Today, people in many countries can live and work anywhere they choose, because of improved communication technology and transport. Do the advantages of this phenomenon outweigh its disadvantages?
TIMING: 201609291444-1525
Thanks to the revolution in communication technology and transport, nowadays, the fluidity of people has been greatly augmented and they thus can almost live and work anywhere they choose. Improved mobility of people engenders a lot of merits as well as demerits and I firmly believe the former far exceed the latter.
Most importantly, great mobility contributes greatly to the economic growth. Free mobility of people is usually the result of free market. Under the rule of free market, people tend to move to “better” places, namely places that have more economic resources and promise more opportunity for the individuals. By moving to economically dynamic places, people will inject new blood into the local economy while contributing to the consumption and providing sufficient labor to the market. It was this kind of populous mobility in the 19th century in America that created a number of metropolis cities there and brought about economic boom later. It is also this kind of mobility of people in emerging countries like China, Vietnam and Brazil that accelerates their industrialization and urbanization and ushers in an enviable era of economic growth in their history. Actually, mobility of people brings much more benefits that economic growth.
Mobility of people remarkably enhances understanding and friendship of different cultures and nations. Narrow-minded people are usually products of either geographical or intellectual isolation. By travelling widely, by seeing more places and by mixing or befriending people of other cultures and conventions, people can stay away from narrow-mindedness and embrace tolerance, respectfulness and friendliness. Great cities like New York, London, Hongkong, Paris and Toronto are not merely famous for their economic influence but also for their cultural and racial diversity. Comparatively speaking, there diversified cities are more tolerant and more friendly because they are created by continuous influx of people of different backgrounds. Though sometimes familiarity brings contempt, most of the time distance yields indifference or even hostility. By living side by side as neighbours, people will understand each other more and then enter each other’s life and even cultivate a relationship closer than that between siblings separated by distances. This has been perfectly illustrated by an oriental saying: “Near neighbours may exceed distant relatives in terms of helpfulness and closeness.”
It is true that mobility augmented by communication technology and transport may also give rise to the separation of relatives and families, may lead to population explosion in some super cities, and may also assist the crime-committing of some criminals and terrorists; nonetheless, the recommendable aspects of people mobility far overweigh that of its condemnable consequence. And it is also the logical result and the unstoppable historical trend of human civilization.
沒有留言:
張貼留言