Some people say that richer countries are required to help the poor nations financially; others say this kind of help has more disadvantages than advantages. Do you agree or disagree?
It has been discussed fervently that whether or not developed nations are obligated to provide financial aid for the impoverished nations. It is my opinion that it might worsen the current situation in those countries if we do so, for reasons stated below.
To begin with, the previous aids from the UN to Africa have made them so dependent that they have no intension to help themselves on their own feet. The people there might accustom to the food throwing down from the helicopter, therefore forsake the will as well as the ability to grow crops on their own, for instance. Personally, I assert that it is better to teach them how to fish than to give them the fish.
Furthermore, I believe that everyone wants to live with dignity, not with sympathy. Therefore the poor are certainly able to produce and thrive, if provided with the means to do so. Perhaps the rich can offer them loan to help them start. Nevertheless, they should be restricted to loans only and nothing more.
Giving financial aids to the poor countries might be the humane, decent, and righteous thing to do. Nonetheless, there are various methods that can achieve the same effect. Sending doctors or teachers, as an illustration, to help them with education and health seems to be more practical in the long term, because it is evident that these are equally crucial for a nation to prosper.
To sum up, I strongly agree with the assertion that to rescue the poor nations by throwing money at them has more drawbacks than benefits, due to the fact that those people rescuing themselves. If we wish to help them for moral reasons, we could do so through other approaches.
(288 words)
I'd love some feedbacks on my essay. Thanks!
It has been discussed fervently that whether or not developed nations are obligated to provide financial aid for the impoverished nations. It is my opinion that it might worsen the current situation in those countries if we do so, for reasons stated below.
To begin with, the previous aids from the UN to Africa have made them so dependent that they have no intension to help themselves on their own feet. The people there might accustom to the food throwing down from the helicopter, therefore forsake the will as well as the ability to grow crops on their own, for instance. Personally, I assert that it is better to teach them how to fish than to give them the fish.
Furthermore, I believe that everyone wants to live with dignity, not with sympathy. Therefore the poor are certainly able to produce and thrive, if provided with the means to do so. Perhaps the rich can offer them loan to help them start. Nevertheless, they should be restricted to loans only and nothing more.
Giving financial aids to the poor countries might be the humane, decent, and righteous thing to do. Nonetheless, there are various methods that can achieve the same effect. Sending doctors or teachers, as an illustration, to help them with education and health seems to be more practical in the long term, because it is evident that these are equally crucial for a nation to prosper.
To sum up, I strongly agree with the assertion that to rescue the poor nations by throwing money at them has more drawbacks than benefits, due to the fact that those people rescuing themselves. If we wish to help them for moral reasons, we could do so through other approaches.
(288 words)
I'd love some feedbacks on my essay. Thanks!
