▶ Your Answer :
Some people think that when it comes to using land, satisfying human needs is more important than saving it for endangered animals. Regarding the structure of ecosystem and the desire based on supporting such tilted usage of land, I disagree with them. To begin with, people should think about the structure of ecosystem. For more than a century, human being have considered it as on the pinnacle of the ecosystem. And this argument was used to rationalize rapid development. Under the argument, fulfilling the human needs functioned as the only dividing factor to decide whether to develop lands or not. It led to indiscriminate developments without detailed examinations on how the projects would affect the nature. Since the projects ended up bringing significant wealth to humanity, people did not seriously consider about consequences. However, now, after two hundred years or more of concentrated development of lands, the consequences began to show ominously. According to a research conducted by various researchers in different countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Japan, China, and other 35 countries, the ecosystem collapses due to over-development of lands. For example, a wet land in Brazil which was considered as a great reservoir of more than one thousand different species of bees one decade ago now contain less than a hundred. Right next to the wet land, new skyscrapers were built. The surprising decrease in bee population have affected flower and forest population, since bee is integral to pollination. In the end, the overall air quality of the city has greatly diminished, so now it threatens human health. This is not an abnormal event, rather similar incidents are witnessed worldwide. Furthermore, we have to think about the reason why developing lands for farmland, housing and industry is needed or whether it is truly necessary or required for human survival. In most of cases, the primary reason of arguing for development is not for fulfilling basic needs of human. Instead, it is for bulging bellies of developers. A research by Columbia University searched the name of owners of commercial realty in New York City. 90% of names were recurring and they were concentrated on only forty people in the city. Given that more than million people reside and work in the city, the statistics show that the ownership is deeply tilted only to a very small number of people. On top of that, all forty of them are great supporters of movement that lobby to the congress for releasing regulations imposed on commercial real estates. In conclusion, the argument that asserts the need for more land development for human needs does not think about its consequences. It not only destroyed the ecosystem, but also affect to human beings' overall survival negatively. Also, when considering the argument for the development is mostly for the rich, and not for the poor in need, I do not agree with the argument.
|