Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Governments Should Focus On Solving The Immediate Problems Of Today Rather Than On Trying To Solve The Anticipated Problems Of The Future.
Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
I agree that the government should concentrate to solve the emergency problems that threaten the lives and property of people. However, I' am totally against with the idea that the government should solve the anticipated problems after all the immediate problems are resolved. The anticipated ones emerge sooner or later if the government is reluctant to take any preventing measure, and bring about some negative results I will discuss below. In fact, I hold that an integral plan balancing the problems on both sides is quite essential to the short-term and long-run stability of a society.
To start with, I would like to illustrate the necessity of solving the immediate problems. The immediate problems, more than often, threat the safety and property of people, and should be eliminated as soon as possible to bring people' life back to normal. Thus the government is expected to take every possible measure to help resolve the urgent threats. For example, an earthquake destroyed the homeland of more than one hundred of people and render them to be homeless, thus the government should collect funds from as many channels as possible to help rebuild the new homeland for the homeless. Similarly, when threatened by a fatal infectious disease, the government should take every possible action to inhibit the spread of the virus. The defense of SARS in 2003 was a successful example. The Chinese government closed all schools and companies, and stopped all import and export trades, thus very quickly the threat of SARS virus was removed from mainland china. Also, when invaded by another country, the government should call for the strong male citizens to fight against the enemies and defend the homeland. In short, when in emergence, the government should concentrate to resolve the threatening problems to protect its people.
The immediate problems have the priority to be resolved in most cases; however, it does not mean all the anticipated problems have to wait until all the immediate problems have been resolved. This statement is supported by the following compelling reasons.
On the one hand, anticipated problems, once emerge, will likely bring irreversible consequences. In this sense, the government must foresee the problems and take measures to prevent them from happening. For example, in early 1980s, the Chinese government realized that if they continued to encourage the couples to give birth to as many as babies as they could, the population would explode and go out of control in the near future, thus they implemented the "One-child Policy" in which a couple are allowed to give birth to at most one child and those who break the regulation will be fined. The population increased slower and slower since the new policy came into effect. Suppose that the government take no action towards the anticipated population explosion, the country may be now suffering from serious problems, like poverty, undeveloped economy, famine, unemployment, poor medical care and so forth.
On the other hand, taking steps to solve the anticipated problems could resolve them at a relative low cost, compared with the cost we have to pay for remedial solutions after the problems emerge. This is fully proved in the example of the coordinated development of economy, environment, and resource. Previously, government paid attention merely to the growth of economy, in which case the environment were so seriously polluted that we could no longer get clean water from the river, no coal from the mine to continue the productivities, thus we had to close the factories to wait for several decades, for example, till the river becomes clear again. The loss is so tremendous because we have to stop the industry for a long time. Yet if the government urges the factories to invest in high-technologies to remove pollutions and slow down the growth of economy to avoid the over-exploit of resources, the productivity could be continued for a long time and the government could gain profits continuously. In this case, the government and factories paid a much lower cost for the contradiction between economical growth and environmental pollution by taking preventing measures before the situation goes worst.
To sum up, the government has the responsibility to concentrate resources to resolve the immediate problems to save people from the threats. However, the anticipated problems should be solved hand in hand with the urgent ones to enable the long-term stability and development of our society.