Question

Zaktualizowano na 15 sie 2018

juststy

13 lut 2015

chiński uproszczony (Chiny)

angielski (amerykański)
angielski (brytyjski)

Pytanie zamknięte

Pytanie o angielski (brytyjski)

Too much attention and too much resources have been given to protection wild animals and birds. To what extent do you agree or disagree

Odpowiedzi

sparklyglitz

14 lut 2015

Najlepsza odpowiedź

angielski (amerykański)
wietnamski
angielski (brytyjski) Niemal biegły

There are 7 billion people in the world. We humans do not need to protect ourselves from extinction. Don't worry about that.

If we let animals die out, it will really affect us. Maybe you and I won't see it but our children and grandchildren will. For example, bees are endangered. If they are extinct, that is about $7 billion loss of money for the agricultural industry. And bees are the ones that fertilize the plants we eat. If they disappear, our food resources will be in trouble.

We have limited resources, you're right. Of course we should help those living in poverty, but taking money away from animal conservation is not the answer. I think a much better argument would be for us to spend less money on nuclear weapons and military because that will actually destroy us all. Use those money to protect animals instead.

If you let animals become extinct, eventually humans will be too.

Czy ta odpowiedź była pomocna?

Udostępnij to pytanie

Copy URL

sparklyglitz

13 lut 2015

angielski (amerykański)
wietnamski
angielski (brytyjski) Niemal biegły

Disagree. Too much attention and too much resources have been spent on killing them. There's not enough protection for them

Czy ta odpowiedź była pomocna?

juststy

13 lut 2015

chiński uproszczony (Chiny)

Thank you for answer my question. And would you give me some explains to verifying your idea?

amyplify

13 lut 2015

angielski (brytyjski)

I strongly disagree; for many reasons. But one very interesting and unusual reason can be found in "The Great Animal Orchestra" by Krausse which outlines the decline of natural soundscapes.

Czy ta odpowiedź była pomocna?

juststy

14 lut 2015

chiński uproszczony (Chiny)

Well, my opinion is that I partially agree as some people need protection urgently than the animals. Is that reasonable?

sparklyglitz

14 lut 2015

angielski (amerykański)
wietnamski
angielski (brytyjski) Niemal biegły

Why do you think people need protection more urgently than animals? I think there are 7 billion people in the world. Some species only have about 10 left. Not to mention, humans cause these animals to be extinct or almost extinct in the first place. The least we can do is try our hardest to fix it.

Czy ta odpowiedź była pomocna?

juststy

14 lut 2015

chiński uproszczony (Chiny)

Although some of the species are being extinct, but that is the principle of bio circle. The dying process of some particular species cannot be cancelled as a bunch of animals lost in the history and the best we can do is protect ourselves in escape of extinction. Also, there are so many people who living in the poor areas and have no medical resources in comparison. So what I mean is basically we can take some limited measures to protect animals but until everyone in earth has been given a good living condition; we can improve the level of animals protection.

sparklyglitz

14 lut 2015

angielski (amerykański)
wietnamski
angielski (brytyjski) Niemal biegły

There are 7 billion people in the world. We humans do not need to protect ourselves from extinction. Don't worry about that.

If we let animals die out, it will really affect us. Maybe you and I won't see it but our children and grandchildren will. For example, bees are endangered. If they are extinct, that is about $7 billion loss of money for the agricultural industry. And bees are the ones that fertilize the plants we eat. If they disappear, our food resources will be in trouble.

We have limited resources, you're right. Of course we should help those living in poverty, but taking money away from animal conservation is not the answer. I think a much better argument would be for us to spend less money on nuclear weapons and military because that will actually destroy us all. Use those money to protect animals instead.

If you let animals become extinct, eventually humans will be too.

Czy ta odpowiedź była pomocna?

[Aktualności] Hej, Ty! Ty uczący się języka!

Wiesz jak poprawić swój język obcy❓ Potrzebujesz tylko, żeby Twoje teksty poprawił native speaker!
W HiNative native speaker poprawi Twoje teksty za darmo ✍️✨.

Zarejestruj się

Udostępnij to pytanie

Copy URL

Too much attention and too much resources have been given to protection wild animals and birds. To what extent do you agree or disagree

Zadawaj pytania native speakerom bezpłatnie

Zarejestruj się za darmo

Too much attention and too much resources have been given to protection wild animals and birds. To what extent do you agree or disagree Zobacz tłumaczenie

Disagree. Too much attention and too much resources have been spent on killing them. There's not enough protection for them

I strongly disagree; for many reasons. But one very interesting and unusual reason can be found in "The Great Animal Orchestra" by Krausse which outlines the decline of natural soundscapes.

Why do you think people need protection more urgently than animals? I think there are 7 billion people in the world. Some species only have about 10 left. Not to mention, humans cause these animals to be extinct or almost extinct in the first place. The least we can do is try our hardest to fix it.

Zadawaj pytania native speakerom bezpłatnie

Too much attention and too much resources have been given to protection wild animals and birds. To what extent do you agree or disagree