In the present climate, relocating from remote areas to metropolitan cities has gained momentum. While there seems to be considerable controversy regarding whether this circumstance is of benefit, I find myself among those who do not subscribe to this view.
Mass migrations to megacities can negatively affect the rural areas. Not only can it significantly boost the number of megacities’ inhabitants, but it can also increase bumper-to-bumper traffic, which may, in turn, bring about air pollution. This will probably lead to serious illnesses including respiratory diseases, cardiovascular ones, or even some types of cancer. There are other drawbacks associated with this issue. A soaring number of individuals migrating to cities will be more likely to put a severe strain on healthcare systems. To be more specific, if this case-scenario happens, officials and legislators are expected to invest more funding in hospitals and other relevant medical services, resulting in an unbalanced budget distribution and even deterioration in public health.
On the other hand, people who opt for staying in their homelands are capable of preserving cultural heritage. As a consequence, future generations will become more appreciative and knowledgeable about their roots. This phenomenon gives them the chance to develop and modernize their lands and make them valuable places to live. The more fast-paced life becomes, the more interested people will become in enjoying the cozy atmosphere of rustic areas and escaping the hectic pace of mechanical life. Therefore, if it is considered as a long-term opportunity, it can improve the regional income by means of being a tourist destination.
In order to come to a conclusion, although resettling in cities is likely to become a more controversial issue in the near future, my opinion diverges from the proposed view, given the fact that it is prone to result in adverse ramifications which cannot be overlooked.