Today at the The Economist website I was reading a debate related to the growth of cities and 'the house' were saying that resctricting the growth of cities will improve quality of life. However, I don't agree on some parts what the house is saying because I believe that people nowadays fear drastic changes and opt for a quick and a feasible decision like this one; I believe that if we control the growth of cities we can keep some things under control and enphasize what is missing to improve people's lives. Nevertheless, if this works, how can we manage the newborns? How can we say to people that are able to enjoy good quality of life, good jobs and health care for example, that they can't have kids? How can we say no to those people who lives in a city with a slightly worst quality of life and would like to move to another city better than they are now? I think this goes against the right of freedom and may cause another problem in the future. So when this problem happens we will look foward to find another solution and so on.
So, the disagree part comes so deep in my mind because I believe that we are able to make drastic changes, breakthroughs or revolutions when we want to; we just need to leave aside our fears, perceive what need to change, be creative and open-mind all the time. For cities to grow without losing quality of life I believe the government, whether local, state or federal need to put aside the partisan issues to govern on behalf of people today and tomorrow; they need to build things not to boast themselves, but rather to serve the interests and welfare of people. When the parties work together I can assure that there will be a more efficient work, in which the population will be benefited.
No comments:
Post a Comment