G.Y. Assignment 4th week

[김건영]

Your professor is teaching a class on political science. Write a post responding to the professor's question. 

Doctor Reed 

Some people say that the government should prioritize economic growth since it provides people with jobs and money to spend. Others say that protecting the environment is more urgent. I would like to know your opinion on this topic. Before our next class, please discuss the following : if you were a policy-maker, would you prioritize economic growth or environmental protections? Why? 

Mark

Personally, I would choose economic growh. Many social problems can be solved only through economic growth. There are so many people who are poor and jobless. A strong economy would create more jobs, which would reduce poverty and provide higher standards of living for everyone. 

Kelly 

We only have one planet Earth. If we do not take care of it, future generations would suffer. Although economic growth is important, it should not negatively affect the environment. We need to invest in environmentally friendly practices, such as green energy, so that we can have a clean environment. 

I would prioritize economic groth for some different reason, the difficulty of public investments in "environmentally friendly practices".

It goes without saying that the second priority of a goverment is to defend interests of citizens and make their lives more fertile.

Some citizens may vote for environment, surely. But I doubt the others will either.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them will vote for their jobs and infra, not for recycling.

If you are to become a politician, you must beloved by a large number of people.

Unless, you will not take just one chance of speech in the assembly.

If you had succeed to take place there, it is still too difficult in the environmental fields

to find out whether an agenda is urgent or not. 

So, many frauds took place in so called "enviromentally friendly practices", disguising themselves as a "clear and present danger".

It is very hard for us to carry out necessary environmental steps efficently.  

Let's assum that you had miraclelously took enough votes, and carefuly choose each steps of envionmental agenda.

You and your people would succeed for the task, but what if your next generation failed to choose people like you?

The real hard point of enviromental agenda is that it must be persistantly keep effective for long time. which contains a few generations at least.

I agree environments must not be polluted, but I can hardly say those actions are urgent and realistic.