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 your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
Should nations indifferetly of any circumstances pass laws which help to preserve wilderness and nature? Should the nations instead focus more on economic gains and and ignore the devastation of the nature instead?
Debate about the preservance of the wild and natural areas of the countries due to their exploitation from the state ca be considered as one of the most important agendas of contemporary ecological movement. As far as this question gained sucha an importance during the last fifty years, it must have certain cause behind. Since the industrial revolution, we have put much more importance to economic growth. This obsesion had coused natural resoursed to exploit and nature to degrade. Air we breathe is full of pollution from factories and cars, the temperature has risen up substantialy, making it much more difficult to cope with our every day duties and water level of the oceans has risen to the level of endanger the coastal areas of the world. The most important way how to fight with these negative consequences of our ignorance during so many years are the laws, which are able to enforce the preservance of the forests, which contribute to creation of oxigen through the process of photosynthesis. Yes, it would be highly beneficial for all humankind to protect our nature and remaining wilderness and it should be even our duty.
However, as far as this policy could possibly have some negative consequencies in short run, and there might be people loosing their poteintial jobs in factories, which could not be built in order to prevent deforestation, the decision would be highly beneficial in the long run. Every action of ours have some externalities, the consequencies of our actions which cannot be seen immediately. When I drive my car, I do not see the negative impact of carbon dioxide, which is emited by the car, however the impact is there and our granchildren will have to cope with it. However, with ban to the cars, many people would lost the possibility to drive to work, what would not be beneficial in the short run. The same would happen with the factory, which can be built in the middle of Amazon. It can create 3000 additional jobs and increase the standards of substantial part of population, however, we would eventually have to cope with the negative impact of this decision in the fututre.
Strategy, which is worts mention, would be to conflate the economic growth with preservance of the wild areas. There are already many economists, as Jeffrey Sachs, who proposed strategies of sustainable development. We should evaluate how the economic development of certain type would affect our nature and try to bring both, the nature and the economy, into the harmony. There is nothing bad in building industry, unless the industry is not sustainable and have even negative impact on our nature. Such a strategy, however, needs to analyze each development impact on the nature and decide if the economic gain is worth taking.
Even if we have to defend our nature and wilderness, the answer on this question is not strictly positive. Every single case is worth analysis and we should not give up on economic growth in general, however, bringit to the harmony with nature.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-18 | wenki31 | 58 | view |
| 2019-12-29 | Sumaiya Mila | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-04 | Md. Kawsar Ahmed | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-14 | chapagain08 | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-06 | KarinaShine | 83 | view |
- Undergraduate students majoring in Business or in the Sciences should not be required to take any courses in the Humanities since those courses won’t benefit their future careers. 66
- 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 your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position 66
- The city of Winston has two large department stores: Namen and Roscoe. Namen is known for its high-end designer fashions, while Roscoe is known for more affordable fashion options. Both Namen and Roscoe are each considering opening another store in the gr 55
- Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. 55
- Paleo diets, in which one eats how early hominids (human ancestors) did, are becoming increasingly popular. Proponents claim our bodies evolved to eat these types of food, especially bone broth, a soup made by cooking animal bones for several hours. They 69
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 162, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: and
...ns instead focus more on economic gains and and ignore the devastation of the nature in...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 32, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...y. However, as far as this policy could possibly have some negative consequencies in sho...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 620, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'lose'
Suggestion: lose
...with ban to the cars, many people would lost the possibility to drive to work, what ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, in fact, in general, in short
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 58.6224719101 136% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2699.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 541.0 442.535393258 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98890942699 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82280071112 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76040676302 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 215.323595506 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478743068392 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 862.2 704.065955056 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.239814844 60.3974514979 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.681818182 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5909090909 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.31818181818 5.21951772744 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.225413753497 0.243740707755 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0707433709333 0.0831039109588 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0657247193721 0.0758088955206 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141987499435 0.150359130593 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0734103494494 0.0667264976115 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 100.480337079 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.