wangjy10
Jul 21, 2012
Writing Feedback / 'a balance between the environment and the economy'- GRE Issue 10 [3]
Thanks a lot for your reply:)
Thanks a lot for your reply:)
wangjy10
Jul 21, 2012
Writing Feedback / 'a balance between the environment and the economy'- GRE Issue 10 [3]
Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state.
In the era of rapid change, forests of high rises are being built up, artificial lakes and lawns appear in big cities all around the world, whereas the area of rainforest, wild lakes and grassland are in a dramatically decline. It is sure that the development of human culture makes the earth suffer, and the protection of wilderness areas is urgent.
But, the statement that nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state regardless of their economic value is too absolute. First of all, we should consider the whole balance of environment and the country's economic situation. If the country is affluent enough and most of its people are living a high standard lives, then passing laws to preserve remaining wilderness areas would be a pleasure to do. In fact, it will only bring more satisfaction and happiness to the people since their living environment can be improved by enacting these laws.
However, consider that the country we are discussing about is a developing country in Africa, who has ample resource and poverty at the same time. Then such environment-protecting laws cannot be passed without any rebuke. People are starving, they do not care about the integrity of nature, and they are not to blame on this. If they have resource which can be developed in change for food, why don't they get our food first and leave the environmental problems to the future? So, if they do not do this and protect their very natural areas, they may die of destitution, and there will be no future for them. What is more, protecting wilderness areas also costs money, which they are likely unable to offer.
Another controversial point in the statement is that whether all remaining wilderness areas should be preserved. The answer to the problem also depends on different situations of different countries. It may not be necessary for a country who has grand wilderness areas to preserve them in their natural state, while it is always urgent to protect every inch of wilderness areas in a country who is in a severe lack of them. Besides this, there remains a truth that not all wilderness areas can be developed for economic gain, these areas should have a priority to be preserved first than those can be used for economic gain, for doing so can reduce the cost.
It is always hard to find a balance between the environment and the economy, and it may be a dilemma forever in the future. The philosophy in it is that we cannot gain without losing something. Only if we know clearly the problems we are facing, can we find a temporarily valid attitude towards these two things.
Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state.
In the era of rapid change, forests of high rises are being built up, artificial lakes and lawns appear in big cities all around the world, whereas the area of rainforest, wild lakes and grassland are in a dramatically decline. It is sure that the development of human culture makes the earth suffer, and the protection of wilderness areas is urgent.
But, the statement that nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state regardless of their economic value is too absolute. First of all, we should consider the whole balance of environment and the country's economic situation. If the country is affluent enough and most of its people are living a high standard lives, then passing laws to preserve remaining wilderness areas would be a pleasure to do. In fact, it will only bring more satisfaction and happiness to the people since their living environment can be improved by enacting these laws.
However, consider that the country we are discussing about is a developing country in Africa, who has ample resource and poverty at the same time. Then such environment-protecting laws cannot be passed without any rebuke. People are starving, they do not care about the integrity of nature, and they are not to blame on this. If they have resource which can be developed in change for food, why don't they get our food first and leave the environmental problems to the future? So, if they do not do this and protect their very natural areas, they may die of destitution, and there will be no future for them. What is more, protecting wilderness areas also costs money, which they are likely unable to offer.
Another controversial point in the statement is that whether all remaining wilderness areas should be preserved. The answer to the problem also depends on different situations of different countries. It may not be necessary for a country who has grand wilderness areas to preserve them in their natural state, while it is always urgent to protect every inch of wilderness areas in a country who is in a severe lack of them. Besides this, there remains a truth that not all wilderness areas can be developed for economic gain, these areas should have a priority to be preserved first than those can be used for economic gain, for doing so can reduce the cost.
It is always hard to find a balance between the environment and the economy, and it may be a dilemma forever in the future. The philosophy in it is that we cannot gain without losing something. Only if we know clearly the problems we are facing, can we find a temporarily valid attitude towards these two things.