The distinctiveness among many regions becomes less apparent annually. In this day and age, individuals share the same things all over the world such as fashion, advertising, brands, eating habits, and TV channels. From my perspective, I think the negative aspects eclipse the positive ones.
On the one hand, the government and the residents can benefit from allowing other cultures or businesses into their country. To be more precise, should many international businesses want to invest or work in a particular country, they have to pay a tax which contributes to the enhancement of the government’s economy and finance. Additionally, the opportunities to have a high salary or working in reputable companies can be widened significantly. People can also have an intensive range of choices in fashion, foods. To exemplify, in Vietnam, there were just a few choices in eating habits, whereas citizens can choose other countries’ foods to eat from many other countries’ restaurants or fast food shops such as KFC or Mc Donals. As a result, both government and residents can be beneficial via the less evident among nations. However, such lines of reasoning may be valid to a certain degree but do not take the fadeness of traditional culture into consideration.
On the other hand, becoming less evident between many countries can have an adverse effect on conventional cultures and create the traditional erosion. To elaborate, the diversity culture in a particular country can render the people gradually forget about the traditional. This circumstance is mostly found in Vietnam, where the popularity of the cooking mooncake by wood has become diminished because of its inconvenience and there are many alternatives that are more sanitary and faster. Consequently, most of the traditional cultures have faded among many people in the world generally, especially teenagers.
To reiterate, the demerits of the less apparent between countries far outnumber the merits. I am of the opinion that only when the government can impose optimal