Lewy
Your Replies
-
May 19, 2020 at 3:58 am
It is undeniable that mankind has been doing harm to the environment in various ways. However, I argue that for both governments and individual people, there is still many a choice to protect the environment.
Of all kinds of damages to the environment, deforestation and wasted material pollution are the most serious. Humans change the environment at their wills, turning forests into farmlands where crops are yielded and expelling animals from homes. These are unacceptable in homes to wildlife and can bring unavoidable damages to native ecosystem. Furthermore, plants and factories give off exhausted gases and dump poisonous water during the process of the production, ignoring other creatures in the vicinity. For example, in London, sewage poured into Thames River used to cause the disappearance of some endangered aquatic animals, and gases from coal plants influenced adversely genetic structure of nearby fauna and flora.
Although the environment problem has been increasingly serious, governments and individual people can eliminate damages or tackle the problem in various ways. On the one hand, governments can introduce laws suggesting the punishments for producers’ releasing waste materials beyond the laws. Governments also can tax plant owners on their pollution, collecting fines for building infrastructures in order to protect the environment. On the other hand, individuals should observe the laws concerning the environment. If people devote themselves to propagating environmental protection campaigns, there will be more people aware of the significance of protecting the environment.
In conclusion, although the environment faces serious problems, governments and individuals can still contribute to making the planet better.
May 19, 2020 at 1:36 amThe protection of wild animals has been a controversial issue as natural resources cannot always meet humans’ needs. While I disagree that investing in the protection of animals is a waste of resources, I reckon that it is less rewarding to help animals than people.
On the one hand, investing in public services is more attractive than helping animals. Protecting wildlife wastes resources that otherwise can be used for those suffering from poverty and famine. Spending insufficient resources today on the protection of animals is a form of waste. For example, people are still thirsty for food and water, while their lands are used for building a resource-consuming reserve. Before people can build a welfare mechanism that benefits the world’s population, setting aside precious resources to protect animals is a waste.
On the other hand, I argue that protecting animals is what we should do now and can bring far more benefits than we thought. Firstly, protecting wildlife contributes to providing food. For example, people can live no longer than one year without bees that help plants to pollinate, indirectly yielding crops. Secondly, wild animals are part of the nature that provides all with a living environment. Finally, animals have the right to live and to use resources on the planet. We cannot expel them from home and boycott natural resources just for our own desires.
In conclusion, I do not reckon that protecting animals is wasteful, while it is not worthwhile when compared to helping people in plight.
May 17, 2020 at 12:53 pmThe protection of wild animals has been a controversial issue since natural resources cannot always meet humans’ needs. While I disagree that investing in the protection of animals is a waste of resources, I reckon that it is less rewarding to help animals than people.
On the one hand, investing public services is more attractive than helping animals. Protecting wild animals wastes resources that otherwise can be used for those suffering from poverty and famine. Spending resources that are not abundant today on the protection of animals is a form of waste because they cannot have similar position as human. For example, people are still thirsty for food and water, while their lands are used for building a resource-consuming reserve. Before a welfare mechanism that benefits worldwide population is settled, setting aside precious resources to protect animals is a waste.
On the other hand, I argue that protecting animals is what we should do now and can bring far more benefits than we thought. Firstly, protecting wildlife contributes to providing food. For example, people can live no longer than one year without bees that help plants to pollinate, indirectly yielding crops. Secondly, wild animals are part of the nature that provides all with a living environment. Finally, animals possess the right to live and to use resources on the planet because we cannot expel them from home and boycott natural resources.
In conclusion, I do not reckon that protecting animals is wasteful while it is not worthwhile when compared to helping people in plight.
May 14, 2020 at 3:26 pmWild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The protection of wild animals has been a controversial issue since natural resources cannot always meet humans’ needs. While I disagree with the idea that investing in the protection of animals is a waste of resources, I reckon that it is less rewarding to help animals than people.
On the one hand, it is more attractive to invest in public services than to reserve wild animals. There are still masses of poor and homeless people who are suffering poverty and famine, and it is not reasonable to leave them behind, while we devote ourselves to the protection of animals. Because giving animals rights that are not different from those of men is impossible, spending resources that are not abundant nowadays is a form of wastage. For example, building a reserve is time-consuming and land-demanding, while people who live in areas with pleasant habitats of animals still are thirsty for food and water. Before a welfare mechanism that benefits worldwide population, setting aside precious resources to protect animals is a waste.
On the other hand, I argue that protecting creatures apart from humans is what we should do now and can bring far more benefits than we thought. Firstly, protecting wildlife contributes to providing food. For example, people can live no longer than one year without bees because bees help plants to pollinate, indirectly yielding grains and crops. Secondly, wild animals are part of the nature that provides all creatures with an essential environment to survive. Finally, animals, like us, possess the right to live and to use resources on the planet because it is impossible to expel them from home and boycott natural resources.
In conclusion, I do not reckon that protecting animals is wasteful while it is not worthwhile when compared to helping people in plight.
