CrapBag
Your Replies
-
June 7, 2022 at 7:26 am
In most countries, governments usually spend more money in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams than in support of arts. Nowadays, more voices appear to change this kind of situation. I consider myself one of those voices, as I agree that governments should spend more money on the arts.
To begin with, supporting arts can produce some long-term benefits for the culture of this country; meanwhile supporting athletics can barely leave some long-term outcomes. For example, those beautiful drawings and sculptures in the Nation Museum of China have been symbols of China the country. Those legacies have been made for more than hundreds of years but are still alive as a part of China’s history and culture. Some medals in Olympics can never replace the value brought by those artworks. Those achievements of arts may benefit the country for more than hundreds of years.
Also, it should be noticed that the athletics of a country are not as influential as they used to be. Maybe 100 or 200 years ago, the grades of the athletics of a country can stand for the force and the influence of this country, but for this age we are currently living in, things have changed. There are much more factors that can illustrate the situation and the force of a country, for instance, the number of people using smartphones may be a better statistic data than this country’s number of medals in the Olympics. Governments used to spend so much money to support those Olympics teams because they try to show their power to other countries. Since the athletics of a country now can only stand for a little aspect of the power of this country, they should not continue to cost so much money and resources anymore.
Time has changed, athletics’ value is now less than arts’, and governments must commit some actions to be adapted to this new situation.
April 8, 2022 at 9:39 amI agree that the extended family is less important than it was in the past. Maybe around fifty years ago, living with extended families was necessary for individuals to ensure their survival. Living resources such as food and shelter were barely possible for ordinary people to get. However, in modern society’s context, where people can get survival resources easily, I do not consider the extended family as important as it is anymore.
The extended family was important because people could only live with safety and security by living together. Since most governments around the world have much more power to keep the stability of society, people can live happily and adequately even as only an individual. There’s a pronounced tendency that people are living with nobody but themselves or only with close family members. Thus it can be concluded that people’s need to live with extended family has decreased.
Besides, living with many family members can cause a series of potential issues. Conflict often happens even in a close family, let alone in an extended family. Individualism has affected young groups very profoundly. Young groups nowadays always try to show their personalities, and the countless conflicts between them and their family members come. Most of my friends and I have experienced arguing or fighting with our parents during our teenage. What if a couple more people from extended families live with us? It’s not hard to infer that there would be more conflicts and quarrels.
In many situations, extended family members are nobody but strangers to people nowadays, for they sometimes cannot even recall each other’s names. Of course, many people can be very close to some of their extended family members, but this concept of extended families is broken and will not be as significant.
