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.
Totally I agree with the statement, for the value of governmental protection of wilderness areas in natural state outweighing the relevant costs in a great extent, even if the areas are now extremely remote and accessible to only a few.
First of all, the essence and necessity of protecting the publicly owned wilderness areas are well known and commonly recognized nowadays, for the following reasons. In one respect, the wilderness areas are so valuable for their biological resources and the natural situation which are not yet influenced by human activities. They are pristine, original and natural, remaining in the unaffected condition, which means great potential for human research and exploration in the future. This is why scientists are always so excited to find a uncivilized place: to explore and look for new findings. In the other aspect, the remote wilderness areas often play such a vital role in biological balance that they deserve the great investment for protection from government. Just think of the tropical rain forests in Amazon and glaciers in Himalayas. Protection of these wilderness areas not only rewards the very nation which owned them, but also the whole world and population as well, for the priceless specific biological resources and irreplaceable biological functions in global balance.
What's more, to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas in natural state is not only wise, but also the only reasonable choice for government. Because of the great importance and value of the areas, and also because of the great fragility of these areas, it is best for people in this age to preserve them instead of exploit them. As now we are not so developed to make sure the exploitation could not cause irreparable damage and loss, with modern technology and equipment. If we preserve now and wait till the future when we are equipped with advanced enough knowledge and technology to make full use of the wilderness areas and never damage their biological balance and functions, people can better enjoy the benefits, lastingly and effectively. There is a negative example to corroborate this point: in southeast China, there are many wild offshore islands; last decade people began to exploit some of them in such a destructive way that the environment and biological resources were impaired almost completely. The islands suffered from quarrying and grazing so severely that they can hardly be exploited today. It is a great waste of the great nature legacy, which our ancestors handed down to us, yet we squandered them, left little to our children.
Last but not least, these wilderness areas, even if now remote and hardly accessible, could be more approachable to future generations with the development of technology and economy. At that time, the well-preserved wilderness areas will present our offspring great value, in many ways--value in research, business exploitation, and public welfare and so on. Just like the national parks in America. Thanks to PresidentTheodore Roosevelt, the establishment of national parks now provides public an excellent access to beautiful nature for recreation and provides today's scientists worthy chances to study the particular organisms and biological environment in these parks. In this way, the visionary protection make it possible for people nowadays to better recognize and understand the great value of the once-remote wilderness areas.
Therefor, based on the analysis above, I think it is safe to reach the conclusion that government should, and perhaps must, undertake the obligation of preserving publicly owned wilderness areas in natural state--the investment is not only necessary, but also profitable in a long-term view.
|GRE 应考班||310-320分||强化训练 短期提高||报名|