Some people think that the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order for a country to develop and progress. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In the modern world, technological advancements and resultant progress occur in almost all countries around the world every day. Continuously bombarded with

such

news, it’s easy to forget the fact that development of any kind doesn’t comprise solely

science

. It’s

thus

not proper to argue that

science

should have dominance over other subjects in receiving governmental funds.

First

of all, a stable society offering each citizen a livelihood is the premise of a country’s development and progress. Since not all people could manage to become a scientist or an engineer, vocations like lawyers, teachers, cooks or even cashiers are still needed. If schools emphasize only teaching

science

, those who are not interested in or adept at it would be crippled by the education system and deprived of the right to live decently.

Secondly

, only scientific discoveries don’t make multi-billion industries. Liberal arts are

also

crucial for the industrialization of any epoch-making invention.

For instance

, the invention of 5G technology itself requires scientists, but its generalization, especially for civilian uses, calls for the cooperation of people from all walks of life, including designers for the advertisements, sales agencies in charge of the transactions, and managers to keep the company running. These are all essential parts of converting technological breakthroughs into a well-developed industry, and none of these comes from the domain of

science

. In conclusion, as interactions among countries turn increasingly deeper than before, it is not

science

and technology itself but how it is utilized and promoted globally that could determine a country’s competitive edge, and

this

could not be obtained without the joint efforts of all sectors from the society.