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?

Although

some people believe that

due to

the advancement of information technology, it is not obvious to visit other states to acquire knowledge about the ways people live, some public has a contrasting view. I have a mixed opinion because I think some aspects of knowledge about lifestyles can be earned by watching from far away but some of them definitely depend on real-life engagements. On the one hand, since travelling the other countries is time-consuming and at the same time cost-effective, it is beneficial to see the ways of life through the Internet. As the web is available and cheap, anybody can access it.

For example

, to know how the nomad Australians build their habitats, it is expensive to roam there

while

so many videos are available on YouTube.

Additionally

, humankind is so busy managing time visits, so cyberspace could be a powerful alternative.

On the other hand

, the understandings from the screens must not be permanent in spite of investing a lot of time.

For instance

, it is impractical to learn how people prepare street foods in Dhaka (the capital of Bangladesh) and how the tastes vary.

Moreover

,

as a result

of an increasing number of travellers around the world, airfare and accommodation costs decreased significantly and that's why the expenditures do not matter anymore. Some features of the lives get more preference than others. So I reckon behaviours like surviving in harsh climates or practices for good health can be gathered through visiting the host nations

while

less important aspects like food habits or social customs may be achieved through passive media.

To sum up

, neither side of the claim is entirely correct for having advantages and limitations. It is human responsibility to categorise the fields to have active education or indirect mastery.