Governments
Governments in some countries spend large amounts of money on space exploration programmes. I completely agree with the idea that these are a waste of money, and that the funds should be allocated to public services.
There are several reasons why space programmes should be abandoned. Firstly, it is extremely expensive to train scientists and other staff involved with space missions, and facilities and equipment also come at a huge cost to the government. Secondly, these programmes do not benefit normal people in our daily lives; they are simply vanity projects for politicians. Finally, many missions to space fail completely, and the smallest technological error can cost astronauts their lives. The Challenger space shuttle disaster showed us that space travel is extremely dangerous, and in my opinion it is not worth the risk.
I believe that the money from space programmes should go to vital public services instead. It is much cheaper to train doctors, teachers, police and other public service workers than it is to train astronauts or the scientists and engineers who work on space exploration projects. Furthermore, public servants do jobs that have a positive impact on every member of society. For example, we all use schools, hospitals and roads, and we all need the security that the police provide. If governments reallocated the money spent on space travel and research, many thousands of people could be lifted out of poverty or given a better quality of life.
In conclusion, my view is that governments should spend money on services that benefit all members of society, and it is wrong to waste resources on projects that do not improve our everyday lives.
People have different views about the funding of creative artists. While some people disagree with the idea of government support for artists, I believe that money for art projects should come from both governments and other sources.
Some art projects definitely require help from the state. In the UK, there are many works of art in public spaces, such as streets or squares in city centres. In Liverpool, for example, there are several new statues and sculptures in the docks area of the city, which has been redeveloped recently. These artworks represent culture, heritage and history. They serve to educate people about the city, and act as landmarks or talking points for visitors and tourists. Governments and local councils should pay creative artists to produce this kind of art, because without their funding our cities would be much less interesting and attractive.
On the other hand, I can understand the arguments against government funding for art. The main reason for this view is that governments have more important concerns. For example, state budgets need to be spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure and security, among other areas. These public services are vital for a country to function properly, whereas the work of creative artists, even in public places, is a luxury. Another reason for this opinion is that artists do a job like any other professional, and they should therefore earn their own money by selling their work.
In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources of financial support, but in my opinion government help is sometimes necessary.
Some people think that politicians should be responsible for protecting the environment as there is nothing much that individuals can do about this problem. In my opinion, the responsibility to protect the environment should not fall upon politicians alone because ordinary citizens can make a significant contribution.
Firstly, politicians can urge the government to impose new laws against actions that damage the environment. For instance, one of the major factors leading to environmental pollution is the overuse of plastic products, like bottles and bags, and this can be stopped if the government issues an official ban on all companies from using plastic packaging. In addition, the rate of deforestation can also be reduced if high-ranking bureaucrats agree to impose strict punishments, such as long-term imprisonment and heavy fines, on those who cut down trees illegally. However, besides introducing and enforcing new laws and regulations, I doubt that there is any further action that politicians can take to protect the environment.
On the other hand, I believe that ordinary people, through small, everyday actions, can also greatly contribute to protecting the environment. First, citizens in many countries, like the Netherlands, have now shifted towards using bicycles and subway trains for their daily travel instead of cars, which has so far helped reduce a tremendous amount of CO2 released into the air, and improved air quality. Second, the problem of polluted oceans has also been tackled in many places thanks to groups of young people who voluntarily spend their time cleaning up beaches, or even diving into water to pick up trash. For example, many students in Nha Trang, a coastal city of Vietnam, spent nearly their whole summer holiday in 2018 keeping the beaches of their hometown clean by collecting all the trash from tourists, and even banned Chinese people from entering certain areas to prevent them from littering.
In conclusion, I hold the view that politicians alone cannot deal with all environmental problems, and therefore individuals should also make a contribution to protecting our environment.
Scientific research plays an important role in the development of humanity. Some people think that the responsibility for conducting and managing it should be taken by governments, and not by private companies. Personally, I believe that both governments and private businesses should have the right and duty to carry out research.
I believe that governments should play the leading role in performing research due to a number of reasons. Firstly, scientific research is the key to finding solutions to the pressing concerns of society. Thorough medical research, for example, needs to be conducted by governments to develop vaccines against potential epidemics. Research into renewable energies is also crucial to deal with global warming. These kinds of research require a great deal of spending, which can only be afforded by the government. In addition, scientific studies controlled by governments will ensure that reliable and ethical methods are used, and minimize the risk of these studies being used for criminal activity. For instance, studies related to nuclear power or weapons must be carried out or supervised by governmental organizations to protect a country from terrorism or other warfare.
However, private companies can do research which is not carried out by governments. In fact, many useful scientific discoveries have been made by private institutions. To illustrate, the invention of the iPhone by Apple, a corporation in the US began the era of smartphones and facilitated modern forms of interaction between people all over the world. Furthermore, encouraging profit-driven companies to conduct scientific investigations will help them develop their own products and create competition in the marketplace. Society will therefore benefit from new inventions and better products.
In conclusion, although governments should control and carry out major scientific studies, private companies should not be deprived of the right to do research.
It is believed that countries which have high unemployment rates should only offer primary education; and extending secondary education to students who are not likely to find work in the future is a hopeless attempt. I personally consider this to be a flawed argument, and I will explain my reasoning in the essay below.
Important as it is to a child’s overall development, primary education does not provide any necessary work skills. The fundamental aim of this early stage of education is simply to lay a basis for a student’s cognitive development through the learning of language, art and basic science. People who complete this level of education are not equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to enter the workforce. While those people may find blue-collar employment, it is unlikely that they can get a decent job. Therefore, if a country with a high unemployment level only offers primary education to the majority of students, the outcome will not be worthwhile.
Furthermore, I would argue that investing in secondary schooling systems and delivering secondary education to young students are of greater importance when it comes to improving the overall employment rate of a country. In fact, nowadays, many middle and high schools hire a large number of secondary education degree holders who work better with younger age groups and are more familiar with the subjects taught at this level of education. There are also many other types of non-academic careers, such as in the beauty and entertainment industries, that only require a secondary education degree. Last but not least, I believe that we should not restrict secondary education to a certain group of students who are deemed eligible because everyone deserves an equal opportunity to access education.
In conclusion, I disagree that providing only primary education is the best course of action to be adopted in the context of a nation with a high rate of unemployment. Secondary education, on the other hand, is a major contributor to combating unemployment. I also believe that we should not dispense secondary education to only a select number of students as everyone has the right to be educated.
Environmental issues have become an increasing concern among individuals and governments in the modern world. Some people reject the role of individuals and argue that environmental protection can only be achieved by the governments and big businesses. I personally consider this to be a flawed argument, and I will explain my reasoning in the following essay.
In reality, governments and corporations take responsibility for protecting the environment. Governments could enact laws to reduce many environmental problems, while large companies are capable of investing large amounts of money in sustainable development goals. However, all the policies and campaigns will show no effect without the active cooperation of residents. In Vietnam, although the government tries to raise the public’s awareness of environmental issues and even imposes heavy fines on those who violate environmental laws, many beaches and the surrounding ecosystems have been badly polluted by the sheer number of visitors. Therefore, I believe that there needs to be more action taken from individuals in such situations.
Furthermore, all the combined actions of all people will have a profound impact on the bigger picture. Researchers found that an individual will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 1500 pounds per year if he leaves his car at home two days a week. Another prime example is in waste management processes. While residents can spend just a few minutes separating their biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste, it takes days for waste recycling plants to achieve the same task.
In conclusion, I disagree with the opinion that the environmental issues can only be reduced by governments and large enterprises because individuals also need to make a significant contribution to the process of keeping the planet clean. In other words, this mater can only be dealt with by simultaneous participation of governments, companies and residents.
People have different views about whether money should be spent on public transport or on other more important issues. While faster means of public transport would be a positive measure, I would argue that further investment in other priorities should be made first.
On the one hand, it could be argued that providing citizens with faster forms of public transportation has brought about certain benefits. Firstly, faster forms of transport are said to allow people, particularly commuters, to reduce travelling time to and from work. As a result, people will have more leisure time, and this will lead to an increase in their work productivity. Secondly, by adopting this method, people are less likely to be packed in cramped and hot buses. They will not need to rush to get to work on time or get up so early in order to get a seat on a bus, and therefore, they will have more time to prepare before going to work or school, or to enjoy their breakfast with their family.
However, I believe that spending money on other vital aspects is more important. One of the most pressing concerns is environmental pollution. Despite the convenience that public transportation brings to commuters, more and more vehicles are being used each year and exhaust fumes emitted from those vehicles have exerted a detrimental effect on the atmosphere in most large cites. As a result, people are more susceptible to developing respiratory diseases and other kinds of health problems. Another significant issue is the increasing cost of living, which leaves many people struggling to cope with basic daily needs. If such situations are left untreated, this may lead to a decrease in economic growth, amongst other problems.
In conclusion, despite the advantages of improving the speed of public transport, I am convinced that it is better to spend money on more urgent issues, such as the environment and living costs.
It is said that government funding for education should give preference to science-based subjects over others, in an attempt to help boost a country’s future development and progress. Although an increase in scientific developments can have many benefits to national progress, this essay disagrees that science is the primary contributor.
There is no question that the advent of modern science has brought with it a number of improvements to the way that countries and societies function. For example, increases in electrical and computer based technologies have led to much more streamlined and efficient workplaces. Computers and computerized machinery can now do the work of what would have previously been carried out by humans, allowing greater efficiency and higher productivity output. Another benefit that modern science has granted is the development of renewable energy. Sources of renewable energy, such as solar and wind generated power, are beginning to help ease the planet’s reliance on fossil fuels.
That being said, an increase in scientific education and development must not be the main measure of a country’s progress. It can be seen that the study of many other disciplines of education can also attribute to a countries progress. Take, for example, the Arts and Humanities. Subjects such as History and Philosophy have allowed us to gain a better understanding of humanity and can help to gain more insight into how we can move forward as a race. Other subjects such as the Arts, allow societies and individuals to express themselves creatively through mediums such as music, film and other art forms. It can be argued that this can also help to improve the quality of people’s lives and therefore help towards a countries overall development.
In conclusion, although developments in science have led to many beneficial advantages for most countries, science alone is not the key contributor to a country’s progress. In my opinion, most countries would benefit greater from a more well-rounded education, with emphasis on all disciplines, not only that of science.
Opinions diverge widely on whether dangerous sports should be prohibited due to the potential hazards to participants. While I understand this argument, my view is that people should have the right to participate in any sport they choose.
The principal reason in favour of a ban on extreme sports is that such activities are usually accompanied by a high chance of serious injury or death. A mountain climber, for example, is always in danger of a fatal fall even with the protection of climbing equipment. Furthermore, some of these sports not only render the players injured, but also the cheering spectators. Take car racing for example. In Japan in 2004, a Formula 1 race car crashed and debris from the crash flew into the crowd and caused serious injuries to both the racer and spectators.
However, I believe that people should be free to take part in any sport that they choose, and it would be wrong to stop climbing enthusiasts from challenging themselves and enjoying the invigorating experience of standing on top of a mountain peak. If these sports were previously banned, the world would not have witnessed the amazing feat of the first official ascent of Mount Everest in 1953. In addition, those who participate in these activities have to undertake rigorous training and experience for long periods of time to ensure they are in peak physical and mental condition in order to take up these hazardous sports. Therefore, the concern of the risk element becomes somewhat reduced.
In conclusion, it would be wrong to ban extreme sports, and I think that people should have the right to take part in any sport they want for the aforementioned arguments.
What would the world be like without Shakespeare or the Olympics? While medical care and education are perhaps the highest causes to which money can be contributed, the arts and athletics are in some ways just as valuable. So, to ask the government to not extend support to these two areas could be just as detrimental to the welfare of society as the lack of sufficient health care and education.
The Romans believed in “mens sana in corpore sano”. In short, that there is indeed a correlation between a healthy body and healthy mind. When we are healthy, we feel better and so are more likely to be productive academically. Plus, the practice of sports can also teach us the very same discipline we need for our studies. Why even a brisk walk or watching an exciting athletic match can refresh the mind for greater work. Moreover, sports can serve to create healthier bodies, which in turn would serve as a form of “preventive medicine” thereby cutting down on medical costs. In the same vein, the arts are known to induce a sense of well-being in performers and audience alike, reducing mental problems and their associated physical manifestations and again, medical costs. As such, building theatres and stadiums, which spur interest in the arts and sports respectively, actually would be practically identical to spending money on medical care and education!
Now I realize the question specifically addresses the building of theatres and sports stadiums by government. Some people would contend athletics and the arts can still be enjoyed and practiced without such constructions. I would argue that these buildings stand as the altars to the sports and arts worlds, inspiring would-be athletes and performers. Without such venues where would sports spectators and music aficionados be able to enjoy these events? Now some other people would also say business could support their construction, but we know the avarice of business could very likely jeopardize the lofty spirit of athletics and the arts just as well. Therefore, allowing government to retain some say in the matter on behalf of the people would, I believe, be in the best interest of the people.
In short, as long as the government does not go overboard in its expenditures for these buildings and uses such venues for the benefit of all, then, people will benefit in terms of both medical care and education. This is not to say that the government should neglect medical care and education, but rather to think of this as a win-win situation for all.
Today’s world has been divided into developing and industrialised countries which the main difference between them is the amount of money that governments apply in important sectors such as education, health and commerce. Most of the poorer nations are buried in debts as a result of their unbalanced finances which are reflect in a failed health care, an unstructured education system and a weak international trade. This vicious cycle will continue indefinitely unless wealthier nations show interest in minimizing the worldwide economic differences, as well as taking more responsibility for assisting unfortunate countries.
Most of the African countries live in sub-human conditions because of the extreme poverty, upheaval, hunger, disease, unemployment, lack of education and both inexperienced and corrupt administrations. The devastating consequences of the AIDS epidemic in those countries could improve if the infected populations receive free drugs to control the disease, have access to health professionals and get information on how to prevent its spread. But this can only be achieved through international help programs in which leaders of the world’s richest countries donate medicine and also send doctors and nurses to treat and educate those in need.
Moreover, most of the poor countries rely on selling agricultural products and raw material to rich nations and buying industrialized products from them resulting in a huge financial deficit. Consequently, they borrow a significant amount of money from the World Bank to try to improve their broken economies, but sometimes the money disappears with no significant changes and they cannot even pay the interest to the bank. Regarding this issue, last year the G8, which is comprised of leaders of the eight richest nations, decided to forgive billions of dollars debt owed by the world’s poorest nations. In addition, they developed adequate loan programs to financially assist those countries.
In conclusion, leaders of the industrialised countries can play an indispensable role in assisting developing nations deal with essential areas such as health, education and trade. Also, their aid is the key to breaking the vicious cycle, which results in poverty and death.