People can eat a wide variety of food that can be grown in other areas. As a result, people eat more food produced in other regions than local food. Do advantages of this outweigh its disadvantages? 20160813
In this day and age, thanks to the highly developed technology of transportation and extensive trade of food, people's diet has become abundant unprecedentedly. Notwithstanding, optimists and pessimists to this issue still have conflicting views on people's enjoying the food transported for thousands of miles.
Merits of this situation are fairly apparent. Transporting food from one region to another demands human resources working as logistics, naturally creating more working opportunities regionally, and in the meantime local economy can definitely be boosted by food trade. Besides, another positive consequence of local high employment rate and economic prosperity is that diet of people in another region is substantially enriched.
People with adverse standpoints believe that long-distance transportation of food undoubtedly harms environment via carbon emission. Eventually, fuel switching and mass transport are two effective methods to deal with the destruction of environment. Transporting massive food by vehicles powered by clean energy like electric rail with reasonable freight traffic plan can extremely minimize environmental cost.
Simultaneously, another possibly negative outcome is that some people worry about excessive use of preservatives commonly and widely utilized for storing and transporting food. In fact, primarily modern transportation technology is able to considerably reduce the time cost of shipping food from one region to another. (Most of Chinese living in major cities may have the experience of eating some fresh fruit in the evening that were picked up in the morning from some orchards 2 or 3 thousand miles away.) In addition, usage of preservatives is usually strictly regulated by laws in order to ensure the food safety.
To sum up, what people need to do is enjoying the ample diet without worrying overly about destruction of environment and issues of food safety that some people think might be caused by long-distance transportation of food.
Some people think that it is necessary to travel abroad to learn about other countries. However, other people think that it is not necessary to travel abroad because all the information can be seen at TV and the internet. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 20160804
Hundreds of years ago, traveling was probably the only way for people to access knowledge about other countries in spite of the undeveloped transportation technology. Nevertheless, in this information era, people obviously are able to utilize much more methods to gain what they want to learn about foreign countries. Eventually, by no means is learning about foreign countries an easy thing that people can deal with via a simple means.
Visiting a foreign country in person, undoubtedly, can impress travelers deeply. Those travelers through their firsthand observation and experience can learn about the country effectively and efficiently. What they can see and experience there is extremely more vivid than what they can read online or watch on TV. Notwithstanding, the truth is that what travelers can experience from traveling is superficial and limited, because of limitations of traveling such as lack of time and commercialization of tourist attractions. Things that travelers often see are specially designed for them instead of the real life that the local live.
Modern media, in this day and age, are absolutely able to provide adequate information for the study of foreign cultures. People can facilely collect abundant information, systematically and comprehensively, which travelers need to spend much more time in searching for in person. Contrarily, what those sentences, pictures and videos can show is also limited as personal experience is the key point for cultural study. An instance in point is that before trying the local food in person, people almost have no chance to imagine how delicious it tastes only via reading comments from others.
According to what has been analyzed above, the way of learning about other countries has to be combination of theoretical study with TV or internet and practical research in person by visiting the place. Only after doing both of them, will people proudly say that they know that country well.
Some people think that charity organizations should help people in great need wherever they live, while others think that they should only concentrate on people in their own country. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 20160820
There is no denying that aids from some charitable organizations are considerably functioning for people in poverty or emergent cases across all nations in contemporary society. The controversy, accordingly, emerges over the public that either people in the greatest need no matter where they live or people in the same countries as charitable organizations should be the prior recipients of donation.
People who need aids most severely are usually living under unbelievably hazardous circumstance, where their life are being threatened all the time or their basic demand for surviving cannot be satisfied. An instance in point is that citizens living in countries suffering from wars might face the problems of being killed anytime by whoever is armed or lack of clean drinking water. There is no one who is able to find out an excuse to say no to the help for them simply due to their different nationalities. Every donator would be proud of using their donation to save people's lives in any corner of the world.
Charity institutions focusing on offering help to people in their own country would like to believe that providing help for donators' compatriots may easily arouse enthusiasm of people's participation in charity due to the immediate emotional connection between who are donating and who are receiving donation. Nevertheless, what majority of donators concentrate on most is whether their donation can be utilized most effectively. Naturally, they are more likely to pay for saving people's lives rather than enhancing people's living condition. With positive world view, everyone in this world should be treated equally regardless of their race or nationality.
In summary, unquestionably people in the greatest need deserve priority of aids from charitable organizations instead of those who come from the same country as donators do.
Some people think it is more important to plant trees in open spaces in towns and cities than building houses in these spaces. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 20160827
Open spaces in cities and town have become rather precious unprecedentedly due to the fact that majority of cities and towns are far more congested than before. The populace, consequently, concern about how to utilize the limited open spaces, and either planting trees or constructing accommodations there is a wise choice.
For one thing, it is fairly evident that planting trees can elevate circumstance where people are living. Initially, trees can function as air purifiers, thus improving air quality in urban areas. Forestation in urban areas cannot only provide local residents with places for relaxation, but also promote urban landscapes that the public think is able to relax the local mentally. After working busily for 8 or 9 hours every day, people surely like spending their free time in walking in the park with a great number of trees or standing in their balconies with watching a huge piece of wood downstairs.
For another, people on the side of building houses suppose that it is an imperative tendency that cities ought to accommodate the increasing population according to two key reasons, the boom of population and the movement of population from rural areas to urban areas. Nevertheless, what they neglect is that this trend can only bring about negative consequences to people’s life. High density of population can definitely arouse congestion of transport in cities and shortage of social resources. By analogy, low quality of life is what the local can only enjoy living in cities with huge population.
On the basis of the above discussion, what our cities and towns need is trees rather than growing housing and mounting population.