Issue56 [mettle小组]第八次作业by werecat

werecatUID: 2289296

I56

It is obvious that the annual income and budgets of the government is stable and limited each year, so it becomes a serious and polemic question that how to allocate these money? Should they be used on immediate problems? Or are the anticipated problems more important to put money on? My point of view is that, both kinds of problem are essential and they can not be separated easily and exactly.

No one can deny the fact that government should put major focus on the immediate problems. Peoples' living conditions, economic situations, social morals and current international trends, all of the above factors are problems which need to be took on seriously. Talking about the importance of solving problems at present, I recalled a vivid example--the downfall of USSR--during the periods of Cold War, USSR and USA competed in every fields all around the world. They sent troopers to their allies, they fomented rebel forces in hostile countries and sold them weapons, both of them forged some military organizations, they also raced in developing advanced weapons and dominating the space. However, none of them beat the other directly in martial ways, but USSR crumpled and fell into 13 countries due to its poor domestic economy and other social problems. One of the common acknowledged point of view is that USSR paid too much attention on global dominance and weapon competitions, thus them somehow ignored the development of economy and relieving social or nation conflicts. So finally and causticly, a super power with tremendous military force was defeated from within. In sum, governments must not ignore or falled to solve the immediate problems, if so, the price will probably be too dear to pay.

Besides, predicting and solving the anticipated problems are crucial too. The ultimate goal of each government is to ensure the living of their people and their offsprings, if we are so narrow-witted that we take into consideration just the interests of our own generation, it is hard to say that the government is qualified. For instance, scientists have now figured out the main cause of global warming, it is the releasing of greenhouse gases such as carbondioxide, methane and so on. The effects of the global warming has some certain lag time in response to human activities, so in order to reduce the producing and releasing of these gases, each country must engage in environmental campaigns from now on. Many anticipated and pending problems need to be awared of at present, or it will be too later to do anything useful if it break out someday in the future.

However, we can not differentiate the problems exactly and clearly into these two types--immediate ones and anticipated ones. Most of the problems we are facing now are quite complicated. Again, let's take the global warming problem as example. It is definite true that the major impacts of global warming are still yet to come, they may plunge upon our next generation as estimated, so it can be viewd as an anticipated problem. However, reducing greenhouse gases is a problem involved vastly and deeply with our current economic and industrial systems. Therefore, we can not distinguish clearly the gap between present problems and the coming ones.

It is doubtless that each governments are destined to solve problems. In my opinion, it is meaningless to separate the problems into two catagories. As long as both kinds of problems are crucial to people and their offsprings' lives, they must be considered equally.

先写了第八次．．．第七次稍后补上吧

[ 本帖最后由 werecat 于 2007-7-14 23:29 编辑 ]

AndierUID: 2302600

It is obvious that the annual income and budgets of the government is stable and limited each year, so it becomes a serious and polemic question that how(这觉得这个 how to就些别扭阿~ 我也说不好对否。。。) to allocate these money? Should they be used on immediate problems? Or are the anticipated problems more important to put money on? My point of view is that, both kinds of problem are essential and they can not be separated easily and exactly.

No one can deny the fact that government should put major focus on the immediate problems. Peoples' living conditions, economic situations, social morals and current international trends, all of the above factors are problems which need to be took on(不确定这个用法，是我的话我用addressed) seriously. Talking about the importance of solving problems at present, I recalled a vivid example--the downfall of USSR--during the periods of Cold War, USSR and USA competed in every fields all around the world. They sent troopers to their allies, they fomented rebel forces in hostile countries and sold them weapons, both of them forged some military organizations, they also raced in developing advanced weapons and dominating the space. However, none of them beat the other directly in martial ways, but USSR crumpled and fell into 13 countries due to its poor domestic economy and other social problems. One of the common acknowledged point of view is that USSR paid too much attention on global dominance(这个概念我也不懂了..嘿嘿) and weapon competitions, thus them(they) somehow ignored the development of economy and relieving social or nation conflicts. So finally and causticly, a super power with tremendous military force was defeated from within(也不确定，我可能会用inside). In sum, governments must not ignore or falled(fail ?) to solve the immediate problems, if so, the price will probably be too dear to pay.

Besides, predicting and solving the anticipated problems are crucial too. The ultimate goal of each government is to ensure the living of their people and their offsprings, if we are so narrow-witted that we take into consideration just the interests of our own generation, it is hard to say that the government is qualified. For instance, scientists have now figured out the main cause of global warming, it is the releasing of greenhouse gases such as carbondioxide, methane and so on. The effects of the global warming has some certain lag time in response to human activities, so in order to reduce the producing and releasing of these gases, each country must engage in environmental campaigns from now on. Many anticipated and pending problems need to be awared of at present, or it will be too later(late) to do anything useful if it breaks out someday in the future.

However, we can not differentiate the problems exactly and clearly into these two types--immediate ones and anticipated ones. Most of the problems we are facing now are quite complicated. Again, let's take the global warming problem as example. It is definitely true that the major impacts of global warming are still yet to come, they may plunge upon our next generation as estimated, so it can be viewd as an anticipated problem. However, reducing greenhouse gases is a problem involved vastly and deeply with our current economic and industrial systems. Therefore, we can not distinguish clearly the gap between present problems and the coming ones.

It is doubtless that each governments are destined to solve problems. In my opinion, it is meaningless to separate the problems into two catagories. As long as both kinds of problems are crucial to people and their offsprings' lives, they must be considered equally.

总的来说~ 感觉如果要论证  长期短期问题 “不容易区分” 的话， 是挺难的。你得说一个问题又会影响到现在，又会影响到未来。而真正起这个作用的只有倒数第二段。而这个概念完全可以放到“现在问题需要解决，不然会影响到未来” 这个意思上。然后再说说现在没发生也要预防的问题。不然不太好说这个理~我是这么觉得哈。。。

还有就是lz 的小词 一定要注意啊~。。

有时候对一个问题 论述的角度，直接决定了文章的难易程度……