ISSUE3 [5-F小组]

lestouUID: 2260126

TOPIC: ISSUE3 - "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."
WORDS: 478          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-11-8 12:19:03

Many people argue that the government, which controls the wealth of a whole country, should allocate more money for immediate social problems rather than spend it on long-term research. Admittedly, dealing with the immediate problems is crucial to the society which serves as a prerequisite to the survival of our human race. However, I would still insist that long-term research is also of great significance to our society.

On the one hand, it's quite natural for our government to spend money on immediate problems. Considering some inevitable differences between people's background, such as one's religious, culture, and age, it is almost impossible to require our government to help everyone within society, cause every one have his own responsibility to shoulder. However, if governments completely turn its back on these weak group of society, then children is exposed to pragmatism prematurely which is expected by none of us.  No one could seriously think that any one that grow up poor, live in a bad neighborhood, and attend an inferior school have an opportunity equal to that of some one more favored. So the job of our government is to grand every citizen an equal opportunity while they are growing up and then get out of their way.

On the other hand, however, it is harmful to categorically ignore the effects of long-term research; in that we are declaring war to the whole environment that we live. People should be taught to regard the earth not only as their home but also their children and grand-children as well as other animals and creatures. Spending money on long-term research can significantly protect the benefit that belongs to all of them. Faraway from the superficial impression that governments have set enough programs in long term research, the fact is that, such program may not meet the needs of researchers, and what is even worse is that many of these programs can not adequately conducted to bear an assumed result. If we look into the case of the campaign of forest protection, we will found that, though the government has invested a lot of money in programs of green project, the situation of forest destruction is still rigidly rooted.

What is more important, not a stagnancy, our world,  instead, is a involving one, which requires not only entrenched stipulation to maintain but also sufficient flexible modification to make sure people can adapt to different situation according to some unpredictable changes. So blindly require our government to spend more money for immediate problems is stupid. What people should bear in mind is to keep our policy going in order to make sure the balance between our current comfortable life and the benefit of our future generation can be under its way.

Overall, perhaps people will never come to a consensus to this controversial issue, cause most of time one society can coincide with no others. However, taking account of all the dimensions discussed in the above analysis might be a decisive step out of this dilemma.

fuq_flyUID: 2422554

Many people argue that the government, which controls the wealth of a whole country, should allocate more money for immediate social problems rather than spend it on long-term research. Admittedly, dealing with the immediate problems is crucial to the society which serves as a prerequisite to the survival of our human race. However, I would still insist that long-term research is also of great significance to our society.

On the one hand, it's quite natural for our government to spend money on immediate problems. Considering some inevitable differences between people's background, such as one's religious, culture, and age, it is almost impossible to require our government to help everyone within society, cause every one have his own responsibility to shoulder. However, if governments completely turn its back on these weak group of society, then children is exposed to pragmatism prematurely which is expected by none of us.  No one could seriously think that any one that grow up poor, live in a bad neighborhood, and attend an inferior school have an opportunity equal to that of some one more favored. So the job of our government is to grand every citizen an equal opportunity while they are growing up and then get out of their way. （这段的论述有点点跑题了，感觉想表达的是人们的不同背景和能力是产生social immediate problems 的原因，但是第一句写的是政府花钱在处理immediate problems 是很自然的。）

On the other hand, however, it is harmful to categorically ignore the effects of long-term research; in that we are declaring war to the whole environment that we live. People should be taught to regard the earth not only as their home but also their children and grand-children as well as other animals and creatures (' homestead). Spending money on long-term research can significantly protect the benefit that belongs to all of them. Faraway from the superficial impression that governments have set enough programs in long term research, the fact is that, such program may not meet the needs of researchers, and what is even worse is that many of these programs can not adequately conducted to bear an assumed result. If we look into the case of the campaign of forest protection, we will found that, though the government has invested a lot of money in programs of green project, the situation of forest destruction is still rigidly rooted.（这段论证的很好，从生存和人性的角度说明了long-term research的重要性，只是最后的例子对这段的理解产生了点歧义，例子说明了尽管政府投资了很多，但是收效甚微）

What is more important, not a stagnancy, our world,  instead, is a involving one, which requires not only entrenched stipulation to maintain but also sufficient flexible modification to make sure people can adapt to different situation according to some unpredictable changes. So blindly require our government to spend more money for immediate problems is stupid. What people should bear in mind is to keep our policy going in order to make sure the balance between our current comfortable life and the benefit of our future generation can be under its way.（多了个谓语）

Overall, perhaps people will never come to a consensus to this controversial issue, cause most of time one society can coincide with no others. However, taking account of all the dimensions discussed in the above analysis might be a decisive step out of this dilemma.

这篇文章还是贯彻了lestou兄的风格，感觉噼里啪啦的键盘下出来的文章，很顺畅，只是可能过于考虑时间影响，在行文有些地方欠缺考虑，但就文字本身来说，已经有native的影子了，Figthing～～

lestouUID: 2260126

非常感谢FLY兄能从大局上找到这么多问题,也确实是我欠缺的.
看来要多在构思上下工夫啊,出现这种情况的原因是因为想把以前写过的例子或摸板套上去,这样速度自然就上来了,也自然会有这样的问题.不过也说明写的太少,导致素材不够.