issue 10 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 the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
My response
Some environmentalist may want nations pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state. One reason of their idea comes from their wish to keep the beautiful land views, green forests, clean rivers to our descendants. I think it is our obligation to preserve the homeland as harmonious and vivid as we are living now. But I can only partially agree with this claim.
Admittedly, passing law will force people out of the wilderness areas and thus may benefit the inhabitants living there especially if there are a restrictive number of precious species. A good example comes when China has done this successfully to circumscribe the north mountain areas as depopulated zone where pandas living by legislating a law that forbid people out. By precluding people's feet from this wilderness area, China keep the number of panda from dropping and make it possible to preserve this cute animal.
However, it cannot always be more benefit than harmful when passing laws to protect the areas for some specific reasons. First of all, this claim of passing laws to preserve wildness areas depends much on an assumption that these areas are remote from population's range of activity. But this assumption may be only true for right now while not in the near future with the great rapid development of human society. If the areas turn to be in a significant position in transportation pathway, it will be unpractical and unwise to forbid people's activity there. Once simple instance is that if we want to build railway of which some routes will across the wild area but laws compulsorily preclude any affairs may happen there. Then the railway company would have to build alternative rails steer around the area. Every time when a train wants get through this area will lead to extra fuel consuming than its necessity if go directly across, and let alone the expanse cost when building the extra rails. This instance of wasting more fuels and materials only satirize the environmentalist's original purpose of being friendly to the nature.
Moreover, the issue of safety of people living nearby the wilderness areas will be crucial especially when there are kinds of dangerous animals living in the wilderness area like bears, wolves, and so on. Take again the example of China's panda living area protecting. It was reported lastly that a panda came down from the mountain to the village near the protected area and hurt two farmers. Laws are compulsory but only applicable by forcing people's foot from the wild area while they can never be equally powerful to the animals. Sometime it may be irresponsible to the people near the area if we only pass laws of forbidding people's activities, and let alone the economic issue when people, like those in China's panda mountains, living there are poor and mostly feed on the mountains or other life materials from the wilderness.
Actually, from my perspectives, people should make various kinds of efforts to protect these precious wildness areas instead of only passing simple and stubborn laws. As far as I am concerned, there are many non-government organizations are trying new solutions to protect environment and species in danger. Like FN, short for friend to nature, are devoting themselves on researches of which the purposes are figure out the factors affecting the areas of green forest land in high altitude areas. Their study result will be of great significance if we know exactly what is inferring mostly to the growth of forest and further purposefully devote to modify the risk factors. This will be more scientific and efficient rather than sample passing law and forbidding people's activities.
In the final analysis, human as the master of the natural world should take advantages of our technological advancement into the natural affairs to protect these precious areas more efficiently.
I think you should try to express more as to why you agree/disagree with the given statement. You had full discussions but failed to show what your stand were clearly. I know it can be concluded if read as a whole but having at least a single statement indicating your stand will go a long way.
Overall, it was good.
Cheers!
Dear ETS2K, thanks for your appraisal, your suggestions are useful to improve my essay, I appreciate it!
I would like to add the following sentence to the end of the 1st para: "nations should pass laws to preserve wilderness areas, but should also take the areas' economics and development into consideration. Moreover, nations should take advantage of comprehensive solutions, rather than simply passing laws, to preserve the wilderness." Will these be helpful to show what I stand?
