The advancement of internet technology means people do not need to travel to foreign countries to understand how people in other places live. To what extent do you agree or disagree.
It is a common practise that people live in a digital world where all the information is available through paper and print media then there is no point to visit other places physically. While this issue is beneficial to some extent, It does more harm than good. On the one hand, the internet is a massive repository of knowledge which is instrumental in learning various cultures. Specifically, the traditions and cultural norms through different documentary movies, historical books or through the digital contents are available over the internet. Indeed, people want to know the lifestyle of India, they need to go any search engine like Google and find plenty of sites about India. In addition, social networking sites are powerful tools to accelerate the flow of information. The breaking news is up to the minute and available free, in thus people can apply keep abreast of happening about other countries they are curious without the need to travel Despite the argument above, I believe that culture can be best understood when people physically visit that place. Firstly, the information provided by movies or articles through the internet do not cover all the aspects and often shows only positive attributes and customer of a place. Particularly, there are certain cultural aspects that required direct experience, namely cuisine, festivals and other events. Secondly, people would unable to have a real experience when they only stay home and reading reviews posted online. Instead, they should get directly exposed to the traditions so that they have their own experiences and assessments without relying on other’s subjective standpoints. In conclusion, despite some advantages that the development of technology offers, I am completely convinced of the fact that the benefit of directly travel is more outstanding
Submitted by Andy on