Time : 2020-03-28 20:27:45
Điểm: 8/10
The global population is rapidly expanding as we speak: the number of newborn children outweighed the number of families preparing to say goodbye to a member or relative of theirs. And since every single human on Earth requires a substantial number of conditions to sustain a healthy physical and mental life such as oxygen from the air, nutritional food, water, and, most important of all, living space. Just imagine a typical nuclear family, consists of two parents, three children and a puppy being cramped into an unimaginable apartment with just enough space for EXACTLY 1 person to live, with only a double bed and one small colonial bathroom- put more simply, enough to live but far from living comfortably- that would be an insane idea, to say the least.
Unfortunately, that thought experiment is the reality: that's exactly the situation humanity has to face as we enter the Information Era, the time where stores pop up everywhere like wild mushrooms. The increase in the global population seems to be infinite, but the amount of space Earth can offer is not, which means that as the population of a country increase and its territory stays the same, the space left for every person become increasingly decreased. If immediate actions are not to be seriously considered, soon huge landmass that used to be nature parks and chimpanzees preservation areas will become a crowded, polluted city- and that's exactly OPPOSITE of the future in our society dream. So immediately a new solution is proposed: instead of wasting huge landmasses of unnecessary public parks, we can simply transform them into residential areas for new people to live in. Problem solved.
yeah...in reality, the problem of spacing is much, much more complicated than just the matter of getting rid of something and replace it with others. Many side effects are to be considered before any proper decision is made, and in this article, we have a closer look at this seemingly-simple-but-efficient proposal.
First thing first, let's look at the advantages that the solution may be able to bring us. Replacing public parks with residential areas can make space for more people to move into their house and their home, which means more neighbours to ask for sugar and salt and pepper, more children and friends to play with, and having an urban area with an exceptional population can attract services, such as new pop-up stores, new local school, public library, etc. And even though we can't afford to have a huge park for the elder to do their morning exercises, modern technology may be able to sustain that need with indoor equipment such as the treadmill (fun fact: when first invented, the treadmill looked exactly like the hamster wheel, and it was firstly used for torturing), and lounging areas, instead of on the grass, can be relocated on the top of most apartments and buildings, which further neutralize the space we already had. Trees, although not the type with massive trunks and huge branches, can be planted on the balcony of most apartments, replacing the trees cut down in previous park-areas. So all and all, replacing public parks with residential areas seems to be an appropriate solution.
On the other hand, like many other proposals, this one comes with many downsides along with advantages. Parks are defined as the public space used by people of an area for social purposes such as having picnics, holding garden barbecues, jogging around the lake early in the morning, or simply sitting on a bench with your companion and have small, comfortable talks. Without social areas such as parks, the mental health of many residents around the area may be dramatically affected. You can argue that other public places such as local cafes or shopping centres or lounge areas can serve the same purpose just as effectively, but be aware that the problem we're discussing is about mental health- which means that they're affected not only by practical uses but also for imaginary purposes. Put simply, going to a noisy shopping centre just to talk for three minutes is not ideal, and therefore not beneficial to a person's brain. Various surveys and studies have pointed out that being close to nature can enhance certain regions of the brain, and can even reduce chances of depression and psychosis. To make the long story short, human naturally like parks, and that's probably natural since our ancestors spent millions of years living in caves surrounded by huge masses of forests. Furthermore, clearing parks can mean almost deforestation. Imagine Hyde Park without any greenery, or Yellowstone National Park that consists of only rows of houses...not ideal. Not at all. So we need parks. And there certainly are much more alternatives to humanity's spacing issue such as neutralizing the space we have more effectively( building higher apartments, terraforming desserts into cities, building infrastructures underground, etc)
To sum up, in my opinion replacing public parks with residential areas is a promising solution, but stills we need to consider every aspect of it before making a move- and, in the meantime, the parks can still be there-just as our ancestors had always wanted a million years ago.

Nhận xét của giáo viên :

The global population is rapidly expanding as we speak: the number of newborn children outweighed the number of families preparing to say goodbye to a member or relative of theirs. And since every single human on Earth requires a substantial number of conditions to sustain a healthy physical and mental life such as oxygen from the air, nutritional food, water, and, most important of all, living space. Just imagine a typical nuclear family, consists of two parents, three children and a puppy being cramped into an unimaginable apartment with just enough space for EXACTLY 1 person to live, with only a double bed and one small colonial bathroom- put more simply, enough to live but far from living comfortably- that would be an insane idea, to say the least.

Unfortunately, that thought experiment is the reality: that's exactly the situation humanity has to face as we enter the Information Era, the time where stores pop up everywhere like wild mushrooms. The increase in the global population seems to be infinite, but the amount of space Earth can offer is not, which means that as the population of a country increase and its territory stays the same, the space left for every person become increasingly decreased. If immediate actions are not to be seriously considered, soon huge landmass that used to be nature parks and chimpanzees preservation areas will become a crowded, polluted city- and that's exactly OPPOSITE of the future in our society dream. So immediately a new solution is proposed: instead of wasting huge landmasses of unnecessary public parks, we can simply transform them into residential areas for new people to live in. Problem solved. yeah...in reality, the problem of spacing is much, much more complicated than just the matter of getting rid of something and replace it with others. Many side effects are to be considered before any proper decision is made, and in this article, we have a closer look at this seemingly-simple-but-efficient proposal.

First thing first, let's look at the advantages that the solution may be able to bring us. Replacing public parks with residential areas can make space for more people to move into their house and their home, which means more neighbours to ask for sugar and salt and pepper, more children and friends to play with, and having an urban area with an exceptional population can attract services, such as new pop-up stores, new local school, public library, etc. And even though we can't afford to have a huge park for the elder to do their morning exercises, modern technology may be able to sustain that need with indoor equipment such as the treadmill (fun fact: when first invented, the treadmill looked exactly like the hamster wheel, and it was firstly used for torturing), and lounging areas, instead of on the grass, can be relocated on the top of most apartments and buildings, which further neutralize the space we already had. Trees, although not the type with massive trunks and huge branches, can be planted on the balcony of most apartments, replacing the trees cut down in previous park-areas. So all and all, replacing public parks with residential areas seems to be an appropriate solution.

On the other hand, like many other proposals, this one comes with many downsides along with advantages. Parks are defined as the public space used by people of an area for social purposes such as having picnics, holding garden barbecues, jogging around the lake early in the morning, or simply sitting on a bench with your companion and have small, comfortable talks. Without social areas such as parks, the mental health of many residents around the area may be dramatically affected. You can argue that other public places such as local cafes or shopping centres or lounge areas can serve the same purpose just as effectively, but be aware that the problem we're discussing is about mental health- which means that they're affected not only by practical uses but also for imaginary purposes. Put simply, going to a noisy shopping centre just to talk for three minutes is not ideal, and therefore not beneficial to a person's brain. Various surveys and studies have pointed out that being close to nature can enhance certain regions of the brain, and can even reduce chances of depression and psychosis. To make the long story short, human naturally like parks, and that's probably natural since our ancestors spent millions of years living in caves surrounded by huge masses of forests. Furthermore, clearing parks can mean almost deforestation. Imagine Hyde Park without any greenery, or Yellowstone National Park that consists of only rows of houses...not ideal. Not at all. So we need parks. And there certainly are much more alternatives to humanity's spacing issue such as neutralizing the space we have more effectively( building higher apartments, terraforming desserts into cities, building infrastructures underground, etc)

To sum up, in my opinion replacing public parks with residential areas is a promising solution, but stills we need to consider every aspect of it before making a move- and, in the meantime, the parks can still be there-just as our ancestors had always wanted a million years ago.

Bài viết cơ bản có bố cục rõ ràng, đáp ứng được yêu cầu của đề bài. Tuy nhiên, em cần lưu ý về độ dài của bài viết nhé! Đề bài yêu cầu em viết bài luận khoảng 150-300 từ. Bài viết của em vượt quá quy định đó. Em cố gắng trình bày ngắn gọn, súc tích hơn nhé!