در صورتی که اشکالی در ترجمه می بینید می توانید از طریق شماره زیر در واتساپ نظرات خود را برای ما بفرستید
09331464034
Topic:
Some people claim that a nation's government should preserve its wilderness areas in their natural state. Others argue that these areas should be developed for potential economic gain.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
برخی از مردم ادعا می کنند که دولت یک کشور باید مناطق بیابانی خود را به شکل طبیعی خود حفظ کند. برخی دیگر معتقدند که این مناطق باید برای بهره بالقوه اقتصادی توسعه یابد.
پاسخی بنویسید که در آن بحث کنید کدام دیدگاه بیشتر با نظر شما همسو است و استدلال خود را برای این موضع گیری توضیح دهید. در توسعه و حمایت از موقعیت خود، باید به هر دو دیدگاه ارائه شده توجه کنید.
- در مورد این موضوع دو جنبه بسیار مهم وجود دارد یکی مسئله تامین اقتصادی جامعه است و دیگری حفظ محیط زیست که هر دو باید با سیاست گذاری درست مورد توجه قرار گیرد.
- اگر قرار باشد محیط زیست، بیابان ها و جنگل ها به طور کامل و صد در صد حفظ شوند، مطمئناً اقتصاد جامعه با بیکار شدن بسیاری از افرادی که در این مناطق درآمدزایی داشتند، دچار مشکل خواهد شد.
- همچنین حفظ محیط زیست، بیابان‌ها و جنگل‌ها در بسیاری از کشورها مثل آفریقای جنوبی با وجود اینکه مردم آن گرسنه هستند به آنها آسیب زده است.
- در بسیاری از شرایط، مسائل اقتصادی نسبت به حفظ محیط زیست، بیابان ها، جنگل ها در اولویت قرار می گیرد. مثلا اگر قرار است یک نیروگاه برق نزدیک یک نیروگاه هسته‌ای بنا شود تا هزینه‌های انتقال نیرو کاهش پیدا کند شاید مجبور باشید بخشی از یک مرتع طبیعی را تبدیل به نیروگاه برق کنیم اما این مسئله برای همه مردم مفید است.
- از طرف دیگر ما حق نداریم که تمام محیط زیست، بیابان‌ها و جنگل‌ها را نابود کنیم و باید تا حدودی ازآنها حفاظت کنیم تا برای نسل بعد و حتی نسل‌های بعد نیز باقی بماند. از آنجایی که چند صد سال طول می‌کشد که به عنوان مثال یک جنگل جدید ایجاد شود؛ ما باید در حفظ منابع طبیعی مثل بیابان‌ها و جنگل‌ها تا حد ممکن کوشا باشیم و بی رویه از آنها استفاده نکنیم.
- سیاستگذاری درست و تصویب قوانین و مقررات سختگیرانه و همچنین نظارت و اجرای این قوانین مانند عدم قطع درختان در مناطق جنگلی حفاظت شده می تواند به حفظ منابع طبیعی، مراتع، جنگل‌ها و باقی ماندن آنها برای نسل‌های بعد کمک کند.
- اگر فعالیت های درستی در مناطق مختلف انجام گیرد، نه تنها محیط زیست و منابع طبیعی حفظ خواهند شود، بلکه از لحاظ اقتصادی نیز می تواند پیامدهای مثبتی داشته باشد. به عنوان مثال، در چین یک پارک ملی جنگلی احداث شده که در آن تمام گونه های گیاهی و حیوانی حفظ شده اند و همین محل به عنوان یکی از جاذبه های گردشگری و توریستی چین مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد که درآمدزایی بالا از لحاظ اقتصادی نیز دارد.
- حفظ تمام منابع طبیعی و محیط زیست در یک کشور ممکن نیست چون به افرادی که در این کشور زندگی می‌کنند، نیاز به تغذیه کردن و همچنین استفاده کردن از منابع طبیعی موجود به منظور رونق اقتصادی دارند اما باید قوانین و مقررات به نحوی تنظیم شود که بخشی از منابع طبیعی و محیط زیست حفظ شده و بخش دیگر مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.
- باید روش های توسعه پایدار و منابع تجدید پذیر انرژی مورد توجه قرار گیرد تا به مراتع آسیب کمتری وارد گردد.
Strategies
When developing a response to an Analyze an Issue question, you are required to present both sides of the argument and choose one to support. A 5– or 6–paragraph structure is recommended for this style of essay. Make sure to have an Introduction, Body (2 or 3 supporting points and 1 counter–point), and Conclusion.
It is highly recommended that regardless of the position you choose, the first 5 minutes should be devoted to brainstorming a few points that agree with the policy issue at hand and a few that disagree with it. Here is a sample brainstorm for this question:
Agree:
a) Wilderness forms the basis of our world’s ecosystems, and millions of species of animals depend on access to the wild. By enacting laws to protect the wilderness, we are ensuring the long–term survival of the earth.
b) Humans occupy a large area of the available land in the world. However, as the population grows, we should commit to building up and not out. Single families do not need private tennis courts, swimming pools, and gardens at the expense of nature. Left to their own devices, humans are greedy – so it is up to the nations to be altruistic.
c) Humans are in favor of natural wilderness areas, as they allow for hiking, traveling, and exploring. People can enjoy the wilderness as a form of entertainment, nourishment, and spiritual fulfillment, and preserving these areas would increase the well–being of humans as well as other species.
d) In the United States, for example, National Parks and National Forests are a source of pride and an attraction in and of themselves. Such locations do not need to be developed in order to attract tourism, and economic systems are built around the parks themselves.
e) There are many examples of countries that developed areas for economic gain that ended up a disaster. China’s overdevelopment and stripping of natural resources left the country with serious health problems resulting from severe pollution.
Disagree:
a) There are still plenty of areas that humans will likely never develop, so laws are not required to ensure this. For example, Canada is sparsely populated, and it does not require formal laws to remain as such.
b) Managed growth is as good as or better than leaving the wilderness untouched. For example, planned fires and the weeding out of invasive species that arrived there through other human activities or accidentally (e.g., the invasion of Japanese species after the 2011 tsunami). By both exploiting and regulating the wilderness, a win–win situation is created.
Now, you are ready to get started on the essay.
Sample 1:
The human population continues to grow. With this growth, we demand an ever–increasing amount of natural resources, such as land, oil, and agricultural products. Yet, we must also balance this requirement with the knowledge that we must maintain sustainability to ensure the survival of our species and of Earth itself. Overexploitation of resources will deplete the available stock and affect fragile ecologies worldwide. To ensure that we (and Earth) continue to flourish for generations to come, nations have the responsibility to enact laws protecting existing wilderness areas regardless of whether they can be exploited for economic gain.
Proponents in favor of using wilderness for economic gain suggest that exploitation and preservation are not mutually exclusive. By controlling and regulating forest fires, conducting managed growth, and farming sustainably, proponents suggest that we can benefit from natural resources and preserve as large of a wilderness area as possible. They claim that instead of laws to preserve the wilderness in its natural state, we should create a wilderness development program that ensures the survival of all species through adequate managed growth.
However, managed growth does not target the root of the problem of exploiting natural resources: the negative externalities generated by developing wilderness areas. More specifically, the advantage of wilderness areas is that they have well–established ecosystems, including old trees with deep roots. Logging and clearing these trees and replacing them with new saplings reduces the amount of photosynthesis that occurs in the area; in turn, increasing amounts of human–generated carbon dioxide does not convert fast enough to oxygen, leading to high pollution. For example, China both logged their forests and exploited other resources (e.g., coal) while developing industries on the land. They are suffering the consequences of these decisions as their population is exposed to increased pollution and widespread health problems. The only feasible way to slow or reverse these would be to stop exploiting the natural wilderness and let nature do the healing.
In addition, wilderness areas can be used as a resource without being exploited specifically for economic gain. For example, many people view the wilderness as a form of spiritual retreat away from their busy lives – it is the final frontier where they can go hiking, mountain biking, and camping in nature. On another note, many animals such as fish rely on an untouched wilderness to thrive. The effects of interfering with the natural habitat of these fish (e.g., the rivers that salmon spawn in) or attempting to manage their growth have backfired – fish in the hundreds of thousands have disappeared or died because of human interference, which is opposite to our goals of creating a sustainable fishable population in the oceans and seas. To ensure that we are able to continue to enjoy these fish, we must see the wilderness as a resource that we cannot interfere with and preserve it under law.
Therefore, we do not understand the wilderness well enough to manage it effectively at this point and although we might believe that we are capable of using our wilderness resources in a sustainable fashion, our performance shows otherwise. For nations looking to continue to grow and thrive and build successful industries, the benefits of protecting the wilderness in its natural state in the long run far outweigh those of developing wilderness areas for economic gain in the short run.
نظرات کاربران
هنوز نظری درج نشده است!
