gre作文题库：GRE作文范文大全（26）
Another example involves how we deal with the mentally-iii segment of the population.
History reveals that neither quarantine, treatment, nor accommodation solves the problem,
only that each approach comes with its own trade-offs. Also undermining the assertion that
history helps us to solve social problems is the fact that, despite the civil-fights efforts of Martin
Luther King and his progenies, the cultural gap today between African-Americans and white
Americans seems to be widening. It seems that racial prejudice is a timeless phenomenon.
To sum up, in terms of how to live together as a society I agree that studying the past is of
some value; for example, it helps us appreciate the futility of legislating morality. However,
history's primary sociological lesson seems to be that today's social problems are as old as
society itself, and that there are no panaceas or prescriptions for solving these problems---only
alternate ways of coping with them.
56
Issue 50
"At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of
natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make
extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered
species."
What are the limits of our duty to save endangered species from extinction? The statement
raises a variety of issues about morality, conscience, self-preservation, and economics. On
balance, however, I fundamentally agree with the notion that humans need not make
"extraordinary" efforts--at the expense of money and jobs--to ensure the preservation of any
endangered species.
As I see it, there are three fundamental arguments for imposing on ourselves at least some
responsibility to preserve endangered species. The first has to do culpability. According to this
argument, to the extent that endangerment is the result of anthropogenic events such as
dear-cutting of forests or polluting of lakes and streams, we humans have a duty to take
affirmative measures to protect the species whose survival we've placed in jeopardy.
The second argument has to do with capability. This argument disregards the extent to
which we humans might have contributed to the endangerment of a species. Instead, the
argument goes, if we are aware of the danger, know what steps are needed to prevent
extinction, and can take those steps, then we are morally obligated to help prevent extinction.
This argument would place a very high affirmative duty on humans to protect endangered
species.
The third argument is an appeal to self-preservation. The animal kingdom is an intricate
matrix of interdependent relationships, in which each species depends on many others for its
survival. Severing certain relationships, such as that between a predator and its natural prey,
can set into motion a series of extinctions that ultimately might endanger our own survival as a
species. While this claim might sound far-fetched to some, environmental experts assure us
that in the long run it is very real possibility.
On the other hand are two compelling arguments against placing a duty on humans to
protect endangered species. The first is essentially the Darwinian argument that extinction
results from the inexorable process of so-called “natural selection” in which stronger species
survive while weaker ones do not. Moreover, we humans are not exempt from the process.
Accordingly, if we see fit to eradicate other species in order to facilitate our survival, then so be
it. We are only behaving as animal must, Darwin would no doubt assert.
The second argument, and the one that I find most compelling, is an appeal to logic over
emotion. It is a scientific fact that thousands of animal species become extinct every year. 感谢您阅读《GRE作文范文大全（26） 》一文，出国留学网(liuxue86.com)编辑部希望本文能帮助到您。
分享
