Graduate / Issue 108/110; Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless.. [3]

Could someone please judge my response to ISSUE 108/110? Some suggestions please! Thank you very much.

Issue 108/110
Issue 108/110
Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

In the contemporary era of rapid social and technological change leading to increased complexity in every single aspect of any area, critical judgment from professional or amateur perspectives is now facing both appreciation and challenge. Any conclusion may fall into biased if it is examined with absolutization, so is the value of judgment, which, at least, should be separately examined in science or in art. With speedy development of science, most people in area of scientific research are now focusing on only one spot, which lead to that people from outside can barely judge the work critically. On the other hand, those areas of art, which based its life resource from the spirit of human beings are able to call for critical judgment by someone may not be in area of art but still have the mind for appreciation of beauty.

In the area of science, progression only comes from those experts who have devoted literarily countless time and energy into a specific study area for the reason that accumulated knowledge not only brought professional background but also inspire creative activities. However, people may argue that those judgments from outsiders may have significant values for they have brought new perspective to a specific area which may be inspiring! But when we deeply review history we cannot find any actual events in which outsiders contribute greatly to a specific scientific area. Those revolutionary findings only come from the experts in one area, who have possessed and absorbed pre-existing nutrition. If Newton did not studies those pre-existing mathematics theories, it would be impossible for him to calculate the laws of motion and can never conclude the theory of gravity. If Russell, the greatest philosophy in 20th century, did not examined pre-existing philosophical books and thoughts, he would never be able to finish the masterpiece of the history of western philosophy, in which he critically judged and appreciated the story and the historical value of former philosophy. So it should be safe to say that in the area of science and philosophy, where rational reasoning and thinking are urgent in research, accumulation in one specific area is critical. Therefore, critical judgment may contribute to vain if it comes from people who are totally out of that area.

In the area of art, where creative thoughts come from the nature of human beings' spirit and appreciation of beauty, the judgment may still have great value if it comes from outsider or even from young generation without much experience. People may argue that practice may be most necessary merit in the development of art and therefore only people who are experts and have spent so much time in practice and have already be famous could be able to find the flaws and appraisal a piece of art. However, the history of art simply demonstrates a large volume of revolution comes from numerous people who were relatively young. Beethoven finished his masterpiece in his twenties. He disdained the main form of musicians in his time and he creatively combined the dramatic classic style of lively contrasts and symmetrical forms. These works helped Beethoven give voice to the new current of subjectivity and sing praises of Enlightenment, an 18th century movement that promoted the ideals of freedom and equality.

In the final analysis, the value of judgment should be deliberately examined in different circumstances, as there has never existed one simple rule but fitting everywhere.

Graduate / Human as the master of the natural world should take steps to protect those areas more efficiently. [4]

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.