Many old buildings protected by law are part of a nation’s history. Some people think they should be knocked down and replaced by new ones. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?
-
July 19, 2020 at 12:10 am
Many old buildings protected by law are part of a nation’s history. Some people think they should be knocked down and replaced by new ones. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?
Old buildings contain historical value of a nation even the world. There is no doubt about the importance of maintaining history. But when it comes to the moment we have to choose one of the other. I think it is necessary to put progress in our priority in terms of evolution.
In the dictionary, civilization is defined as a society with an advanced state of social development. To achieve this level, our ancestors kept upgrading their tools, food resources, and living environment. From mountain caves as shelters to rocks-built houses, where we can tell that history is a process of replacing, recreating and involuting. Base on this, it seems silly to compare the importance of creating history itself to maintaining the old buildings that only contain past history.
Some people believe that piling up skyscraper buildings to each other is not progressive but retrogressive. There are always protesters who dedicate their time and energy to educate people on the importance of protecting nature. And the protection of old historical buildings is often included in their goals. However, as a matter of fact, it is not accurate to call the old buildings nature since they are our own creation. The process of knocking down old buildings is more of a necessary self-inspect than simple destruction.
It is hard to draw a line for how far we should go to replace old buildings with new ones. But in my opinion, it is our responsibility to learn from the past then move on to a better present, which is the key to the constant development of our civilization.
July 22, 2020 at 2:27 pmScore: ungraded
Issues:
- Punctuation errors;
- Article errors;
- Word choice errors;
- About 15% of the sentences are passive. Convert some of them into their active counterparts.
I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.
August 3, 2020 at 6:59 pmOld buildings contain the historical value of a nation, even the world. However, while some commentators think that the old buildings have no place within a new century, other people defend the idea that history should never be forgotten. In this essay, I shall argue that both viewpoints are, to some degree, justified.
To begin with, the importance of concrete progress cannot be overemphasized. This is because we cannot survive by resting satisfied with the past. For example, our ancestors moved forward from mountain caves to rock-built shelters. Instead of holding on to the old achievements, our ancestors kept upgrading their tools, food resources, and living environment. Which is the reason that we could live comfortably in skyscraper buildings today. It is therefore clear that making progress is much more important than maintaining old buildings in terms of evolution.
On the other hand, some people believe that piling up skyscraper buildings next to each other is not progressive but retrogressive. This is because of the rising growth of the economy has boosted the demand for entertainment places. Which leads to the unnecessary destruction of well-functioned historical buildings. For example, the government allows investors to demolish local farms and old houses to build clubs for profits instead of focusing on the improvements to infrastructure. Since the original notion of replacing old buildings is a necessary upgrade to achieve a constant development of our civilization. It is therefore questionable that some demolishment of old buildings is being decided cautiously.
In conclusion, it should be clear that there are reasons for and against the protection of old buildings. Thus, if changes are to enter the area of old buildings. The government will have to think about how negative aspects of the replacement can be decreased, and positive aspects maximized.
