Nowadays, international tourism is the biggest industry in the world. Unfortunately, international tourism creates tension rather than understanding between people from different cultures. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
?? To what extent do you agree or disagree? 在多大程度上同意或不同意出題方式。
?? 話題類型：旅游+國際化。話題詞 international tourism, tension, understanding, different cultures
Recent decades have witnessed the flourish in global traveling and it has become a lifestyle for the normal people. Some contend that this trend has caused tension between diverse cultures rather than enhancement of understanding, but I find such opinion flawed and hard to justify.
Admittedly, international tourism seems to bring some misunderstanding between local populace and foreign travelers. For example, many people believe that the tourism have aggravated or spoiled the visited locations due to pollution and littering. However, it seems to me that these bad behaviors are not caused by international tourism, but by the lack of personal moral principles, and even some of the locals have these flaws too. Meanwhile, with close supervision and rigid regulations, these issues can be strategically addressed.
Therefore, I personally believe that the international tourism should be promoted because of its enormous benefits, especially in the aspect related to the enhancement of understanding of diverse cultures. First of all, this kind of tourism can certainly make travelers access and feel the first-hand experience，by which I mean experiencing cultural differences in person can substantially stimulate people's curiosity and desire for exploration. Therefore, it is not rare that travelers fall in love with the culture of the host country and work as cultural ambassadors later. Besides, international tourism eases tension between people of various nationalities through enhancing multicultural communication. In other words, although reading the second hand information presented on the social media or other publications may partially ease the misunderstanding caused by the ignorance and prejudice, we find it confusing to interpret or complying with diverging cultural norms without experiencing civilizations on a first hand basis. Luckily, traveling gives people a feasible solution by the means of accessing the different land.
In conclusion, international tourism connects people in various countries rather than separating them. Far from causing tension, international tourism improves people's relationship from different cultures.
Host countries 所在國
Some people think it is more important for the government to spend more money promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illnesses than the treatment for people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
To access whether the government should invest money in the prevention of illness or the related treatment, I might have to consider how to define certain utterances made by this topic. From the perspective of the government, it is reasonable for them to spend money in the area that is beneficial to the overwhelming people; however, the take-home message is how the government is to define “importance”.
There are, of course, people out there holding that government spending should be better given out to prevent diseases from haening via promoting a healthy lifestyle rather than to treat those who have already been ill. To them, the number of people currently without health problems but awaiting a better living condition is always more than that of the latter. That means the macro-economic allocation should firstly fulfill the need of most of the tax contributors to make sure the investment is persuasive. The financial flows are considered useful if they are used to things like organic food produce, fitness facilities set in residential surroundings, or even better air condition. They are much closer to the daily health of the public and would be somewhat easily proved to avoid certain food-related, sedentariness-driven, and pollution-oriented illnesses. Whereas the expenditure invested in the medical industry seems comparatively “invisible”, as it is always enjoyed solely by the minority who are put into the physical problems, and would be also hard to judge whether this money would be finally valuable. There also exist failures in the treatment; it sounds obscured to verify whether the cured patients get well because of the financial input in the medical facilities or just because of their immunity.
However, the thinking presented above doesn’t allow one to think of real importance that the investment in the medical area may have, and precludes them from recognizing the potential hazards and irrationality that lie. No matter how a healthy life is to promote, one must admit that in some cases, the lifestyle that is deemed “healthy” by our current knowledge cannot effectively “prevent illness”. Then it is not surprising that in the hygiene history, some paradoxical health rules considering certain living habits would be meaningful or harmful, have finally been proved unacceptable. We should also realize that for certain illnesses, the solely healthy lifestyle is certainly not enough. People are prone to diseases easily if there were no systematic medical expertise, facilities, or resources in dealing with them. In that case, investing in a healthy life promotion is spectacularly meaningless. The myopic thinking given in the prompt distracts us from rationally thinking what the “importance” truly means; it is then incomparable between the two investment directions in terms of the importance because of our still limited knowledge to our current health care and to the unknown future.
In conclusion, I would agree that the policy of government investing in a healthy lifestyle cannot be considered more significant than in disease treatment.