to our behaviors, if according to the speaker?


Secondly, the food chain in nature surroundings is sophisticated, andeven if the extinction of a certain species is not the fault of humanactivities--if scholars have evidence to say for sure, its dying out may causean incredible disastrous lose to the whole environment. For example, theextinction of a pest (God bless the farmers!) can result in the dearth of foodfor fogs in this region, and then the eagles who mainly prey on these fogs,etc. As a result, several species get extinct. Isn't it a reason strong enoughfor human being to protect the species that do not get access to any interferencefrom us human being but are still endangered?


 However, when we are trying to make efforts to rescue endangeredspecies, we shall not protect them all without selection. The reasons why Igive this suggestion are as following. Firstly, the rescuing of some speciesmay be unaffordable, and secondly, if we are in this dilemma ofbankrupt-or-surrender, we may choose other species which are easier and moreemergent for saving.


 Tosum, it is unadvisable to make efforts to save endangered species only if thepotential extinction of those species is the result of human activities,because it is not only difficult to distinguish clearly which are the errors ofus and which are not, but also unfair and unwise to ignore those whosedisappearances are not due to our behavior. But meanwhile, we should save themselectively.

普渡哥

感觉这篇偏题了，没有说到点子上

queenie0126

可以问下为什么吗？

竹林中人

In my point of view, however,为什么要用ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ呢，前面的ｉｎ　ｍｙ　ｐｏｉｎｔ　已经表明你开始表述自己的观点，而没必要再加一个ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ强调自己的看法跟前面不一样

竹林中人

另外，你中间的三个段落，明显呈递减趋势，这样不好，最好均衡点，或者你把第二段分成两段