Issue216 我的第一篇issue

nuclearabbitUID: 2371193

216. "It is more important to allocate money for immediate, existing social problems than to spend it on long-term research that might help future generations."


Should the government allocate more money for existing social problems or fur long-term research? From my point of view, it depends on how immediate the existing problem is, as well as on how helpful the long-term research will be. Balancing choice must be deliberately made according the particular situations.

    Possibly, one might ask that "how do you define the word immediate?" First consider a barrel containing only half its capacity of water, only because one of its boards is broken, preventing the barrel to retain more water. The so called immediate problem, in my opinion, is just like the broken board, which can seriously affecting the existing and further development of societies.

    Financial supports on immediate existing social problems are important. On one hand, they can stabilize the society. If a large portion of finance is dedicated to solve the problem of unemployment, the existing complains and crisis can probably be alleviated. On the other hand, they help an inanimate society to resume vitality and step on new roads of development. The money spent in regulating economic structures will have such an effect. At the same time, we should be aware that non-immediate problem is not over attended. Money limited, too much attention on those not so immediate problems such as crimes in a relatively peaceful society will compete off some supports, which should have been allocated for the future. Therefore, among the numerous existing social problems, immediate ones should be put into first place, while others, should give way to our projects relating to the future.

   However, not all long-term research is really worth our money and attention. Although those helpful long-term researches might be hard to define, generally they are those that can produce long-term benefits, causing very little negative effect. For instance, the invention of computer makes considerable contribution in improving people's quality of life in the past several decades. Such long-term research can be described as helpful.

   Those helpful long-term researches might not result in immediate benefit; however, they provide a possibility of long-term development and earnings. After World War II, Japanese government invested a lot in the field of education. We cannot deny that the great economy increasing after 20 or 30 years is intimately relevant to their successful education project. An unhelpful long-term research, as is indicated previously, once carried out, might shades future negative effects, even disasters. One good example is a present cutting-edge topic in biology study, the human embryonic stem cell research. If not properly directed and constrained, numerous ethic problems will emerge. As a result, whether a long-term research is helpful must be carefully determined and those helpful ones should be encouraged.

    It seems that, after contemplating on the importance of both today and future investment, they can't be compatible with each other. Nevertheless, unification of solving today's problem and pursuing future benefit is possible. Sometimes, one policy and investment is both beneficial to today and future. In my hometown, for example, introducing plants that are tolerant to drought to the desert will both bring a considerable amount of income, and a well-protected environment for the future generations. What's more, an effort for our future often promise a good today after some certain period of time, by always avoiding immediate social problem and establishing a beneficial cycle. In summary, there are no strict limits between today and future. Balancing does not mean to sacrifice, but leads to a win-win situation.

    In the end, reflecting and comparing on today and future makes it clear that we cannot arbitrarily determine which of the two is in need of more financial aid. Different decision maker might have different polices. However, balancing should be the central theme in solving this problem, and unifying is probably the wisest choice.

[ 本帖最后由 nuclearabbit 于 2007-8-7 20:52 编辑 ]

果小冻UID: 208370

:loveliness: 请注意发贴格式，多谢，在置顶哦

nuclearabbitUID: 2371193

昨天发这里了,结果今天来看就没了...55
没想到更新得这么快...希望各位再帮忙看一看,也麻烦斑竹了...求狠拍~

这是我第一篇,还22天就考试了,才开始动笔,心理特别没底,欢迎大家提各种意见啦~

onethingonceUID: 2374625

216. "It is more important to allocate money for immediate, existing social problems than to spend it on long-term research that might help future generations."


Should the government allocate more money for existing social problems or fur long-term research? From my point of view, it depends on how immediate the existing problem is, as well as on how helpful the long-term research will be. Balancing choice must be deliberately made according the particular situations.

    Possibly, one might ask that "how do you define the word immediate?" First consider a barrel containing only half its capacity of water, only because one of its boards is broken, preventing the barrel to retain more water. The so called immediate problem, in my opinion, is just like the broken board, which can seriously affecting the existing and further development of societies.

    Financial supports on immediate existing social problems are important. On one hand, they can stabilize the society. If a large portion of finance is dedicated to solve the problem of unemployment, the existing complains and crisis can probably be alleviated. On the other hand, they help an inanimate society to resume vitality and step on new roads of development. The money spent in regulating economic structures will have such an effect. At the same time, we should be aware that non-immediate problem is not over attended. Money limited, too much attention on those not so immediate problems such as crimes in a relatively peaceful society will compete off some supports, which should have been allocated for the future. Therefore, among the numerous existing social problems, immediate ones should be put into first place, while others, should give way to our projects relating to the future.

   However（觉得和上文并不是转折的关系，上文讲的是immediate existing social problem,而这里是长期的问题）, not all long-term research is really worth our money and attention. Although those helpful long-term researches might be hard to define, generally they are those that can produce long-term benefits, causing very little negative effect. For instance, the invention of computer makes considerable contribution in improving people's quality of life in the past several decades. Such long-term research can be described as helpful.

   Those helpful long-term researches might not result in immediate benefit; however, they provide a possibility of long-term development and earnings. After World War II, Japanese government invested a lot in the field of education. We cannot deny that the great economy increasing after 20 or 30 years is intimately relevant to their successful education project. An unhelpful long-term research, as is indicated previously, once carried out, might shades future negative effects, even disasters. One good example is a present cutting-edge topic in biology study, the human embryonic stem cell research. If not properly directed and constrained, numerous ethic problems will emerge. As a result, whether a long-term research is helpful must be carefully determined and those helpful ones should be encouraged.

    It seems that, after contemplating on the importance of both today and future investment, they can't be compatible with each other. Nevertheless, unification of solving today's problem and pursuing future benefit is possible. Sometimes, one policy and investment is both beneficial to today and future. In my hometown, for example, introducing plants that are tolerant to drought to the desert will both bring a considerable amount of income, and a well-protected environment for the future generations. What's more, an effort for our future often promise a good today after some certain period of time, by always avoiding immediate social problem and establishing a beneficial cycle. In summary, there are no strict limits between today and future. Balancing does not mean to sacrifice, but leads to a win-win situation.

    In the end, reflecting and comparing on today and future makes it clear that we cannot arbitrarily determine which of the two is in need of more financial aid. Different decision maker might have different polices. However, balancing should be the central theme in solving this problem, and unifying is probably the wisest choice.

觉得可以在说两者的优点的同时，说说如果偏颇一方可能会带来的后果，会不会更全面？而unify，如何unify，也是一个问题，并不是说两个都有用，就都要估计，需要有权衡取舍的观念在里面。

谢谢你对我文章的批评意见，我24号考，多交流互拍

nuclearabbitUID: 2371193

恩.说得很有道理~
谢谢指正,共同加油进步~