Do you agree or disagree the following statement?
It is more important for government to spend money on building new housing than preserving historic and traditional buildings.
贫穷的国家应该花钱building new housing，可以方便国民生活工作。
富裕的国家应该花钱preserving historic and traditional buildings，可以促进经济和教育发展。
With the development of technology, people today are used to a more convenient way which high-tech facilities bring us. Besides, some fictions even create an attracting image that people can live an easy life with the help of smart furniture and auto facilities. Therefore, many people believe firmly that government should put effort on building new housing in order to promote their living standards. However, to be more discreet, we cannot take the statement for granted, especially considering the various development stages different countries are in. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this claim should be analyzed in a case-by-case situation.
Admittedly, it cannot be denied that building new housing is a significant factor for the improvement of living standards, especially when we take underdeveloped countries into account. Most of those countries have suffered widespread wars, starvation and diseases, so it is not likely for the governments to set aside expense focusing on preserving traditional buildings. Those counties, on the other hand, should construct new buildings with advanced and convenient facilities to enhance citizens basic living standards. For instance, Sudan, one of the most underdeveloped countries in the world, has been suffering continuous civil wars in last fifty years. People in Sudan struggled with endless starvation and diseases. In order to address those problems, the government in Sudan needs to build new factories with efficient facilities to rapidly produce large amount of food. Apart from new plants, it is also urgent for the government to build new homes with ventilation system and hygiene-assured water circulation system. With the construction of new buildings, the elimination of starvation and malaria in the future is very promising, by which the living standards can be improved. Therefore, for underprivileged countries, new buildings with effective apparatus are of greater importance than historic buildings.
However, if we only discussed situations in backward countries, it would be too biased to see things comprehensively, especially when we look closely into developed countries. Preserving traditional buildings is a significant factor for the successful way of education and economical growth. Taking a tour to those historic site, students can vividly learn some events their predecessors lived through or some feats their ancestors had achieved so that they are willing to respect and protect their culture and history. Besides, historic sites can attract foreign tourists, in which can not only benefit the tourism, but also accommodation, food or other related industry. The experience of the US can manifest this viewpoint. Although it is costly for a country to invest in housing preservation, America has been increasing its investment in this field in recent years, since America possesses a financial foundation strong enough to support the improvement of traditional buildings. With the support from the government, Americans, especially young adults, can easily gain the national identity. Besides, with the improved historic buildings, the tourism boosts in recent years, which, in turn, brings economical benefits to the the country. Historic buildings, like Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument, attract thousands of tourists overseas to visit America. As the tourism and related industry develop, the revenue and employments increases by millions accordingly.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, we can conclude that the statement is biased. For underprivileged countries, the valid part of this statement should never be underestimated. However, when developed countries are involved, it would be reasonable for us to maintain that this statement is over-generalized.