Ladies and gentlemen, have you forgotten the saying that knowledge is infinite and life is limited? Then, this is also related to our topic today-exploration. Does exploration have more advantages than disadvantages? Or do more harm than good? If exploration can bring great progress to mankind, then our society today will be a peaceful and quiet world, but we have not fully realized it. If exploration is your sacred cause, why don't your family and yourself try something so great, so sacred and so beneficial to today's society? If the opponent's friend says yes, then we will tell you today that the various disadvantages of exploration and the nature of exploration are dangerous, extreme and unnecessary. This is our view, exploration-the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Here I make a preliminary argument.
From an economic point of view. You can count, every time we explore, we exclude rewards for every explorer, such as climbing mountains. Once down, meals, medical expenses, all kinds of mountaineering equipment, such as oxygen, hiking shoes, positioning system for mountaineering, etc. , all need an immortal investment. Instead of putting these funds on other things that are more powerful than exploration, such as education, architecture, commerce, diplomacy, and science and technology, these benefits far outweigh exploration. Didn't they promote human development faster and better? Why put these funds on this risky project with little material benefits? As Scott said, are we just fighting for a newcomer, or are we trying to satisfy this spiritual pleasure and satisfaction? In front of me, I am only relative to a successful explorer. What if I fail? Wouldn't it be more disappointing to be in a mess? As an explorer, I have to use hundreds of words to scold myself that I am incompetent, which not only makes me feel guilty for the loss of my country, but also regrets the result of my wasted efforts. This may not be enough. What if the explorer dies unfortunately during the expedition? In this dangerous adventure, dead people often happen. If measured by money, then what we lose is a number that cannot be measured by money. Because life is priceless.
Psychologically speaking. Although these explorers are out of their own will, their own hobbies and persistence in adventure. They can do this, or they can devote themselves to exploration, and maybe they will feel a little satisfied. However, we should also understand that we live not only for ourselves. Indeed, there are many people in the world who care about us, such as our parents, friends, lovers and opponents ... If a person only cares about his hobbies and ambitions, regardless of the feelings of others, such people tend to take crazy risks; If someone has a high sense of responsibility and thinks of others, such a person will think twice about this ridiculous project. For example, Scott explored the polar regions, and he eventually died in the line of duty. At this moment, can we imagine how sad you would be if you were any member of the Scott family? Even, this tragedy will make you sad for life. In this way, the explorer not only brought misfortune to himself, but also brought many misfortunes to all who cared about him. If I were his father, first of all, from an objective point of view, I would really be proud of having such a child, but I hope that this is not the case after all. I would rather he was a farmer, sowing food in his name than die. I'm sure you are, too. Therefore, exploration is an extremely dangerous project, which is painful and sad.
Maybe everyone will say, "Isn't our globalized society the development of explorers in the past?" ? And our advanced technologies today, such as aerospace technology and mountaineering technology, are not bought by countless explorers with the value of their lives? These little problems are nothing.
However, if you think deeply, can you think deeply besides the implication of "wasting a lot of time" and "wasting a lot of money" in the textbook and the above-mentioned point of "causing mental shock to relatives"? To some extent, exploration is the product of the concept of "anthropocentrism". This concept holds that in the face of nature and its biological world, human beings can set foot everywhere, and as long as they can, they can "occupy the mountain as the king" and "insert the flag of Xinjiang" and take it for themselves. However, if we go beyond the thinking frame of "anthropocentrism", we can question: Is there no limit or restriction for human steps? As long as human footprints are gone, must they belong to human beings? Should it be dominated by humans? In fact, when the footprint of human exploration arrived, it was also the day when the disaster happened there. Isn't it? Humans fly into space, and the garbage in space has surrounded the earth; Man has climbed the Himalayas, the top of the earth, and today the source of the Yangtze River has been polluted. When humans enter and leave the primeval forest, the "indigenous" animals and creatures there are disturbed and violated, and even extinct ... Just as Columbus's exploration of the "New World" brought about the expansion of colonialism, today's "exploration" of human beings without self-discipline and restrictions also reflects the expansion of anthropocentrism. Science is a double-edged sword, so is exploration. Human exploration will leave dust where it leaves footprints. Can you say that these are also miracles brought about by the so-called great spirit of adventure? Don't, standing in front of countless exhaust oxygen tanks on Mount Everest, can you euphemistically say that this is called sacrificing the ego to complete the ego? Don't, standing in front of the human products of those exhaust gases on the snow-white ground in Antarctica, can you euphemistically tell everyone: Is this a great tragedy?
In this case, if people all over the world explore, it is conceivable that we are likely to coincide with the idea of "human war" in a famous movie "The Matrix" today.
So we feel that exploration-the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits.