170 The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achiev

[jojoman]

This is topic #170

 

"The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."

 

I'll be happy if you could comment on my essay,

The topic states that the best indicator of a great nation is the general welfare of its people and not the achievements of its rulers, artists or scientists. At the outset, I believe this is true, because a nation is made up by its people. However, we should not dismiss the contributions of a nation’s pioneering people, as they too contribute to the greatness of a nation.

 

Indicators of the welfare of a nation include the literacy level, level of poverty, health, food and economic condition of a country. Undoubtedly the greatest nations try its utmost to minimize these problems as much as possible. Only when these problems are irrelevant will the whole nation be in a position to contribute. The United States stands out as a typical example. It has one of the lowest unemployment rates and low poverty level, undeniably contributing to the greatness of the nation. Nearly all of the breakthroughs in the field of science and technology occur in the US, proving that with an improved general welfare, a nation can contribute enormously, leading to its greatness.

 

In contrast, consider the situation in Afghanistan, especially during the Taliban regime. People had to lead violent and difficult lives, serving a tyranical ruler. There were no educational facilities, unemployment was rampant and there was no authority taking care of health conditions of the people. In their frustation, people were turning into anti social elements and joining terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda. Clearly, without looking after the general welfare of the people, a country cannot proceed towards becoming a great nation.

 

General welfare is a good indicator when we are talking of extremes, but in most parts of the world, the problems of poverty and illiteracy are universal and considering a large statistic will represent a very broad perspective. Developing nations which are still working towards progress, the developing infrastructure might tend to paint a mediocre welfare condition of the people, as these infrastructure have not yet come into place. The greatest of nations must have good general welfare but some great nations can be labelled on the contributions of pioneers of the country despite the shortcomings in general welfare.

 

Consider the case in India. It has an enormous population and it achieved independence less than a century ago. A general overview of the welfare of its people will bring out the low average income, food scarcity and low literacy levels. These are all true but situations improve over time. It has one of the best educated people in the world and a highly modern telecommunication infrastructure. In this particular case, we should also look closely at the contributions of individuals from various fields.

 

Ramanujam, an unorthodox mathematician, put India into the map of modern mathematics. C.V. Raman’s contributions to physics displayed the technical prowess of India. Satyajit Ray won the lifetime achievement Oscar award for his excellence in cinema. Mahatma Gandhi was one of the strongest freedom movement activist the world produced.

 

There are plenty of examples to show that India is a great nation, not by virtue of the state of the people, but due to the outstanding contributions made by pioneers within the country. Hence, in certain cases, the achievements of rulers, artists or scientists can speak for the greatness of a nation.

 

It is not possible to achieve a utopian nation where general welfare is at its best. However, it is the resposibility of every nation that aims to achieve greatness, to address these problems as much as possible. But, the outstanding contributions of a few people of that country can go a long way to prove the greatness of the nation. Ultimately, a nation should strive to produce as many outstanding individuals possible by improving the general welfare of the country, to be truly hailed as a great nation.

 

 

 

[nsoonhui]

170

 

"The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."

What defines a great nation? This is a contentious issue and different people will have different opinion. Some suggest that the indicator of a great nation is the welfare of its entire people, while some believe that it is the achievements of rulers, artists or scientists that make a nation great. I opt for first viewpoint.

 

The achievement of great people cannot indicates the success of a nation, because they are just the elite of the country and therefore doesn't represent the whole nation. We know that politicians, artists and scientists are the rarely gifted genius. Their contribution, no matter how great, is iota comparing to the contribution make by the working classes of the country. A country's future is shaped by overall achievement of its citizens, not a few of the geniuses. A country cannot provide basic needs to satisfy its citizen is not a good country. Some countries are blessed with great geniuses, but they are by no means, a great nation. The most outstanding example is Russia. Russia was blossomed with great scientists like Shakarov, Landau and Zeldovich. However Russians, except a few, are living in the state of poverty. Because Marxism, Russians are ripped of their fundamental right of speech, and all are living in the fear of KGB. Can we call this sort of nation "great" just because it possesses awesome power in science?

 

Some may note that the achievements of great nation's rulers, artists and scientists are greater, compare to the achievement of politicians in third world country. They thus conclude that we should measure the greatness of a nation in terms of achievements of individuals, not the general welfare of its entire people. They have hopelessly confused the cause and effect. The reason great nation such as US nourishes outstanding people is because the general welfare of its people are well taken care off. Arts and Science are rich people's activities, because these jobs will not bring much income, without proper financial support from the public, these activities cannot be continue. The fact that arts and science receive much public support in the west is because westerners are rich. They can visit orchestra and museum; their government can spend money on scientific investigation. However, in developing country, government needs to improve the standard of living, therefore they can't spend too much on science; the general public is too poor to attain orchestra or support arts which is not necessary for living. How can you expect the emergence of outstanding achievement from artists and scientists in developing countries?

 

From the history, we know that the achievements of politicians cannot be taken as indicator of great nation. China does not lack of great rulers, but their history is full of sad episode. If a country's greatness is dependant on it's ruler, then the country cannot be considered as 'great', because someday those politicians will pass away. George Washington was a good president, but that doesn't guarantee the legacy of America. What makes America powerful and what makes US admired by world is US's political system. The founding fathers of US are visionary heroes who designed the system so that the country's prosperity doesn't depend on geniuses. Without a good president, other parts of the democratic system can still function well and thus ensuring the country running on the right track.

 

To sum up, I believe that the success of a nation should not be measured in terms of achievement of its elites. The welfare of its people should determine the greatness of a country. We are proud of our country because our country treats us well, not because our country gives birth to geniuses.

 

[BryanWeng2]

Made by Cousin

Any comments are welcomed

 

170 "THE SUREST INDICATOR OF A GREAT NATION IS NOT THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF ITS RULERS, ARTISTS, OR SCIENTISTS, BUT THE GENERAL WELFARE OF ALL ITS PEOPLE."

 

 

Ever since the existence of human beings, we are in the relentless pursuit of the truth. The truth that dominates the great nature, the truth that lies beneath the Milky Way, the truth that explains the very principle of quantum physics. The process is the history of mankind.

From Caesar to Einstein, we attempt to achieve what hasn't been achieved before. We conquered other nations and formed a great empire ever; we conquered the scientific obstacles and formed a significant physics laws. We are therefore ambivalent to this pursuit of truth: it may sacrifice the lives of innocent people but it may also ameliorate them.

 

When we look up and are amazed by how vast the cosmos is, we want to build up something great that can compares to the greatness of the universe. We, at the moment of spotting a spectacular sight, tries to put down in words the beauty of the nature. Confused by the natural phenomenon, we ponder the problems for years and finally derive a theory to explain them. People thus have the Seven Wonders of the World, the masterpieces of literature and art, and the scientific laws and theories. These achievements are all great- for they are all unique.

It is this pursuit that gives impulse to the development of human technology; it is also this pursuit that brings about the cruel wars among people and nations. For the general people, however, these achievements are not indispensable. They could be beneficial, but never would they be necessary. People don't need the Colossus of Rhodes to live a healthy life; Hamlet wouldn't help in a famine; Solving Maxwell's equations can't solve the entangled problems in Middle East. The general welfare is people's concern. What people want is to live without disease and injury, without hunger and thirst, without fear and sorrow.

 

As technology developing to this extent, we presumptuously think that we are at the culmination of the human history. We think we have the right to judge what is great and what is not now: we may regard a nation as a great one for its long reign or its grand territory; we may say that it's a great nation for its people living carefree lives. But we don't. As the pursuit of the truth will never end, never will we be sure that we're at the apogee of technology and have the right to judge. Only those who come after us can tell.

 

[sonali]

170"The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."

 

 

 

The issue states that the greatness of nation can be depicted through general welfare of its citizens rather than achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. But as per my opinion, the general welfare of all citizens depends on achievements of its politicians, artists, scientists, or so called rulers of the nation. Their achievements are meant for welfare of the country and its people.

 

When we speak of promoting general welfare, the aims came into mind are none but public health, safety, security against attacks, freedom, cultural richness and overall comfort, that is nothing but high standard of living. Undoubtedly, it is our scientists, artists and diplomats who by way of their achievements bring these aims into fruition. Consider, for example, advances in health sciences have enhanced our physical well-being, comfort and life span. Similarly, advances in technology have enabled us to travel distant places and communicate with people at different corners of this world. And, because of Internet facility we can learn about the world from our desktops. Additionally, advances in engineering have made our homes and building safer place to live.

 

 

Moreover, artistic achievement is also needed to make a nation better place to live. Art provides inspiration, and lifts up our spirit and incites our creativity and imagination, which helps us to appreciate our own humanity. Yet only the achievements of artists and scientists are not enough to ensure welfare of citizens. In order to survive, nation must be able defend its borders and live peacefully with other nations. Thus, the military and diplomatic accomplishments of nation’s leaders provide an integral contribution to nation’s welfare.

 

Although above stated individual achievements are for promoting nation’s general welfare, we should be careful not to hastily assume that all achievements are merely for welfare of nations. Few traitors of the nation try to exploit the peacefulness of the country by misusing the technologies. The invention of nuclear weapon and depletion of ozone layer resulting in heating earth’s atmosphere has threatened the civilization. There are the many ways in which scientific accomplishments have served to diminish our quality of life, and thereby impeding the general welfare.

 

 

In sum, while concerning about general welfare one must consider the achievements of its rulers, artists and scientists, since general welfare is end product of individual achievements. Mostly these achievements are for benefit and well being of people. Thus indication of great nation is assured by general welfare of its populace and that can be achieved through achievements of its rulers, scientists and artists.

 

[ditoman]

170. "The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its

rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."

 

The speaker asserts that the surest indicator of a great nation is not

the achievements of special people but the general welfare of all its people.

Before developing my own idea, I would like first to mention what is

greatness. When a person says that a nation is great, he or she generally

means that it has much influence on the others. In contrary to this general

opinion, if by "great" the speaker means a good country to live in, I have

no choice but to consent to the claim of him or her. However, if "great" is

general meaning, I disagree with the statement. In this essay, I would

develop my essay under the assumption that by "great" the speaker means

the general meaning, "very influential".

 

More than anything else, a country that has a lot of influence on the

others has powerful military force. Without the support of power, a nation

has a difficulty in being influential and the others is likely to ignore the

nation. To illustrate this, many nations have tried to have a nuclear weapon

to have an influence on the others. Their base logic that they want to have

nuclear weapons to have a power that other nations can not ignore it shows

well this. To build a powerful military force, it is more important than

anything else to have an economic power. Under the high technological

situation like these days, it is true that what has many troops is useless.

The only money enables the nation to purchase many modern weapons.

 

In this way, the only nation that has a powerful military force under

the ground of an economic power would have much influence on the others. The

utterance of it is placed emphasis and its influences on UN and the world

would be more and more not to be ignored. For instance, America has a

powerful military force with the support of an economic power. Its influence

on the world is the largest. To have a both military and economic power, it

is inevitable to sacrifice something and it could be a welfare of all its

people. In addition, what makes it could be minorities.

 

In conclusion, I think that by "great" the speaker means "very

influential". What become influential means what has a both military and

economic power and it could be undertaken by some people and it could

sacrifice welfare of all people. In this manner, I disagree totally with the

opinion of the speaker.

[vijaysirohi]

"The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its

rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of its entire people."

 

 

The speaker asserts that the indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of its entire people. I disagree with the speaker's definition of a great nation.

 

 

Firstly, science and technology has become such an important factor in the human life that you cannot imagine the comfort of life without science. Consider a nation with affluent people living in but without basic scientific technology to raise alarm about natural calamities, they are well off but they are sitting at the pile of a catastrophe. There is a lot of risk and thus the nation can not be considered as a great and enduring nation.

 

 

 

Similarly, the nation without mature and prudent political leadership can't advance in any front, be it defense, and be it general welfare of the people or anything else. If a nation has a weak ruler it is more likely that the nation will be invaded or exploited by other willful nations. Although the people may be affluent but there is no security of their wealth. For example there are nations like Nigeria and many other African nations which actually have lot of resources and even they are considered as happiest nations with the maximum happiness coefficient as estimated by a latest survey but still they are not great nations because they don't have strong political leadership.

 

 

 

On the other hand even the scientific development and political achievements can not be considered as the sole measure for the greatness of the nation. There are nations which are highly advanced in scientific development, even they have a nuclear bomb, but the people living in them are not happy. The government is aggrandizing the power but the people don't have any power and thus suffering. Even they don't have the basic right of expressing their view. I have doubt, how many people will consider such a nation as a great nation despite of the cultural, scientific and political advancement.

 

 

So according to me achievements of scientists, artists, ruler, and general welfare of people none of them actually makes a great nation when considered in desolation but when all these thinks are put together they can transform even an ordinary nation into a great nation.

 

[ertda]

Vijaysirohi, I would think about that fourth paragraph once more, if I were you.

[AJAY KUMAR]

The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general well-being of all its people.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

 

it is not fair to say that the surest indicator of a great nation is only achievement of the general well-being of its entire people and there is no any contribution of rulers, artists and scientists. But in actual, the relationship between achievements of rulers, artists or scientists and well-being of the nation is highly correlated. Both benefit each other and one cannot exist without the other. Hence I have both hands on it.

 

On one hand, the most admired rulers are rulers who have governed with the interests of their people in mind. They fight for the people and with the people to increase the quality of living for whom they represent. Histories have shown that great leaders are born to lead people out of repression, inequality, or poverty. For example, Abraham Lincoln, one of the great presidents, fought to bring equality to all people regardless of the color of their skin. This increase equality among people is definite a hallmark of a great nation.

The nation without mature and prudent political leadership can't advance in any front, be it defense, and be it general welfare of the people or anything else. If a nation has a weak ruler it is more likely that the nation will be invaded or exploited by other willful nations. Although the people may be affluent but there is no security of their wealth. For example there are nations like Nigeria and many other African nations which actually have lot of resources and even they are considered as happiest nations with the maximum happiness coefficient as estimated by a latest survey but still they are not great nations because they don't have strong political leadership.

On the other hand even the scientific development and political achievements can not be considered as the sole measure for the greatness of the nation. There are nations which are highly advanced in scientific development, even they have a nuclear bomb, but the people living in them are not happy. The government is aggrandizing the power but the people don't have any power and thus suffering. Even they don't have the basic right of expressing their view.

In sum, there should be mutual understanding between rulers, artists, scientists and well- being. When all these are put together they can transform even an ordinary nation into a great nation.

[aenneb]

First, I would like to reply to Ajy Kumar: Your conclusion is a very intelligent one, however, I only find that Licoln was a strong example for your case, while I doubt the argument made about Nigeria. Moreover, you get a bit fuzzy in the end:

 

There are nations which are highly advanced in scientific development, even they have a nuclear bomb, but the people living in them are not happy.

 

Also, I found several expressions that were not quite correct, e.g. "It is not fair to say", "But in actual,", "should be mutual understanding between rulers, artists, scientists and well- being" (well-being cannot have an understanding, and I think you rather want to say "agreement" than understanding); a sentence beginning with "Although" does not need a "but" as linking word between its two parts.

 

In sum, I think more precise examples and an introduction to the purpose of the example at the beginning of each paragraph would improve the essay.

 

Here is mine:

 

When judging the greatness of a nation, one can take two approaches: Either one considers the achievements of the nation's most renowned persons or one relies on the overall well-being of its people. While it is easier to quickly retain examples for the former approach, closer consideration reveals that these coincide with exceptional well-being of the ordinary people.

 

Perhaps one of the greatest nations of all times was the Roman Empire. Based on what facts is it considered a great nation? Obviously, the great rulers Julius Caesar and his successor Caesar Augustus have expanded the nation and kept an enormous amount of different people untied as one nation. Hence, at first glance the greatness of Rome seems to be based on its exceptional rulers. However, the unity of the Roman Empire was only held up by the fact that these emperors succeeded in providing its citizens with rights that were revolutionary broad in these times. At the same time, a complex system of trade ensured that the majority of all people within the Roman Empire were provided with everyday goods. Would it have been otherwise, civil wars would have destroyed the inner harmony of the vast empire. Conceivably, one would not remember Rome as a great nation if it had been kept small by internal fights against the centralized power. Thus, the reason why great rulers of Rome were able to create such a great nation was that they ensured their people's well-being.

 

Yet, a different conclusion may be drawn if one looks at a similarly great ancient nation that had tight relationships with the Roman Empire: Egypt. Immediately, ancient Egypt is associated with its great pharaones Nophretete and Cleopatra. Both were not famous for enriching the broad public, but for their pompous buildings and their sovereign leadership. Slavery and poverty were common in ancient Egypt and there is no prove for the general well-being of the common men. Thus, history does provide a case remembered as nation as "great" due to its elite rather than the happiness of the ordinary people.

 

Nonetheless, examples of nowadays great nations can show that the majority of as well as the more recent great nations can be distinguished from others based on the overall quality f life rather than the extraordinary achievements of individuals. One domineering power in the 21^st century are the United States of America. Despite the fact that its rulers actions aiming at spreading democracy throughout the world contribute to its name great nation, these actions itself are rooted in a principle dedicated to the public: the pursuit of happiness as a basic human right. At the same time the fact that USA's greatness is judged based on its efforts to spread democracy – the leadership of the public – proves that the most important thing to be considered is the will of the common man.

 

In sum, one may find only rare cases of great nations that earned such a label only due to a few exceptional individuals. In contrast, most great nations stood out not only because of an elite's achievements, but primarily because it aims to provide good living conditions for every citizen. Therefore, the well-being of all a nation's people can be considered more important than the achievements of individuals for judging the greatness of a whole nation.

 

 

I would appreciate some feedback!