Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.
“The poetry of the Earth,” John Keats wrote, “is never dead.” Nature is invigorating. Although, after an unprecedented growth of technology, people now spend more time staring at their smartphones for lounging, one’s love for nature is always extant. Visiting a lake, spending time at the park, backpacking through the forests, or trekking let us escape from our mundane lives. Nature gives us spiritual, and aesthetic satisfaction. In addition to recreation and inspiration, the natural world purifies the air we breathe; habitats the flora and the fauna; provides food for the poorer communities. While safeguarding the wild is, in numerous ways, beneficial to us, it’s depletion, by extensively clearing forest land for agriculture, for industries, makes our lives difficult.
Nations, across the world, have passed wilderness and national park acts that protect the wild areas by prohibiting the intervention of humans. These laws, I believe, are of great importance not only to mankind but to the survival of the plant and animal life.
Carbon dioxide content has ballooned over the last 20 years. Plants and trees purify the air we breathe by taking in carbon dioxide and giving out oxygen. The growth of industries, human population, and the depletion of forest area being indirectly proportional to each other has surged the amount of CO2. Moreover, carbon dioxide being a greenhouse, there are indirect effects on humans due to global warming.
Who is to blame for the extinction of passenger pigeons, or for the endangerment of Orangutans and elephants due to palm plantations? Clearing forests for plantations, for setting up industries, and for building homes has reduced the habitat for animals because they have no shelter and have a food crisis. One might wonder if they don’t have any knowledge of the ecosystems, that what could possibly go wrong if birds cannot build their nests in the trees. What’s the big deal? Everything on this planet is interconnected. The flora and the fauna work not individually, but together. Consider the case of vultures. They act as scavengers and consume carcasses, garbage, etc. In India, vultures extinction has resulted in the rise of rats and wild dogs that spread numerous diseases, and according to Wikipedia, as of 2015, the estimated cost for treating people affected with rabies and many such diseases was 25 billion U.S dollars. Diclofenac, being one of the reasons that vanished vultures, loss of habitat for vultures cannot be ignored.
What do we get from National Parks? Huge amounts of money—hundreds of billions of dollars— in the form of taxes. Through tourism, countries generate gargantuan amounts of money from the preservation of wilderness areas. Also, Wilderness areas require many men and women for their maintenance. Therefore, the wild provides employment—millions of jobs— to many citizens of the country.
Natives of Alaska, for instance, depend on wilderness for their food and water. Despite Alaska being abundant in its wilderness fears the intervention of oil and timber industries. What goes for Alaska also goes for many other indigenous people, or tribes, of Africa and Asia. Setting up industries for making money at the cost of the poor lives is inhuman.
Putting aside the commercial gain we can obtain from turning the wilderness into industries, there is more harm than good by destroying nature. All in all, wilderness areas must be given substantial importance for what they offer when they are preserved, and what they negatively offer when they are depleted.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-30 | lanhhoang | 83 | view |
| 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 |
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain. 16
- Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in mon 75
Comments
This makes me laugh. 1 on 6??
This makes me laugh. 1 on 6??? Somebody say something about this.
The coherence is very low:
The coherence is very low:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 34%
Sentence topic coherence: 28%
Paragraph topic coherence: 31%
----------------------------
The e-grader will consider this as off the topic technically.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 387, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
... knowledge of the ecosystems, that what could possibly go wrong if birds cannot build their ne...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 925, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: S
...and many such diseases was 25 billion U.S dollars. Diclofenac, being one of the r...
^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'therefore', 'while', 'for instance', 'in addition']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.272171253823 0.240241500013 113% => OK
Verbs: 0.148318042813 0.157235817809 94% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0764525993884 0.0880659088768 87% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0275229357798 0.0497285424764 55% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0336391437309 0.0444667217837 76% => OK
Prepositions: 0.137614678899 0.12292977631 112% => OK
Participles: 0.0535168195719 0.0406280797675 132% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.93625304928 2.79330140395 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0152905198777 0.030933414821 49% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00611620795107 0.0016655270985 367% => OK
Determiners: 0.0779816513761 0.0997080785238 78% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00917431192661 0.0249443105267 37% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0152905198777 0.0148568991511 103% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3588.0 2732.02544248 131% => OK
No of words: 569.0 452.878318584 126% => OK
Chars per words: 6.30579964851 6.0361032391 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88402711743 4.58838876751 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.393673110721 0.366273622748 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.300527240773 0.280924506359 107% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.224956063269 0.200843997647 112% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.14762741652 0.132149295362 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93625304928 2.79330140395 105% => OK
Unique words: 333.0 219.290929204 152% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.585237258348 0.48968727796 120% => OK
Word variations: 78.2494299352 55.4138127331 141% => OK
How many sentences: 33.0 20.6194690265 160% => OK
Sentence length: 17.2424242424 23.380412469 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.1573671792 59.4972553346 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.727272727 141.124799967 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2424242424 23.380412469 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.272727272727 0.674092028746 40% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.94800884956 141% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 47.2951483198 51.4728631049 92% => OK
Elegance: 2.21167883212 1.64882698954 134% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131558639324 0.391690518653 34% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0813104519367 0.123202303941 66% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0626284462584 0.077325440228 81% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.481826476727 0.547984918172 88% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.164998851131 0.149214159877 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0450097650524 0.161403998019 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434419102617 0.0892212321368 49% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.327516300233 0.385218514788 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0782086365219 0.0692045440612 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0847500132635 0.275328986314 31% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0250855206389 0.0653680567796 38% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.4325221239 125% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.30420353982 170% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.88274336283 225% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 10.0 7.22455752212 138% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.66592920354 109% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.70907079646 148% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 13.5995575221 132% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.