Category: Economy

Tourism is unnecessary. To what extent do you agree?

I. Introduction

  • Hook: In the era of climate change and globalisation, the necessity of tourism is increasingly questioned.
  • Background: Brief overview of the tourism industry’s role in the global economy and its environmental and cultural impacts.
  • Thesis Statement: While some argue that tourism is unnecessary due to its environmental impact and cultural commodification, it remains a vital industry that fosters economic growth, cultural exchange, and global understanding, demonstrating that its benefits outweigh the drawbacks when managed sustainably.

II. Supporting View 1: Environmental Impact

  • Topic Sentence: Critics argue that tourism is unnecessary because it significantly harms the environment.
  • Example 1: The environmental degradation caused by mass tourism in popular destinations like Venice, where over-tourism has led to pollution and the destruction of local ecosystems.
  • Example 2: The carbon footprint of air travel, which contributes to global warming and climate change, as highlighted by studies from organisations like the International Air Transport Association (IATA).
  • Analysis: Discuss how these examples demonstrate the substantial negative impact of tourism on the environment, supporting the argument that it is unnecessary.

III. Supporting View 2: Cultural Commodification

  • Topic Sentence: Tourism often leads to the commodification of cultures, undermining their authenticity and value.
  • Example 1: The transformation of indigenous practices into tourist attractions, which can strip cultural traditions of their original meaning and context, as seen with the Maasai tribes in Kenya.
  • Example 2: The proliferation of “Disneyfication” in historic cities, where cultural heritage sites are altered to meet tourist expectations, diminishing their historical significance, as observed in cities like Prague.
  • Analysis: Examine how these examples illustrate the cultural costs of tourism, arguing that such commodification diminishes its value.

IV. Opposing View 1: Economic Growth

  • Topic Sentence: Tourism is a critical driver of economic growth and development, particularly in developing countries.
  • Example 1: The economic boom experienced by countries like Thailand, where tourism significantly contributes to GDP, job creation, and infrastructure development.
  • Example 2: The role of tourism in revitalising rural and economically disadvantaged areas, such as the Scottish Highlands, where it supports local businesses and communities.
  • Analysis: Discuss how these examples highlight the economic benefits of tourism, demonstrating its necessity for economic sustainability.

V. Opposing View 2: Cultural Exchange and Global Understanding

  • Topic Sentence: Tourism promotes cultural exchange and global understanding, fostering peace and mutual respect.
  • Example 1: Educational and cultural exchange programmes, such as study abroad opportunities, which enhance intercultural competence and global awareness among students.
  • Example 2: Community-based tourism initiatives, like those in Costa Rica, which allow tourists to engage with local cultures in meaningful ways, promoting sustainable practices and mutual respect.
  • Analysis: Explore how these examples show the positive impact of tourism on cultural understanding and global cooperation, underscoring its value.

VI. Conclusion

  • Restate Thesis: While tourism faces criticisms for its environmental and cultural impacts, its role in driving economic growth, cultural exchange, and global understanding affirms its necessity, provided it is managed sustainably.
  • Summary of Key Points: Recap the main supporting and opposing views discussed.
  • Final Thought: Emphasise the need for sustainable tourism practices that mitigate negative impacts while maximising benefits, ensuring that tourism remains a valuable and necessary part of global society.

Is technology the solution to the problem of global poverty?

Technology is often viewed as a solution to all of humanity’s problems. Afterall technology has opened up many avenues for mankind. From medicines that can cure diseases to software that can crunch and compute vital information, technology has provided endless solutions. It is no surprise then that many people believe that technology can provide solutions to the global problem of poverty. Technology has successfully alleviated poverty in multiple ways in the form of food production, microfinancing and education. However, global poverty is a complex issue and requires a multifaceted approach, that is why technology is only part of the solution to the problem of global poverty.

Technology can help and remove people from the cycle of poverty through access to genetically modified crops. According to the United Nations, around 1.4 billion people rely on agriculture for their daily subsistence. Technology can help these communities by introducing better farming techniques and growing higher yield crops. Most of the times extreme weather conditions destroy the crops for the poor, in such condition technology can prove as a helpful tool. For example, farmers throughout the Global South are turning to SMS-based services for technical support that allows them more easily to adopt new crops and growing techniques. Technology thus provides people with benefits for both natural resources and household income and nutrition. Technology is responsible for the development of ‘high-yielding’ crops like wheat and corn through advances in molecular genetics. ­­However, technology also has a flip side, these technologies meant to help poor farmers often are expensive and end up helping richer businesses, which in turn drives farmers towards poverty. Moreover, even if the poor farmers have access to these technologies, they might lack the technological know-how, which might make such technologies of little use. Thus, while technology has the potential to aid the poor by increasing access to basic necessities, it is unfortunately hampered by several other factors, preventing its effects to be maximised.

Technology, in the form of new media, has contributed significantly to combating poverty. Social media is a prominent tool for spreading knowledge and awareness. It also has the power to influence people to take actions and measures to tackle the issue of poverty. social media, to educate and transform how people engage with reducing poverty. Social media can help in solving the issue of poverty by sharing information to raise public awareness and involvement. An example of this was seen recently, where The Junior League of Savannah participated in the Little Black Dress Initiative where women wore the same black dress for five days. Through the initiative, they tried to illustrate how poverty affects women. Through the initiative, they invited to dialogue about poverty. The influence of social media also encourages people to volunteer and donate to causes that can reduce poverty. An example of this is the Red Nose campaign which has successfully raised $200 million and positively impacted the lives of nearly 25 million children. Many Non-Governmental Organisations around the world employ social media for fundraising and awareness. Thus, technology in the form of social media helps in improving the conditions of the poor and also garner attention towards the issue of poverty.

However, technology cannot help in situations where governments are corrupt and lack governance skills. It is often seen that countries with poor leadership face a greater degree of poverty. Many times, governments fail to manage funds and the mismanagement aggravates the situations. Brazil, Venezuela, and even countries like India are often unable to use technology to better the lives of people, simply due to poor leadership and corruption. Therefore, technology cannot solve the problem of inefficient and corrupt governments.

In conclusion, technology has been an instrumental tool in tackling the issue of poverty to some extent. However, poverty is a complex issue which requires better approaches than just technology. Technology needs to be used in efficient ways with a combination of government efforts and international organisations. Therefore, a better approach is required to tackle the issue of global poverty.

Going Green is a luxury only rich nations can afford. Comment

The environmental issues plaguing the world today have led to many calls to save the environment. While environmental protection is necessary, many believe that going green is a luxury that only rich nations can afford. However, it can be contended that this perception is flawed. Going green is not a luxury but a responsibility that both rich and poor nations should shoulder together as both these groups have damaged the environment.

Developing nations believe that rich nations can have the luxury to go green because they are economically strong. Developed nations have undergone rapid industrialisation which has equipped them economically to adopt programmes and strategies to protect the environment. For example, countries like the United States have invested $150 billion dollars between the year 2009-2015 in renewables and other forms of cleantech. Such a luxury cannot be afforded by poorer or developing nations. Furthermore, the developing nations lack the technical know-how and the expertise to build complex infrastructure to accommodate alternate sources of energy like hydroelectrical powerplants and nuclear plants. Apart from the US, countries like Japan and Germany have invested billions in undertaking environmental protection programmes and strategies. This is only possible because these countries are already industrialised and have the necessary economic power to efficiently implement these programs. Therefore, going green is a luxury that only rich nations can afford because developing nations do not have the necessary infrastructure.

However, this is a myopic view of a serious issue that concerns everyone from rich as well as poor nations. It is unfair to put all the responsibility on the rich nations while the developing nations continue to act irresponsibly towards the environment. Developing nations too need to shoulder the responsibility of going green because it is not a matter of luxury but survival. For example, developing economies like China is the largest carbon emitter in the world both in terms of production and consumption. Similarly, in Brazil man-made fires in the Amazon for clearing land cause CO2 emissions that are detrimental to the environment. In such cases, it becomes clear that expecting rich nations to go green is unjust, especially when developing nations continue to pollute and damage the environment. Thus, going green is not a luxury but a responsibility that both rich and poor nations need to afford.

Some might argue that the damage to the environment is not that serious. Moreover, as developed nations have caused the most environmental damage through industrialisation, they should be the ones to afford the luxury of going green. They also argue that developed nations can implement green policies and build green estates. Rich nations collectively can afford to go green while giving the developing nations their chance to build the necessary cash reserves. Therefore, going green is not a luxury that developing nations cannot afford.

However, this argument is flawed because the environmental damage is not only affecting the developed nations. Many studies have shown how climate change and global warming is affecting the world. For example, a study by NASA has found that the rate of global sea-level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily. This put several nations at risk of being completely submerged. Countries like Brazil are already facing the challenges of global warming with long droughts, excessive rains, and uncontrolled fires are all becoming a normal part of life. The rapid environmental damage is showing the consequences all across the world. All these consequences are a testament to the fact that going green is not a responsibility of only rich nations. Therefore, going green is a luxury and responsibility that both rich and poor nations need to undertake. 

In conclusion, there is a need for collective efforts from both the rich and the poor nations. It is true that green technologies cannot be adopted by all nations. However, all nations can implement necessary strategies to mitigate environmental damage with proper policies and political will.  It is essential that instead of blaming each other both rich and poor nations put in a joint effort to save the planet from the environmental catastrophe.