There was an article in the red edition of "Youth Digest" in November 2006 called "Village": An old patriarch guarded the small village surrounded by many trees and did not let people from outside the mountains cut down the trees, catch fish and set up factories.
"Don't you like money?"
"I like it."
"If you like it, why not? What do you want?"
"No. We want a tree. Without a tree, who will accompany us?"
"No. We want fish. Without fish, who will accompany us?"
"No. We need to build a village. Without a village, where would we live?"
"Will the village be gone?"
"If you go look outside the mountains, can you still find the village?"
In an era when market economy and urban civilization are increasingly spreading and penetrating into rural areas, and in this society where money is paramount, the old patriarch remains unmoved in the face of huge sums of money in order to protect the blue sky, white clouds, trees and fish, which is really touching.
However, when I thought about it again, I felt that the old patriarch was a bit pedantic and ridiculous. He was too naive, thinking that if he resisted, the destructive power of urban civilization would not affect the village. He thought that if he defended that land, the sky would turn blue and the villagers' lives would be easier?
If the children in the village do not have to go to school and do not have to pay astronomical tuition fees; if the villagers never get sick and never have to go to the hospital to see a doctor or take medicine, then it is not difficult for the villagers to maintain food and clothing in such a small village, work from sunrise to sunset, and work hard without stopping.
But are we just satisfied with having three meals a day and watching our children and grandchildren never go to school or leave the village? Do you keep refraining from going to the hospital even when you are sick?