The article 'Saving Nature,But only for Man' has drawn my attention to the realistic of the world nowadays.The writer,Charles Krauthammer has revealed the negative side of the countries to reserve the nature.The opening of this article very interesting."Environment sensitivity is now as required an attitude in polite society as is,say,belief in democracy or avesion to polyester",the writer use 'polyester' to describe the environment problem and it do attract my attention to start to read the whole passage.
I strongly agree that the environmentalism does it not for nature's sake but for our own.Forests are cleared to satisfy the need of the human.No forest clearing,no development.There are no high coverage of the forest in a developed country although the goverment tried to preserve the area of the forest.For an example,in paragraph 11,"If the cost of preserving the spotted owl is the loss of livelihood for 30000 logging families,I choose family over owl",the writer has emphasised that the priority of human come before the nature.Same case in Malaysia also.It is impossible to preserve the golden triangle of the city of Kuala Lumpur--Bukit Bintang area.It is because of the high value of the area around that region.The developer rather build high class shopping mall than preserve the land as the natural reserve.This is true.
In conclusion,although there are many people have shown their care to preserve the nature,but the priority of the human is the most important aspect.
4 comments:
Thanks, Wee, for your opinion. (And thank you for updating your photo! The other one was becoming a bit, how to say, old-fashioned or unstylish?)
Yes, Krauthammer does put in perspective the fact that human needs are important. However, I think we must be careful not to exaggerate those needs and allow true exploitation. In KL, as you mention, human needs may indeed dictate. What I see as a problem is when, for instance, the city's last green spaces, or "green lungs," fall before the developer's earthmover. It seems that in many parts of the Klang Valley, from Bukit Gasing to Batu Caves to Robson Heights to Ampang, developers' desires to make handsome profits from new development projects often dictate and the community "right" for green local neighborhoods and the need of citizens to be allowed to maintain blocks of land for botanical gardens, parks and simple undeveloped patches is ignored. When development continues unchecked, everyone but the rich seem to suffer.
Thanks again for commenting on this.
just what so different about human and nature when initially it is the nature allow human beings to growth.
why do man get the highest priority in getting what they want first? And when they got what they want, why don't they fully utilize 100% of it?
The truth is human is been blind by luxury, their view of vision have narrow.
anyway, overall your opinion about is only from the point of human not the whole system.
sorry I think I am influent people think now (:b)
If there is no counry there would not be a home... same for economy. If there is no planet where does econmy stands? Who is more importanr does not matter but I think a balance should be maintain and not just a clear cut decision. On who gets the right. We are part of nature and just because we are on top of the food chain does not mean that we are the ones to make decision.
Hi Wee,
I do agree with you that humans actually have the higher priority. As we, humans, unlike other living creatures have the ability to think and make decisions.
However, if a balance could be strike between both parties that would definitely be great.
Nice post and pic=)
Post a Comment