Issue 85，求点评指正，谢谢~

alenhooUID??3481787

There are always discussions between the argument that the overall success of a society should be the best way to thrive itself and that the general welfare of all its people rather should be the main factor. In my observation, I fundamentally agree with the former one, because I believe that as to the judgment of the world the prosperity of a society is definitely its overall success and the best way to develop a society whose resources are limited is to endeavor to develop the overall industries.

To begin with, consider the fact that when people are asked what is their most impressive factors of a certain society, most of them would answer the main features of that society, such as the tourism industry, the financial industry, or the manufacture industry. It is because only the overall success of a society make the most significant impression for people. In additional, the overall success of a society also beneficial for that society to attract more investors or tourist to invest and consume there, which on the other hand lead to the prosperity of that society. Countless examples, like Paris, London, New York and etc.,can prove this argument.

Moreover, as for mostly of societies, regardless various of resources they have, the resources are limited with no doubt. Therefore, a wise approach to thrive those societies should be taking advantage of the limited resources to develop the overall industries. Take China as an example, consider that if the resources of this nation, who have 1.3 billion of population, are averagely deliver to its people, everyone actually have not enough resources to make a living, needless to say to development. In contrast, if the government is able to utilize the resource to develop agriculture, industry and education, the society will be more alive than the average society. It is obvious that the limited resources should be used to improve the overall industries in order to benefit everyone of that society.

Admittedly, the detractors of the former claim would argue that the general welfare of people are frequently ignored by the government, as a result the wealthy government and enterprises control the whole nation instead of the ordinary people. It is true that if the law system of the society is not sufficient for the protection of ordinary people the disaster mentioned before would happen. But this claim is not substantial in that it is not the overall success of a society cause the decreased welfare of people, but the unsufficient law system or government system is, and the argument that the overall success of a society is the main factor of its prosperity and even the factor the improvement of welfare of all the people is still justifiable.

In conclusion, I agree with the claim that in order to thrive, a society should put its overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens, because, as mentioned before, it is mainly the overall success of a society make an impression of prosperity of that society in the judgment of most of people, and that the limited resources should be efficiently utilized to develop the main industries first rather than deliver to every citizens. It is also proved that with sufficient law system and government system that protect the welfare of ordinary people, the general welfare of people would be improved together with the overall success of the society as well.