- UID
- 782390
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-7-17
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
28 The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but by the general welfare of its people.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
观点，国家实力衡量指标随时代不同而变化
.提纲：
1 在古代，衡量国家实力最主要在军事和经济实力，其中，精英的贡献显得十分关键，远非人民福利。
Eg 列举古代文明
2 现代，人民福利越来越重要，但不是最确切的指标。
民主政体的作用下，人民福利越来越重要。但是过多的人民福利会引发社会弊病
Eg 如现在的欧洲经济危机
过高福利导致高度财政负担，经济活力萎靡不振
3 很多因素综合，没有一个最确切的指标。
When we tend to measure the strength of a country with some single indicator, this idea falls in the mistake of overly simplifying a complex issue. Actually, there appears a difference in weighing a national power from different ages. And there hasn't been a surest indicator referred in the issue speaker to represent a great state, neither the elites’ contributions nor people's welfare.
In the antique times, state leaders' occupy of lands, commanders' triumph in battlefields, and contributions from artists and scholars, all the individuals' feat, may be significant to represent a powerful state. Just imagine that, why we will only think of the great men like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle when it comes to the ancient Greek? Why we will mention the Alexander the Great when referring the ancient Rome
? Also, Qin ShiHuang, Tang Taizong will come to our minds when dating to the Ancient China. Nevertheless, few will relate the state strength and the welfare of the people living in those ages. It's clear to assume, even if not the surest indicator, the great men's contribution is a better indicator than society's welfare to stand for a country's power.
When it comes to the present times, even though general welfare of people become more and more important, it's far from existing as the surest indicator to weigh a nation's power. Since the democracy started to occupy nearly each contemporary nation, mass' opinions has been a strong element to determine the leaders’ standing. As a result, welfare, the determination factor to people's satisfying degree to a governments has been a strong issue in contemporary society to compare with each other. However, can we assume that welfare can stand for national power the best? That means that a country can be either stronger or weaker depending on the level of welfare. The likelihood is the opposite one from observation of the present economic situation in the Europe. Faced with sluggish economy, the high-level welfare lead the Greek into intense budget deficit and moribund economy, whereas the Germany
remain well because of moderate declination in welfare years ago intendedly. So it seems too arbitrary to view welfare as the most certain signal to represent state's power.
However, what on earth is the so-called indicator? Is there an accurate index number to refer? None. Not the GDP, not the CNP, but a comprehensible consideration from the healthy economic, transparent government, stable society, society's welfare, freedom culture which pursues the truth, to the friendly relationship with foreign countries. It is all these factors word together but not any single one that constitutes a substantial powerful country.
Therefore, just like we can’t weigh a problem with only one aspect, never can we only owe the national power on a single element, welfare, or individual's contribution. Only considering the synthesis factors, can we get an object and real result.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-8-8 11:09:02
收藏
收藏
楼主
