One school of thoughts reckons that territory should be forbidden to save the morality of civilization. On the contrary, there is a counter argument among people that restricting travel is worthless, which have no merits. I am going to scrutinize on both aspects before forming an opinion in the last.
Protagonists of the first viewpoint maintain that tourism leads to demolishing the value of local perception. Firstly, people interact with the sight-seekers and they exchange their novel ideas, thoughts, views with each other. Thus, local masses attract to other's practice's background and they adapt the rules and regulations of other religions. For instance, a Hindus excuse to the other nations, such as America, UK, at there they get influence from the customs of christian religion. Consequently, some individuals forget the value of their fashion, which results to the bad influence on their upcoming generations.
Proponents of the second viewpoint contend that, it is not necessary to ban the tourism. First of all, economic growth of any nation depending upon touristry sector. As, it is the greatest source of revenue, some specific historical museums and buildings plays a significant role to contribute the enormous amount of revenue to governments. For example, Taj Mahal has become the most promising visiting place in India, as well as, holidaymakers spends vast of money on accommodations at there. Moreover, banning the tourism would lead to the loss of the myriad jobs for those employers, who is working in hotel and hospitality managements. As a result, it would lead to the down-fall of economic growth of the nation.
To recapitulate, in my point of view, abolishing the touristry is not suitable method, because it would foster to economic loss for countries. However, to encourage people towards their custom, bureaucrats should campaign through social media about the moral value of local experience.
One school of thoughts reckons that territory should
be forbidden
to save the morality of civilization.
On the contrary
, there is a counter argument among
people
that restricting travel is worthless, which have no merits. I am going to scrutinize on both aspects
before
forming an opinion in the last.
Protagonists of the
first
viewpoint maintain that tourism leads to demolishing the value of local perception.
Firstly
,
people
interact with the
sight-seekers and
they exchange their novel
ideas
, thoughts, views with each other.
Thus
, local masses attract to other's practice's
background and
they adapt the
rules
and regulations of other religions.
For instance
, a Hindus excuse to the other nations, such as America, UK, at there they
get
influence from the customs of christian religion.
Consequently
,
some
individuals forget the value of their fashion, which results to the
bad
influence on their upcoming generations.
Proponents of the second viewpoint contend that, it is not necessary to ban the tourism.
First of all
, economic growth of any nation depending upon
touristry
sector. As, it is the greatest source of revenue,
some
specific historical museums and buildings plays a significant role to contribute the enormous amount of revenue to
governments
.
For example
, Taj Mahal has become the most promising visiting place in India,
as well
as, holidaymakers spends vast of money on accommodations at there.
Moreover
, banning the tourism would lead to the loss of the myriad jobs for those employers, who is working in hotel and hospitality managements.
As a result
, it would lead to the down-fall of economic growth of the nation.
To recapitulate, in my point of view, abolishing the
touristry
is not suitable method,
because
it would foster to economic loss for countries.
However
, to encourage
people
towards their custom, bureaucrats should campaign through social media about the moral value of local experience.