Posted by Cindy Steward on October 04, 19101 at 06:01:47:
This obvius confrontaion between the views of the people living with nature and people living with concrete and steel has resulted in an ambitious statement. Looking globally at both sides of the medal it occurs to me that that opinion is completely wrong which I will try to prove in the paragraphs following.
My initial argument has to do with children’s education. Youngsters can’t get the highly qualified teachers they have the right to in the countryside. It is so mainly because more and more people seem to struggle and occupy tuitor’s posts in univertsities and colleges in the developing cities than in God-forgotten places in the plains and woods. And no one can blame them, they earn a lot more there. But this defficiency of teachers in the country impacts its kids in depriving them of the profound knowledge of the cities.
Secondly, the kids are not in touch with means of contacting other people than their country fellows, thus keeping their understanding of the world to and communication skills to a halt. They often have some strange beliefs about the world outside their village. While in the city the children can get real-time vision and talks about whatever interests them, replacing illusions with impressions. This will help them find out more about themselves and the interesting individuals surrounding them and in that way enhance their communication abilities.
Instead of a closing statement I would like to summarize that these three – good education, contacts with various people and better look on the world outside the countryside will inevitably help those kids turn into prlific citizens of the planet but not slaves to prejudicial and naïve views of its existence.