ISSUE-31
23522
31. Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.
人类是否应该只保护被我们影响而濒临灭绝的动物
哎妈感觉结构有问题，正反合，但是合实在没词了就归在结尾草草收尾了。。
正：因为进化论人类不应该轻易干涉物种间的竞争
反：statement中要求的界限标准是难以区分的，所以不现实
合：。。。烂结尾就无视了吧
窝真的是开头和结尾苦手。。。求重点修改> <
Having a retrospect of creature evolution, we can easily see that the whole process is a cycling of extinction and survival. To keep the process up and hence protect our own living environment, as the statement claimed, we should only protect the species which influenced by us and leave others alone to die out. In my opinion, this suggestion is unrealistic for several reasons.
According to the evolution theory, in term of living in the more and more severe environment, it is necessary to wipe out weak species and deliver stronger gene to the offspring. For all the existing species, their ancestors must have handled thousands of year’s competition and evolution; therefore they have the ability of hunting or escaping from hunting. Hypothetically, if we meddle in the process of evolution and try to protect all the weak species from extinction, like preserving this species in the peaceful protection zone, these species would not live healthily and prosperously. Human’s protection of deer in the Kaibabo Forest provides sound prove for this hypothesis. To protect the deer local people killed all their natural enemy, after a short booming in population, the deer suffered a tough time of epidemics and finally trend to degeneration even almost extinction. In this scenario, without the realization of evolution theory, it is clearly notified that although leaving some species to extinct sounds extreme, letting the creatures develop themselves is not only right, but also essential.
However, the fact that human interfere in the wild environment will damage the nature evolution of some species does not necessarily lead to the statement’s conclusion in modern age when human activities effect almost the global environment. As the statement shows, we should only save the species endangered by us, but it will not make sense due to the blurred definition of the very term ‘result of human activities’. Through the development of modern technology, human activities will have wider and wider effected area and more and more serious consequences. Therefore, it is hard to distinguish whether the inclement life condition is cause by us. At the Stone Age, our ancestor only hunted animal and almost have no influence on nature environment. At the manual era, the cultivation of plant and livestock also has little effect on environment. However, at the following industrial age, when people master the technology of transmitting energy from fossil fuel to every aspect of daily life, burning oil caused many serious consequences like global warming. The direct affects like losing animal habitat may be easy to observe, however, none of the expertise can figure out the number of species effected by the indirect consequences like climate change.
Based on previous paragraphs, it may be idealistic to agree with the statement’s strict claim that we should only save the endangered species influenced by human activities. Because it is totally unrealistic to clearly divide all the species into ‘effected’ and ‘not be effected’ categories. As the result, the only solution is to make balance between human development and nature. On one hand, we should respect the importance of evolution theory and give wild lives enough space for their survival competition. On the other hand, we should deal with the severe consequences of our development.
人类是否应该只保护被我们影响而濒临灭绝的动物
哎妈感觉结构有问题，正反合，但是合实在没词了就归在结尾草草收尾了。。
正：因为进化论人类不应该轻易干涉物种间的竞争
反：statement中要求的界限标准是难以区分的，所以不现实
合：。。。烂结尾就无视了吧
窝真的是开头和结尾苦手。。。求重点修改> <
Having a retrospect of creature evolution, we can easily see that the whole process is a cycling of extinction and survival. To keep the process up and hence protect our own living environment, as the statement claimed, we should only protect the species which influenced by us and leave others alone to die out. In my opinion, this suggestion is unrealistic for several reasons.
According to the evolution theory, in term of living in the more and more severe environment, it is necessary to wipe out weak species and deliver stronger gene to the offspring. For all the existing species, their ancestors must have handled thousands of year’s competition and evolution; therefore they have the ability of hunting or escaping from hunting. Hypothetically, if we meddle in the process of evolution and try to protect all the weak species from extinction, like preserving this species in the peaceful protection zone, these species would not live healthily and prosperously. Human’s protection of deer in the Kaibabo Forest provides sound prove for this hypothesis. To protect the deer local people killed all their natural enemy, after a short booming in population, the deer suffered a tough time of epidemics and finally trend to degeneration even almost extinction. In this scenario, without the realization of evolution theory, it is clearly notified that although leaving some species to extinct sounds extreme, letting the creatures develop themselves is not only right, but also essential.
However, the fact that human interfere in the wild environment will damage the nature evolution of some species does not necessarily lead to the statement’s conclusion in modern age when human activities effect almost the global environment. As the statement shows, we should only save the species endangered by us, but it will not make sense due to the blurred definition of the very term ‘result of human activities’. Through the development of modern technology, human activities will have wider and wider effected area and more and more serious consequences. Therefore, it is hard to distinguish whether the inclement life condition is cause by us. At the Stone Age, our ancestor only hunted animal and almost have no influence on nature environment. At the manual era, the cultivation of plant and livestock also has little effect on environment. However, at the following industrial age, when people master the technology of transmitting energy from fossil fuel to every aspect of daily life, burning oil caused many serious consequences like global warming. The direct affects like losing animal habitat may be easy to observe, however, none of the expertise can figure out the number of species effected by the indirect consequences like climate change.
Based on previous paragraphs, it may be idealistic to agree with the statement’s strict claim that we should only save the endangered species influenced by human activities. Because it is totally unrealistic to clearly divide all the species into ‘effected’ and ‘not be effected’ categories. As the result, the only solution is to make balance between human development and nature. On one hand, we should respect the importance of evolution theory and give wild lives enough space for their survival competition. On the other hand, we should deal with the severe consequences of our development.
2条回复