读趣百科

In some major cities in my country, China, heavy traffic becomes increasingly problematic to commuters. This situation can be due to the fast pace of urban development.

The migration policy in China leads rural peasants to big cities. Also the convenient modern facilities and business opportunities in urban areas attract young generation in smaller towns seeking a reasonable career. While cities are expanding, the travellers have to cover further distance than they used to. Unluckily the public transport system built years ago is not well functioning. It is at this point that car purchase sounds reasonable. On top of this, the political will of enhancing economy should be responsible for various urban issues including traffic congestion. In order to stimulate domestic consumption, the public are encouraged to own their private cars, but in metropolises with dense population, such lifestyle is hard to be sufficiently supported.

To deal with traffic issue, some actions can be taken. Firstly, satellite cities can be a pragmatic approach to decentralize urban resource, thereby reducing urban population density. These satellite cities featuring self-sufficient can largely reduce daily travel if people are encouraged to live near their workplace or their school. Exclusive avenues for cycling can be set so that short-distance travellers would like to choose riding a bike instead of squeezing in a bus.

Public transport should be improved in terms of route, timing, comfortableness and service courtesy so as to encourage commuters to take. The larger capacity of public vehicles compared with private cars can effectively ease the traffic pressure on city roads.

In contrast, private cars should be discouraged from using for short distance travel. The approaches include charging a high parking fee, more expensive petrol or restricting in driving days.

In many countries, museums used to be free for visitors to enter. But recently, admission fee is introduced due to a cut in funding from the government.

There are reasons for such proposal. Firstly, charging admission keeps a museum run healthily because it provides museums some funding for maintenance and expansion. As we generally know, building a museum with special characters and functions costs substantially more money than an ordinary residential building. Operation spending including security, staff salary and enriching the collections also need constant financial support. If all this cost has to come from taxation, that would be unfair to some taxpayers who do not visit museums at all. Also charging admission can compensate publicly funded museums for cuts in subsidy granted by the government and do not drop their service quality and security. Meanwhile this would not threaten other independent competitors which rely on their income from entry fees.

However, some people disagree with charging entry because they are convinced of some adverse impacts on the society. It is true that a museum is a venue about learning and enjoying as well. It is the access to vivid presentation of knowledge and local culture and history, and charging admission would decrease the number of visits, hence undermining the inspiration for knowledge and cultural heritage preservation and transmission. Another concern about charging admission of a museum is that a museum, as an important educational resource, may lose its educational function because some students in a disadvantaged position would be deprived of a museum tour.

In conclusion, although free access to a museum can promote culture and education, it leads to financial pressure on a museum. Accordingly students should be given a preference treatment and this can be effective with the government’s constant funding for student museum visit. Adults should be charged of admission to a museum. A virtual museum can be another promising option for those less well-off because it is much cheaper to build and run, and therefore can be provided free.

While the economy is booming in many countries, the funding for arts has been decreasing. The main reason is that some people overly emphasize social services such as medical care and education, but underestimate the intangible role of the arts as they find it difficult to quantify their benefits.

If we were to judge something by its material value, social service surely plays a more direct role in benefiting people’s life than the arts. For example, education empowers people with knowledge and skills that make capable workers. Improving healthcare system leads to better public health and better quality of life. Tackling environmental issues can make the earth a better place for us to live. If the taxpayers’ money is put into the development of infrastructure, living standard would be increased.

However, these do not necessarily increase the happiness of people as they are by nature emotionally connected to the world around them. That is to say the quality of life does not solely depend on materialism.

Humans are emotional beings and need not only bread to eat but also roses to enjoy. It is the arts that deal with the non-material aspects of life such as passions, values and relationships which significantly influence people’s feelings and judgments. The arts in many various forms have to do with human’s inner feelings and value system which are ultimately central to people’s behaviors. Another important benefit is that the arts inspire people to see their world from a personal point of view which is usually very unique and creative. And creativity and innovation is a crucial quality for an individual to excel in society and make the best of their life. Other values of the arts include relaxation and entertainment, safe way of channeling energy and passion, enhancing understanding between cultures and races.

To conclude, the arts are as important as basic social services for humans, although they benefit us in different ways. To maintain a healthy and robust society, governments should offer financial support in all areas of society including the arts.

Since the invention of the internet and mobile phones, face-to-face communication no longer holds the dominant role in human interaction it once had. Undoubtedly these technical advances have facilitated more convenient and greater amount of communication between people. Unfortunately this has not come without cost.

Obviously the unprecedentedly increased communication connects people more easily. No one can easily manage our various relationships unless we register the Facebook or any other social networking site. Thanks to cell phones, people can contact one another in real time and this significantly boosts working efficiency. Telecommunication also empowers modern people with more independence. For example, children equipped with a mobile phone can be allowed to go further because the parents would feel safe to be able to get in touch with their children at any time. Some school children are even sent abroad for travel or education, and the family tie is partly maintained by such video chatting tools as MSN or Skype.

While we enjoy an instant connection with one another, our relationships are actually getting fragile. Messaging or talking on phone eliminates all non-verbal expressions. However, researchers suggest that body and facial expressions are crucial to relationship as they carry the most significant part of conversation. Therefore, over-relying on the internet and cell phone to interact with others can easily cause misunderstanding, thereby undermining trustworthy relation. Another negative aspect of telecommunication is that people’s personal relationship is interfered in real life. It is typical that people are ready to receive any call any time even when they are at a family get-together dinner table.

To sum up, a new invention does not necessarily mean a good thing or bad. It is neutral in nature. The important thing is that how we utilize it. The Internet and cell phones can definitely be put into good use as long as we do not take for granted that it can totally substitute for traditional way of relating to others.

In recent years, young college graduates are having a tough time finding a decent job in an increasingly competitive labor market. Some are even unemployed for over a year. This is really a serious problem on the levels of both individual and the society as a whole.

First, long time being jobless, young people have to deal with some psychological conditions. They are subject to anxiety, lack of self-confidence, lower achievement motivation, and pessimism, all of which are potentially barriers for their future success at workplace and in personal life. Financially, unemployed students are stuck in the dilemma that they have to return home to keep relying on their elderly parents. As for the effect on the society, youth unemployment means that the scarce resources dedicated in higher education are invested in vain as graduates have no opportunity to transfer their academic knowledge and skills into productivity.

Part-time mediocre jobs can be a solution for them to be able to feed themselves for a while. Small businesses in virtual world require lower start-up cost than real-life ones, thereby allowing these youngsters with no bank saving to make a living. The condition has to be an easy access to a bank loan. Graduates tend to focus on major cities, making more competition in employment market. If they are led to some less crowded places, they would possibly have more chances to get hired.

To tackle this problem, governments should take the major responsibility. Governments should encourage these young adults to involve in some voluntary or low paid work in remote underdeveloped areas where are in great need in professional talents. Meanwhile they can gain some working experience which is very useful for their future career in their chosen field.

Further study can postpone college graduation and therefore relieve the pressure on labor market. But this is not a long-term solution. To completely reverse the situation, financial policies supporting small-sized businesses should be formulated at an attempt to create more job positions. While graduates cannot find a job, technical workers are in greater need. Therefore the entrance to university education should be lifted, whereas vocational education is expanded.