To what extent is globalization changing site and situation factors for manufacturing?
As developing countries have begun to expand and open themselves up to foreign direct investment, the general trend that has appeared regarding globalization depicts an aggressive pattern of outsourcing by multinational corporations. These transnational companies have extensively exported their labor overseas to developing countries, where wages are substantially lower and labor laws much more lax. This has, of course, led to a change in site and situation factors. For one, these low-paid and low-skilled workers diminish labor costs on part of the corporation; likewise, there is a rise in the transportation cost. But then again, we must keep in mind that high-skill jobs still remain in the developed country. Proximity to input has become more important, as not only are costs lower but also because the bulk post and prior to is roughly the same for most of these corporations that export their jobs overseas. In other words, while inputs have shifted, markets have roughly remained the same, leading to a shift in the break of bulk point towards the less developed countries. When it comes to land and capital, this has also changed, as developing countries become more willing; thus, site costs have dropped dramatically.
As developing countries have begun to expand and open themselves up to foreign direct investment, the general trend that has appeared regarding globalization depicts an aggressive pattern of outsourcing by multinational corporations. These transnational companies have extensively exported their labor overseas to developing countries, where wages are substantially lower and labor laws much more lax. This has, of course, led to a change in site and situation factors. For one, these low-paid and low-skilled workers diminish labor costs on part of the corporation; likewise, there is a rise in the transportation cost. But then again, we must keep in mind that high-skill jobs still remain in the developed country. Proximity to input has become more important, as not only are costs lower but also because the bulk post and prior to is roughly the same for most of these corporations that export their jobs overseas. In other words, while inputs have shifted, markets have roughly remained the same, leading to a shift in the break of bulk point towards the less developed countries. When it comes to land and capital, this has also changed, as developing countries become more willing; thus, site costs have dropped dramatically.
urban geography analytical task
Responses to the rest of the questions can be found on the Google Doc found in Sean's folder.
int'l development memes
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2012/03/comparing-health-care-costs-in-us-and-8-other-countries/
http://priceonomics.com/the-wild-west-of-ambulance-charges/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/health/think-the-er-was-expensive-look-at-the-ambulance-bill.html?_r=0
http://priceonomics.com/the-wild-west-of-ambulance-charges/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/health/think-the-er-was-expensive-look-at-the-ambulance-bill.html?_r=0
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/afghan-woman-stoned-set-alight-after-allegedly-burning-quran-n327001
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/20/asia/afghanistan-woman-killed/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/20/asia/afghanistan-woman-killed/index.html
polgeo / development frq practice
In the 1950s, W.W. Rostow proposed a five-stage model of development. Essentially, this began with a traditional, agrarian society with a high percentage of national wealth being allocated to nonproductive activities. Following this stage, a hierarchy within society emerges and under the influence of educated leadership, the state begins to invest in basic infrastructure and technology, stimulating an increase in productivity. Of course, there are other stages that follow suit, but that is beside the point. Rostow’s model fails to take into account a state’s position in the international system, instead, restricting the country to a state-level analysis, including the imposition of trade rules and neoliberalist policies, hence, exploitation as well as the overlooking of international debt and capital flight. This is exactly what Wallerstein’s three-part world system theory addresses. According to his analysis, developed countries form an inner core area whereas developing countries occupy peripheral locations. Hence, this leads to the concept known as uneven development, where the countries at the core benefit. While the theory primarily puts emphasis on explanations behind power and exploitation, it overgeneralizes global system positions. Second, the theory does not actually explain how and if states can shift positions, whereas the Rostow model fails to explain the roles of state industrial policies. On another note, their positions on international trade differ. Rostow puts it in a positive light as being able to help countries economically (but doesn’t elaborate on such), whereas Wallerstein perceives international trade as a means of only benefiting the core countries at a expense of the peripheral countries. To recap, the Rostow model provides a state-level analysis in contrast to an international-level analysis from Wallerstein. Second, Rostow only addresses national level economies developing forward as time progresses, but not how and if they can move backwards, differing from Wallerstein who only states how states are static and can move backwards in development, but not how they can change positions (perhaps from the periphery to the core). Third, their views on international are different. Rostow doesn’t explain much on that, given how internally-focused the model already is, but overall, international trade is able to help a country grow economically. However, Wallerstein sees international trade as a form of exploitation of the peripheral countries, upholding a more so Marxist perception.
Mexico is a prime example of the Wallerstein theory at play. Today, Mexico is one of the semi-periphery states that also exert their own control over some peripheries but still industrializing, also known as a newly industrializing state or NIC. Around the corner of the end of the 19th century, Mexico saw an era of unprecedented economic growth. This was not accompanied by, but instead, the result of massive foreign investment and European immigration that led to the development of important infrastructure, such as an efficient railroad network and the exploitation of the energy sector. Hence, it could be said that while it is true that much of consumption, wealth, and power was clustered in the core, plenty of these resources rushed into Mexico when the state made itself more “capitally-mobile”.
The core periphery concept proposed by Wallerstein, whilst is mainly centered around an international context, can also be adapted to apply below a national scale. In China, wealth and power is mainly centered around the eastern cities, mainly those closer to the coast, like Shanghai or Beijing. TThese cities are not only economic powerhouses but they are also centers of trade in the global context. For one, they attract much of the population and detract from the workforce at both an examplesas a form of exploitation of the sees the peripheral countries. m in the rural areas. Second, they also exploit much of the resources inland. Again, the same situation is applicable on a larger scale-regions. When we look at North America as a whole, it becomes rather obvious that there are massive streams of immigrants flooding into the United States, both legally and illegally. In this case, the periphery are the Latin American states and the core being the United States.
There is without a doubt that colonialism of Africa wreaked havoc on the continent. One such sector was the international borders there. Prior to the Europeans entering Africa, they had already mapped out future borders in the Berlin Conference of 1884. On paper, everything seemed flawless. In practice, this was a completely different story. When the Europeans began to split boundaries off to divide off territories and colonies, they completely ignored existing cultural patterns and arguably arbitrarily imposed these such borders, also known as superimposed boundaries.
Ineffective governance was one such effect that arose because of this and is clearly shown in Nigeria today. The very existence of the three major ethnic/religious groups has contributed to inaction against Boko Haram and arguably the prevalent corruption that has plagued the oil-rich state. In other cases, a more violent result may occur. This was the case in Rwanda. Prior to European intervention, both ethnic groups coexisted peacefully with one another. However, this changed when the Tutsi were given a privileged status by the Europeans, driving a massive wedge between the two groups, and inevitably leading up to the massacre of Tutsi by the Hutus. Uhp alongside Rwanda, the situation in Darfur was/is just as desperate, as Arab militias massacred non-Arabs locals. If the hundreds of various ethnic groups in the state vying for power against one another leading to an incompetent central government wasn’t enough, more than 2 million people have been driven from their homes, internal displacement at play here.
According to the international trade approach, financial direct investment is crucial to not only a state’s development but also a state’s maintenance of economic growth. For a developmental state, being a land-locked state is especially tragic and unfortunate. Because trade is so necessary to that state’s survival, the surrounding state(s) can leverage it against them. For instance, hostile neighbors can cut them off from anything, forcing them to become economically dependent, which could also be fatal if a country has adopted ISI. A small-scale example would be Berlin Blockade in 1948 to 1949. The sector under Allied control relied on care packages dropped by air on a daily basis because there was essentially no way on earth the citizens would be able to be self-sufficient.
Mexico is a prime example of the Wallerstein theory at play. Today, Mexico is one of the semi-periphery states that also exert their own control over some peripheries but still industrializing, also known as a newly industrializing state or NIC. Around the corner of the end of the 19th century, Mexico saw an era of unprecedented economic growth. This was not accompanied by, but instead, the result of massive foreign investment and European immigration that led to the development of important infrastructure, such as an efficient railroad network and the exploitation of the energy sector. Hence, it could be said that while it is true that much of consumption, wealth, and power was clustered in the core, plenty of these resources rushed into Mexico when the state made itself more “capitally-mobile”.
The core periphery concept proposed by Wallerstein, whilst is mainly centered around an international context, can also be adapted to apply below a national scale. In China, wealth and power is mainly centered around the eastern cities, mainly those closer to the coast, like Shanghai or Beijing. TThese cities are not only economic powerhouses but they are also centers of trade in the global context. For one, they attract much of the population and detract from the workforce at both an examplesas a form of exploitation of the sees the peripheral countries. m in the rural areas. Second, they also exploit much of the resources inland. Again, the same situation is applicable on a larger scale-regions. When we look at North America as a whole, it becomes rather obvious that there are massive streams of immigrants flooding into the United States, both legally and illegally. In this case, the periphery are the Latin American states and the core being the United States.
There is without a doubt that colonialism of Africa wreaked havoc on the continent. One such sector was the international borders there. Prior to the Europeans entering Africa, they had already mapped out future borders in the Berlin Conference of 1884. On paper, everything seemed flawless. In practice, this was a completely different story. When the Europeans began to split boundaries off to divide off territories and colonies, they completely ignored existing cultural patterns and arguably arbitrarily imposed these such borders, also known as superimposed boundaries.
Ineffective governance was one such effect that arose because of this and is clearly shown in Nigeria today. The very existence of the three major ethnic/religious groups has contributed to inaction against Boko Haram and arguably the prevalent corruption that has plagued the oil-rich state. In other cases, a more violent result may occur. This was the case in Rwanda. Prior to European intervention, both ethnic groups coexisted peacefully with one another. However, this changed when the Tutsi were given a privileged status by the Europeans, driving a massive wedge between the two groups, and inevitably leading up to the massacre of Tutsi by the Hutus. Uhp alongside Rwanda, the situation in Darfur was/is just as desperate, as Arab militias massacred non-Arabs locals. If the hundreds of various ethnic groups in the state vying for power against one another leading to an incompetent central government wasn’t enough, more than 2 million people have been driven from their homes, internal displacement at play here.
According to the international trade approach, financial direct investment is crucial to not only a state’s development but also a state’s maintenance of economic growth. For a developmental state, being a land-locked state is especially tragic and unfortunate. Because trade is so necessary to that state’s survival, the surrounding state(s) can leverage it against them. For instance, hostile neighbors can cut them off from anything, forcing them to become economically dependent, which could also be fatal if a country has adopted ISI. A small-scale example would be Berlin Blockade in 1948 to 1949. The sector under Allied control relied on care packages dropped by air on a daily basis because there was essentially no way on earth the citizens would be able to be self-sufficient.
Religion and territorial conflict: israel-palestine
|
understanding ethnic conflict
The ubiquity of the ethnic and religious conflicts has been appalling in the 21st century. As a species as advanced as we are, it is still surprising to see people wage war over seemingly frivolous matters. Lebanon, Ireland, Iraq, Sri Lanka-ethnic conflicts in our contemporary society is not only limited to the Middle East. As a matter of fact, it is a global and potentially explosive issue anywhere in a multi-ethnic or diverse region and place. However, from this premise, it begs the question to why ethnic conflicts arise and to what factors are responsible for perpetuating them. After all, the United States, a prominent state known for its diverseness, has not met such conflicts anywhere on the same scale as other countries have. Thus, a conclusion can be drawn in that it is not only a matter of social and cultural differences, but rather a relative deprivation of needs/wants at play here as well. Before I continue, it must be noted that ethnic differences are not a mere excuse; ethnic differences also matter, and the aforementioned factor simply adds to the violence. Bosnia and Rwanda are two prime examples for understanding the surface-level and deeper level causes of ethnic conflicts.
Between April and June 1994, in a matter of 100 days, approximately 800,000 Rwandans (majority of them Tutsis) were killed, putting it among the worst cases of ethnic cleansing/genocide. 20th century history of Rwanda is crucial to understanding the Rwandan genocide. While both the Hutus and Tutsis have existed and lived beside one another for centuries, it was only until the colonial period that ethnic tensions spiked. While both ethnic groups have fairly similar characteristics in regards to language and traditions, it is worth noting that Tutsis tend to be taller and thinner than their Hutu counterparts. This physical difference played a major role when Belgium colonists arrived in 1916. As they began to classify people according to their ethnicity, the Belgians considered the Tutsis to be superior to the Hutus. As a result, for the next two decades, Tutsis enjoyed better jobs and educational opportunities than their counterparts. Not surprisingly, resentment began to build up, exploding in the form of a series of riots in 1959, resulting in more than 20,000 Tutsis dead. Following Rwandan independence in 1962, Hutus secured power due to their massive majority. Over the next few decades, Tutsis were marginalized and portrayed as scapegoats for every crisis. In April 1994, Habyarimana, the Hutu president at the time who had fairly recently signed a peace accord with the Rwandan Patriotic Front, a rebel group made up of Tutsis whose sole purpose was to overthrow Habyarimana, was killed when his plane was shot down. This turned out to be the main impetus that led to the massacre. The Rwandan massacre’s roots can easily be traced to the colonial period. This was the main era that animosity between the two groups actually began to grow. Beforehand, the two groups existed peacefully side by side. Ethnicity in regards to their physical appearance (height) appeared (no pun intended) to play the only controlling factor to the conflict. After all, it was this difference that led to the Belgium belief that the Tutsis were superior, granting them the many benefits, which then resulted in the growing hostilities. Political power sharing was also once again one of the major factors. To reiterate, the granting of greater political power also led to a sense of deprivation among the Hutus, which led to their strong demand for independence. Currently, Rwanda’s Tutsi-led government (after an RFF invasion and the failure of the multi-ethnic government) has invaded the DR Congo in an attempt to wipe out the Hutu militias that reside there. To make matters worse, a Congolese Tutsi rebel group still remains active. Anyhow, it remains obvious that ethnic violence has not subsided, and that the two groups have, by far, reconciled. On a related note, the violence in Rwanda extremely differs from that of Kenya (tribalism) in completely every aspect.
In contrast, the Bosnian Genocide/Ethnic cleansing was the result of a different culmination of factors. While the demographic reasons behind the placement of the three different groups that sought control (Croats, Bosniak, Serbs) can be traced back to the 15th century with the invasion of Ottoman Empire and also the 20th century, the different groups actually resided peacefully amongst one another. Instead, fast forward to 1991-1992. Following Tito’s death, Yugoslavia begins to fall apart. Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia easily declare independence and break away. The most ethnically diverse, as the Bosniaks (aka Muslims) and Croats banded together to vote for independence, many Serbs were outraged. Backed by Milosevic, they sought a dominant Serbian state, and this vote for independence threatened that vision. As such, they launched their offensive against Muslim and Croat dominated areas. However, while towards the end of the war the Serbs controlled up to 3 quarters of Bosnia, all three groups conducted massacres and acts of ethnic cleansing against one another. Historical development of ethnic diversity originated from the invasion of the Ottoman Empire up until the 20th century. Despite the differences in religion (Bosniaks->Muslim; Serbians->Eastern Orthodo), their differences in beliefs did not play the securing role in the massacre. Rather, Serbian nationalism acted as the final nail in the coffin in the conflict. Border disputes were unrelated here; instead, political and actual power contributed to the conflict. Bosnian Serbs aimed for a “pure” state, and sought to eliminate any such non-Serb. Bosnian independence was a threat to this vision.
Between April and June 1994, in a matter of 100 days, approximately 800,000 Rwandans (majority of them Tutsis) were killed, putting it among the worst cases of ethnic cleansing/genocide. 20th century history of Rwanda is crucial to understanding the Rwandan genocide. While both the Hutus and Tutsis have existed and lived beside one another for centuries, it was only until the colonial period that ethnic tensions spiked. While both ethnic groups have fairly similar characteristics in regards to language and traditions, it is worth noting that Tutsis tend to be taller and thinner than their Hutu counterparts. This physical difference played a major role when Belgium colonists arrived in 1916. As they began to classify people according to their ethnicity, the Belgians considered the Tutsis to be superior to the Hutus. As a result, for the next two decades, Tutsis enjoyed better jobs and educational opportunities than their counterparts. Not surprisingly, resentment began to build up, exploding in the form of a series of riots in 1959, resulting in more than 20,000 Tutsis dead. Following Rwandan independence in 1962, Hutus secured power due to their massive majority. Over the next few decades, Tutsis were marginalized and portrayed as scapegoats for every crisis. In April 1994, Habyarimana, the Hutu president at the time who had fairly recently signed a peace accord with the Rwandan Patriotic Front, a rebel group made up of Tutsis whose sole purpose was to overthrow Habyarimana, was killed when his plane was shot down. This turned out to be the main impetus that led to the massacre. The Rwandan massacre’s roots can easily be traced to the colonial period. This was the main era that animosity between the two groups actually began to grow. Beforehand, the two groups existed peacefully side by side. Ethnicity in regards to their physical appearance (height) appeared (no pun intended) to play the only controlling factor to the conflict. After all, it was this difference that led to the Belgium belief that the Tutsis were superior, granting them the many benefits, which then resulted in the growing hostilities. Political power sharing was also once again one of the major factors. To reiterate, the granting of greater political power also led to a sense of deprivation among the Hutus, which led to their strong demand for independence. Currently, Rwanda’s Tutsi-led government (after an RFF invasion and the failure of the multi-ethnic government) has invaded the DR Congo in an attempt to wipe out the Hutu militias that reside there. To make matters worse, a Congolese Tutsi rebel group still remains active. Anyhow, it remains obvious that ethnic violence has not subsided, and that the two groups have, by far, reconciled. On a related note, the violence in Rwanda extremely differs from that of Kenya (tribalism) in completely every aspect.
In contrast, the Bosnian Genocide/Ethnic cleansing was the result of a different culmination of factors. While the demographic reasons behind the placement of the three different groups that sought control (Croats, Bosniak, Serbs) can be traced back to the 15th century with the invasion of Ottoman Empire and also the 20th century, the different groups actually resided peacefully amongst one another. Instead, fast forward to 1991-1992. Following Tito’s death, Yugoslavia begins to fall apart. Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia easily declare independence and break away. The most ethnically diverse, as the Bosniaks (aka Muslims) and Croats banded together to vote for independence, many Serbs were outraged. Backed by Milosevic, they sought a dominant Serbian state, and this vote for independence threatened that vision. As such, they launched their offensive against Muslim and Croat dominated areas. However, while towards the end of the war the Serbs controlled up to 3 quarters of Bosnia, all three groups conducted massacres and acts of ethnic cleansing against one another. Historical development of ethnic diversity originated from the invasion of the Ottoman Empire up until the 20th century. Despite the differences in religion (Bosniaks->Muslim; Serbians->Eastern Orthodo), their differences in beliefs did not play the securing role in the massacre. Rather, Serbian nationalism acted as the final nail in the coffin in the conflict. Border disputes were unrelated here; instead, political and actual power contributed to the conflict. Bosnian Serbs aimed for a “pure” state, and sought to eliminate any such non-Serb. Bosnian independence was a threat to this vision.
ISRAEL Vs. the rest
Politics and conflict in the Middle East is arguably one of the most complex in the world, its inception dating back to the 7th century in the Crusades. For reasons of keeping this more simplified, this post will only examine wars between Israel and it neighbors. Following the end of WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine, under the UN, was declared to be a British mandate. Initially, the British allowed for some Jewish immigration, but due to widespread Arab violence, this policy was quickly reversed. Fast forward to the withdrawal of the British in 1948, the state of Israel, made up of Jews, declared themselves independent parallel to a UN vote of recognition. A day after Israeli independence, war broke out between the 6 neighboring Arab nations and Israel. The Jewish state survived the attacks and an armistice was signed in 1949. However, the war had fairly large demographic changes-Israel's boundaries were extended beyond the UN partition, Egypt gained control of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan took in West Bank and East Jerusalem. In 1956, Egypt seized control of the Suez Canal, blockading international trade. In retaliation, Israeli in conjunction with France and the United Kingdom attacked Egypt and succeeded in reopening the waterways. In 1967, Israel's neighbors once again launched a massive attack, consisting of up to a quarter of a million troops. Israel launched a surprise counter-attack, destroying the coalition's air force. As a result of this, Israel succeeded in gaining the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Old City of Jerusalem. Again, in 1973, a surprise attack on Israel took place again on the holiest day of the year for Jews, known as the Yom Kippur War. Initially going badly for the Israelis, they swiftly counter-attacked. The war ended without a change of borders. Most recently, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge, leading up to the Israel-Gaza Conflict skirmishes that we all know so well from last year.
language dialects visual project
human migration
Migration has become a part of our species. Over 10,000 years ago, we migrated out of Africa and out of Beringia, and of the present, we continue to migrate. The issues concerning migration in the past (if there were any) and now are of two different ballparks. There is no doubt that the question of migration and policies play a major role in each politician’s career. However, while we’ve seen the United States’ failure on the war on immigration and drugs, it does beg the question-is it all bad? The answer to that is no. As a matter of fact, migration is, like many other issues, a grey issue and a double-sided sword. A recent Oxford Economics research study actually indicted that migrants have facilitated growth in a country. As they take up lower-end manual labor jobs nobody wants, the economy begins to shift from less of agrarian, or a less manufacturing, to a more financial one. Not to mention, many migrants also bring with them a flourish of new ideas and a fresh approach to economies, and the published study has also shown that these migrants brought with them a positive influence on the productivity and efficiency of local workers. These migrants also act as a protective barrier; they can provide services to an ageing population when there are insufficient young people locally. These benefits do not only go over to the host country. Countries of origin can enjoy remittances that now often outstrip foreign aid. Not to mention, unemployment is reduced and hope returns. On the other hand, migrants can often be exploited for prostitution or human trafficking. Also, increases in population may put pressure on public services and a depression on wages, leading to friction with the local people and culture.
The Zelinsky Model of Migration Transition can be explained by the Demographic Transition Model, as it is inversely proportional to it. Essentially, it has four main stages, and the basic picture is that it starts from small to high. Phase one in the ZMT shows that there is very little migration. That makes sense, as birth and death rates are high, making migration less of a concern, than say surviving. Stage two describes a ‘massive movement from countryside to cities’. All the while, death rates are starting to drop, while birth rates remain high. This is the beginning of industrialization. Phase 3 corresponds to the point where urban-to-urban migration surpasses rural-to-urban migration. Essentially, a complex urban network begins to appear. This also seems to make sense, as in stage 3 things are beginning to even out, with the birth rate slowly plummeting. However, because population is also still increasing (along with further industrialization), people look for more places in the city and for closer jobs as well. Stage 4 describes less emigration and more emigration, because of a more advanced society, similarly to the Stage 4 found in the Demographic Transition.
Interregional migration within the United States, Canada, Russia, Brazil, and China all share common similarities and differences. To begin with, all of the aforementioned, except for China, all encouraged their citizens to migrate to less urban and developed areas. Excluding Russia, the U.S., Brazil, and China all migrated from east to west. Anyhow, these four countries all wanted to expand to the frontier to exploit resources and develop their country to heights never before imagined. In China’s case, the government wanted people to head for large urban areas along the east coast to boost economic development with a larger workforce.
There is no doubt that the influx of immigrants into the United States is in part due to the notion of the American Dream, in which everyone and anyone can climb to the top with the right combination of hard work and luck. It is more than safe to say that financial stability acts as one of the primary factors of human migration, especially in such a globalized world today. Financial reason act as both push and pull factors. However, there are also beneath the surface reasons-conflict, religious, and natural. However, in most of these cases in which conflict and strife are prevalent, migration does not go across long distances. Instead, it merely trespasses along a few borders, waiting for aid and to return.
In the past, physical barriers like mountains would have posed the greatest barriers towards human migration. In the 21st century, the rules have changed for everything. The physical barriers have turned into political barriers, like borders and laws. However, political barriers are only the manifestation of cultural and economic barriers. Political barriers are often proposed by those in power, who are put in place by the people. Now, what exactly goes on in the minds of the people? Fear. Fear or feelings of that ballpark pervade throughout the mind and discourage citizens from allowing others to enter their country.
The Zelinsky Model of Migration Transition can be explained by the Demographic Transition Model, as it is inversely proportional to it. Essentially, it has four main stages, and the basic picture is that it starts from small to high. Phase one in the ZMT shows that there is very little migration. That makes sense, as birth and death rates are high, making migration less of a concern, than say surviving. Stage two describes a ‘massive movement from countryside to cities’. All the while, death rates are starting to drop, while birth rates remain high. This is the beginning of industrialization. Phase 3 corresponds to the point where urban-to-urban migration surpasses rural-to-urban migration. Essentially, a complex urban network begins to appear. This also seems to make sense, as in stage 3 things are beginning to even out, with the birth rate slowly plummeting. However, because population is also still increasing (along with further industrialization), people look for more places in the city and for closer jobs as well. Stage 4 describes less emigration and more emigration, because of a more advanced society, similarly to the Stage 4 found in the Demographic Transition.
Interregional migration within the United States, Canada, Russia, Brazil, and China all share common similarities and differences. To begin with, all of the aforementioned, except for China, all encouraged their citizens to migrate to less urban and developed areas. Excluding Russia, the U.S., Brazil, and China all migrated from east to west. Anyhow, these four countries all wanted to expand to the frontier to exploit resources and develop their country to heights never before imagined. In China’s case, the government wanted people to head for large urban areas along the east coast to boost economic development with a larger workforce.
There is no doubt that the influx of immigrants into the United States is in part due to the notion of the American Dream, in which everyone and anyone can climb to the top with the right combination of hard work and luck. It is more than safe to say that financial stability acts as one of the primary factors of human migration, especially in such a globalized world today. Financial reason act as both push and pull factors. However, there are also beneath the surface reasons-conflict, religious, and natural. However, in most of these cases in which conflict and strife are prevalent, migration does not go across long distances. Instead, it merely trespasses along a few borders, waiting for aid and to return.
In the past, physical barriers like mountains would have posed the greatest barriers towards human migration. In the 21st century, the rules have changed for everything. The physical barriers have turned into political barriers, like borders and laws. However, political barriers are only the manifestation of cultural and economic barriers. Political barriers are often proposed by those in power, who are put in place by the people. Now, what exactly goes on in the minds of the people? Fear. Fear or feelings of that ballpark pervade throughout the mind and discourage citizens from allowing others to enter their country.
unauthorized immigration
The issue of unauthorized immigration in the United States is a controversial one that has split parties apart and forced parties to face off against one another, and etc. The ambiguity there is reflected upon the law in four specific categories: border patrols, the workplace, civil rights, and local initiatives
Regarding border patrols, most Americans, especially ones down South, desire more effective border patrols, rather than more, given the billions already spent on the effort. Most believe that the money spent to build fences along the border is sufficient and that there is no real need to put up more. In regards to the workplace, the common worry has been that many of these unauthorized immigrants would start to take American jobs, but most unauthorized immigrants can and have only taken jobs that no one else wants. Thus, many Americans are supporting work-related programs to make them legal, including U.S. citizenship. For civil rights, this becomes more so of a grey area. On one hand, citizens believe that law enforcement should have and use their right to verify the legal status of anyone suspected of being an unauthorized immigrant, yet there is also a common worry that the increased efforts of this implementation could violate the civil rights of the United States. Finally, on local initiatives, most Americans believe that the enforcement of unauthorized immigration is a federal government responsibility, and do not support local police finding unauthorized immigrants, yet some residents also favor stronger enforcement of authorized immigration. From all this, there appears to be a lack of a clear distinction between the two, making it a very grey issue.
Regarding border patrols, most Americans, especially ones down South, desire more effective border patrols, rather than more, given the billions already spent on the effort. Most believe that the money spent to build fences along the border is sufficient and that there is no real need to put up more. In regards to the workplace, the common worry has been that many of these unauthorized immigrants would start to take American jobs, but most unauthorized immigrants can and have only taken jobs that no one else wants. Thus, many Americans are supporting work-related programs to make them legal, including U.S. citizenship. For civil rights, this becomes more so of a grey area. On one hand, citizens believe that law enforcement should have and use their right to verify the legal status of anyone suspected of being an unauthorized immigrant, yet there is also a common worry that the increased efforts of this implementation could violate the civil rights of the United States. Finally, on local initiatives, most Americans believe that the enforcement of unauthorized immigration is a federal government responsibility, and do not support local police finding unauthorized immigrants, yet some residents also favor stronger enforcement of authorized immigration. From all this, there appears to be a lack of a clear distinction between the two, making it a very grey issue.
The beginnings of languages
Language, as defined as the book, is a system of communication through speech, as a collection of sounds that a group of people understands to have the same meaning. It is a medium through which people attempt to convey their messages. The most widespread languages are those of the former European colonial powers, as the question asks for not the number of speakers, but rather the diffusion, and obviously, as the French, Spanish, and English went about their way around the world, they sowed the seeds of their languages.
Some languages, like those of the Romance branch, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian, are so seemingly identical because they border one another. While moutnains did act as a strong physical boundary, those obstacles only served the purpose of evolution, which makes them so similar. In other words, these groups of people were all initially together and shared a common mother tongue. Or, in the case of English, some languages are a mix of others because of invasions or immigration that allowed for this to happen. However, in other cases, languages are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Take American dialects for example. Geography and the different peoples involved also matter in this case. Isolation from Britain contributed to the development of the American accent, but the accent itself varies place to place, because of the different peoples that entered the country at different points.
Initially, English was a culmination of the Germanic words and of the French tongue; however, it first spread throughout the world through the Columbian Exchange and the domination of America. When America became independent, she went on to dominate and spread the English language, but most prominently today, and most notably starting from 1899 when Spain ceded to the United States after the Spanish-American War, and the retainment of the Philippines. Anyways, Britain spread the language by taking control of Ireland in the 17th century, South Asia in the mid-18th, the South Pacific in the late 18th century, and southern Africa in the late 19th century. As Britain came to take control, English became the official language, forcing many to adapt and learn the language.
Some languages, like those of the Romance branch, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian, are so seemingly identical because they border one another. While moutnains did act as a strong physical boundary, those obstacles only served the purpose of evolution, which makes them so similar. In other words, these groups of people were all initially together and shared a common mother tongue. Or, in the case of English, some languages are a mix of others because of invasions or immigration that allowed for this to happen. However, in other cases, languages are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Take American dialects for example. Geography and the different peoples involved also matter in this case. Isolation from Britain contributed to the development of the American accent, but the accent itself varies place to place, because of the different peoples that entered the country at different points.
Initially, English was a culmination of the Germanic words and of the French tongue; however, it first spread throughout the world through the Columbian Exchange and the domination of America. When America became independent, she went on to dominate and spread the English language, but most prominently today, and most notably starting from 1899 when Spain ceded to the United States after the Spanish-American War, and the retainment of the Philippines. Anyways, Britain spread the language by taking control of Ireland in the 17th century, South Asia in the mid-18th, the South Pacific in the late 18th century, and southern Africa in the late 19th century. As Britain came to take control, English became the official language, forcing many to adapt and learn the language.
midterm frq: part a
Even some 200 years ago, population growth was a concern of the scientific community, as evidenced by Thomas Malthus’ An Essay on the Principle of Population. Today, while the issue has fallen into the public spotlight, the question still remains highly contentious, with individuals arguing on both sides of the theory he proposed. Noticing that population and resource growth were growing at disproportionate rates, Malthus concluded that population growth would press against available resources in every country unless “moral restraint” were practiced. Although the ideas behind Malthus’ theories made sense, the validity of his theory is highly debated, even today, and many of today’s arguments criticize or support him.
In support of Malthus, contemporary neo-Malthusians argue that his ideas are valid. While his calculations, namely the expansion of food supplies, were off, that does not falter neo-Malthusians. The other calculation of his that was incorrect was the rate at populations grew. Because Malthus assumed that only a few countries would be able to successfully develop to the point of rapid population growth (stage 2 of the demographic transition), he projected less population growth than reality would deliver. Developing countries, aided by the introduction of basic medical technologies, saw their populations boom, leading to a greater gap between the world’s population and available resources than Malthus had predicted. Such a disparity only exacerbates the world’s strain on resources, and neo-Malthusians point to it as a harbinger of overpopulation. Seeing as the world’s population has increased by over five billion since 1930, the strain we place on our limited resources will only grow heavier over time, and Malthus’ predictions will become reality, assuming they have not already.
Likewise, neo-Malthusians identify another factor that seem to prove Malthus’ theory of overpopulation: our dependence on limited resources. As of now, the world depends heavily on fossil fuels and aquifers for energy and water, respectively — this is incontestable. Yet, our dependence drains our precious resources far more quickly than they can replete themselves; in the case of fossil fuels, the majority of our energy is quite literally sourced from millions of years ago, contained in liquid batteries that reside underneath the Earth’s crust. It is because of this energy source and because of aquifer stores that we can develop advanced technology that Malthus’ critics identify as reasons why his theories do not hold. Food production has been growing in the past century or two, yes, but it is only because we have utilized technology to increase the efficacy of our fields. Once the base from which our technology is sourced is drained, i.e. fossil fuels and rare earth metals for silicon chips, we will not be able to sustain the amount of food we produce, and civilization will descend into anarchy as parties fight over securing food resources. Our depleting resources act as a temporary buffer for our our insatiable demand, but once we run out, Malthus’ theories, again, will come to fruition.
In contrast, critics of Malthusians have contended that Malthusian beliefs are, in fact, too pessimistic, as Malthus’s beliefs are based on the belief that the world’s supply of resources is fixed rather than expanding. In other words, renewable resources, like food, never increase; thus, many critics have argued that such a view is rather too simplistic. Others have also disagreed with the view that population growth is a problem. As a matter of fact, many believe that a larger population would result in economic growth, and thus, more production of food. Individuals would then adjust their activities accordingly as the economy improves. Finally, Marxists have also maintained that there is no correlation between population growth and economic development. Instead, social welfare problems, like poverty or hunger, are what contribute to a lack of economic development simply because of unjust social and economic institutions. Rather, they argue that the world does have enough resources and it is more an issue of distribution.
To put everything into context, India has become a prime example. Within the South-Asian country, food production has been shown to increase more rapidly than Malthus had predicted. While rice production, for instance, has been shown to follow his expectations, wheat production has increased twice as fast as he had expected. There are a number of factors that contributed to this result-better growing techniques, higher-yielding seeds, and cultivation of more land. Instead, it is on the population side that Malthus was incorrect. While he had initially believed that population would normally quadruple within 50 years, India’s population, known to have rapid growth, increased slower than food supply. On the other end of the spectrum, however, neo-Malthusians have contended that production of wheat and rice has begun to slow down in India recently. At the current rate of growth and lack of new breakthroughs, India will not be able to keep its food supply ahead.
In support of Malthus, contemporary neo-Malthusians argue that his ideas are valid. While his calculations, namely the expansion of food supplies, were off, that does not falter neo-Malthusians. The other calculation of his that was incorrect was the rate at populations grew. Because Malthus assumed that only a few countries would be able to successfully develop to the point of rapid population growth (stage 2 of the demographic transition), he projected less population growth than reality would deliver. Developing countries, aided by the introduction of basic medical technologies, saw their populations boom, leading to a greater gap between the world’s population and available resources than Malthus had predicted. Such a disparity only exacerbates the world’s strain on resources, and neo-Malthusians point to it as a harbinger of overpopulation. Seeing as the world’s population has increased by over five billion since 1930, the strain we place on our limited resources will only grow heavier over time, and Malthus’ predictions will become reality, assuming they have not already.
Likewise, neo-Malthusians identify another factor that seem to prove Malthus’ theory of overpopulation: our dependence on limited resources. As of now, the world depends heavily on fossil fuels and aquifers for energy and water, respectively — this is incontestable. Yet, our dependence drains our precious resources far more quickly than they can replete themselves; in the case of fossil fuels, the majority of our energy is quite literally sourced from millions of years ago, contained in liquid batteries that reside underneath the Earth’s crust. It is because of this energy source and because of aquifer stores that we can develop advanced technology that Malthus’ critics identify as reasons why his theories do not hold. Food production has been growing in the past century or two, yes, but it is only because we have utilized technology to increase the efficacy of our fields. Once the base from which our technology is sourced is drained, i.e. fossil fuels and rare earth metals for silicon chips, we will not be able to sustain the amount of food we produce, and civilization will descend into anarchy as parties fight over securing food resources. Our depleting resources act as a temporary buffer for our our insatiable demand, but once we run out, Malthus’ theories, again, will come to fruition.
In contrast, critics of Malthusians have contended that Malthusian beliefs are, in fact, too pessimistic, as Malthus’s beliefs are based on the belief that the world’s supply of resources is fixed rather than expanding. In other words, renewable resources, like food, never increase; thus, many critics have argued that such a view is rather too simplistic. Others have also disagreed with the view that population growth is a problem. As a matter of fact, many believe that a larger population would result in economic growth, and thus, more production of food. Individuals would then adjust their activities accordingly as the economy improves. Finally, Marxists have also maintained that there is no correlation between population growth and economic development. Instead, social welfare problems, like poverty or hunger, are what contribute to a lack of economic development simply because of unjust social and economic institutions. Rather, they argue that the world does have enough resources and it is more an issue of distribution.
To put everything into context, India has become a prime example. Within the South-Asian country, food production has been shown to increase more rapidly than Malthus had predicted. While rice production, for instance, has been shown to follow his expectations, wheat production has increased twice as fast as he had expected. There are a number of factors that contributed to this result-better growing techniques, higher-yielding seeds, and cultivation of more land. Instead, it is on the population side that Malthus was incorrect. While he had initially believed that population would normally quadruple within 50 years, India’s population, known to have rapid growth, increased slower than food supply. On the other end of the spectrum, however, neo-Malthusians have contended that production of wheat and rice has begun to slow down in India recently. At the current rate of growth and lack of new breakthroughs, India will not be able to keep its food supply ahead.
midterm frq: part b
The population pyramids shown above display two different countries at various stages in the Demographic Transition. The first, Country A, is an example of a country in Stage 2. Stage 2 is generally characterized as a country with rapidly declining death rates, very high birth rates, followed by a high dramatic increase. The declining birth rates are owed to the medical revolution. With such improved medicine eliminates traditional causes of death and, thus, enables more people to live longer. However, the high birth rates are because of culture. Generally, it is the case that changing culture takes time, and requires much more time for the people to adapt. Country B is a prime example of a country in Stage 4. Very low birth and death rates produce virtually no long-term natural increase, and possibly a decrease. This condition is known as zero population growth, a term only applied to stage 4 countries.
As a result of their being in different stages of the Demographic Transition, Country A and Country B have distinct characteristics that are results of their development level (it is important, however, to keep in mind that different stages have different benefits and drawbacks). Country A, for example sees many positive boons that come along with its explosive population growth. The growing, disproportionately large number of youths indicates that the workforce will increase and continue to rise for many generations afterwards, benefiting the nation economically as more people are available to provide goods and services of value. These they can sell to themselves and other nations, and have a greater likelihood of increasing the standards of living within the nation with the advent of more affordable technology in Country A. However, the blessing of Country A’s high population growth also carries drawbacks. This large workforce will be beneficial ten to twenty years from now, but for the next ten years, as well as after the point in time when they reach the retirement age. The dependency ratio will increase heavily, straining the country’s financial resources on social welfare, education, and other factors that they require. Country A’s age distribution, ironically, is both its gift and its curse.
One positive impact of Country B is an educated workforce. It is more the case that countries in Stage 4 have an educated workforce, as the country itself is quite highly-developed. With the educated workforce, we can assume that Country B is rather advanced and has a diverse and strong economy that focuses on the tertiary sector, with many of its citizens in higher-end jobs and immigrants taking the basic and manual labor ones. Another positive characteristic of Stage 4 countries is the rising equality for women in the workforce. Not directly related though, many citizens of Stage 4 countries would have a higher income, and spend more on luxury goods/non-necessity items, allowing for greater economic growth. However, by the same token, Country B has low death rates, which leads to a population with a large percentage of the elderly. This generally results in a high elderly dependency ratio, making it hard for the youth to provide. This then requires the government to devote more money to social welfare from other sectors, like education, leading to a deficiency in society. Not to mention, there is also a chance of a future labor shortage, leading the country into Stage 5. A low number of births would also lead to a smaller workforce. As the population begins to plummet, many of those people who were initially at their prime parenting age range would have missed their chance, leading to an actual generation gap, in which the following lineage would be much smaller in comparison with the older age group.
As a result of their being in different stages of the Demographic Transition, Country A and Country B have distinct characteristics that are results of their development level (it is important, however, to keep in mind that different stages have different benefits and drawbacks). Country A, for example sees many positive boons that come along with its explosive population growth. The growing, disproportionately large number of youths indicates that the workforce will increase and continue to rise for many generations afterwards, benefiting the nation economically as more people are available to provide goods and services of value. These they can sell to themselves and other nations, and have a greater likelihood of increasing the standards of living within the nation with the advent of more affordable technology in Country A. However, the blessing of Country A’s high population growth also carries drawbacks. This large workforce will be beneficial ten to twenty years from now, but for the next ten years, as well as after the point in time when they reach the retirement age. The dependency ratio will increase heavily, straining the country’s financial resources on social welfare, education, and other factors that they require. Country A’s age distribution, ironically, is both its gift and its curse.
One positive impact of Country B is an educated workforce. It is more the case that countries in Stage 4 have an educated workforce, as the country itself is quite highly-developed. With the educated workforce, we can assume that Country B is rather advanced and has a diverse and strong economy that focuses on the tertiary sector, with many of its citizens in higher-end jobs and immigrants taking the basic and manual labor ones. Another positive characteristic of Stage 4 countries is the rising equality for women in the workforce. Not directly related though, many citizens of Stage 4 countries would have a higher income, and spend more on luxury goods/non-necessity items, allowing for greater economic growth. However, by the same token, Country B has low death rates, which leads to a population with a large percentage of the elderly. This generally results in a high elderly dependency ratio, making it hard for the youth to provide. This then requires the government to devote more money to social welfare from other sectors, like education, leading to a deficiency in society. Not to mention, there is also a chance of a future labor shortage, leading the country into Stage 5. A low number of births would also lead to a smaller workforce. As the population begins to plummet, many of those people who were initially at their prime parenting age range would have missed their chance, leading to an actual generation gap, in which the following lineage would be much smaller in comparison with the older age group.
CONTRAction and survival: health risks and varying levels of development
There is a disparate difference between the more developed countries and less developed countries in respect to all categories: health care, economic wealth, social welfare, defense spending, and etc. However, one of the growing risks that has resurfaced, diseases, has begged the question of whether people face the same health risks depending on where they were from. However, in order to answer this question, this post will first begin by examining the Epidemiologic Transition, Ebola, and variations in health care, especially in regard to curing or contracting, respectively. To reiterate, there are essentially two health risks at play here-contracting and curing. As for health care cures, often times it is the case that people face less of a risk from passing in MDCs in contrast to death rates in LDCs. However, for preventing health risks, or also known as preventative medicine, it is the case that it matters less where you live because the risk of contracting or “develop” a disease is, more or less, equal. To put things into context, one must first understand the stages of the Epidemiologic Transition. It is simply a phase of development in order to describe the advancement of medical geography, or more specifically explains the replacement of infectious diseases by chronic diseases over time mainly due to two reasons-expanded public health and sanitation. Stage 1 is “The Age of Pestilence and Famine”. In this stage, mortality is high and fluctuating, hence, resulting in sustained population growth or very minimal growth or simply at a standstill. Stage 2 is known as “The Age of Receding Pandemics”. This is categorized by mortality rates beginning to decline steadily as epidemics become less frequent or even disappear. In history, this is roughly the epoch following the Black Plague up until the 19th-20th century. Stage 3 is otherwise called “The Age of Degenerative and Man-Made Diseases”. During this time frame, mortality rates continue to plummet and then begins to approach stability at a relatively low level. Finally, with stage 4 is delayed degenerative diseases. In essence, this is Stage 3 in addition to latest medical advances. Now, to put it all into context, countries in the world are between stage 3 and stage 5. Stage 5 is an added theoretical stage that hypothesizes that there will be a resurgence of epidemic diseases in response to antibiotic resistant strains. The main issue is that it is quite hard to identify at what stage each country is in. In addition, the world is becoming more interconnected than ever; thus, stages do not matter as much. The stages are only there to understand at what level each state has developed and where diseases may spring up. Due to globalization, it does not matter as much where each sprung up. Quarantines and inspections can only do so much, because at a certain point, a disease will slip past and infect away. This brings us to Ebola. The disease had initially originated from West Africa. As it begun to infect and spread, thousands have died from the outbreak. However, as the virus made the jump over to the United States, many have lived even after contracting the disease. This brings me to reiterate my main point: risks of contracting the disease is roughly in the same ballpark, but surviving the disease after contracting is the difference between heaven and hell. Dr. Kent Brantly, Nancy Writebol, and Dr. Rick Sacra all contracted the disease when they had worked in Liberia. Why? These three survivors all had been rushed to hospitals in the US that had been preparing for years for treating and managing infectious diseases. In essence, this was because of early, high-quality treatment, which very few could afford in West Africa. Not to mention, the three patients all received plasma transfusions and experimental drugs by the Food and Drug Administration, a very slim chance that could ever be afforded to the average person in Sierra Leone. As a matter of fact, the unavailability of some of these experimental treatments in West Africa has sparked controversy, as many have asserted that by making unproven drugs unavailable, it would also be rather unethical. However, by the same token of globalization, one could also make the reverse argument that with globalization, the spread of vaccines and curative medicine would also be just as rapidly dispersed. Unfortunately, this is not the case. As shown with Ebola, most Westerners are privileged with a myriad of variegated options when faced with the disease. Costs of the drugs and the health care system often hinder many average people from getting what they need, resulting in large numbers of deaths. For instance, AIDS and malaria are extremely prevalent in Western Africa, but in the West, it’s not non-existent, but compared to their African counterparts, they are much better off. In fact, according to the WHO, while AIDS is the 3rd largest killer (indirect killer) of those in low-income countries, affecting up to 8% of all deaths, the disease doesn’t even make top 10 in high-income countries. The same is also applicable with malaria. Killing off up to 1.2 million, the mosquito-borne disease is responsible for 4.4% of all deaths, but is non-existent in high-income and low-income countries, proving a point-the drugs are there, but the costs are completely different, more so than day and night. Still, before I conclude, I would like to make the point that my previous assertions regarding different risks in contracting and surviving from the disease were in regards to communicable diseases. For man-made diseases, the risk widely varies, as one must take into account the foods of the region, the pollution, and society itself. “Contracting” such a disease diverges but still, surviving it is still more a matter of wealth and as we begin to make further leaps in the field of medicine, this gap will grow unless we clearly address the issue and close the crevice that widens ever more. Finally, as with sanitation previously mentioned, it does not matter so much. Though it is true, parallel to what I had previously stated, that some diseases pop out more in LDCs, contracting it is only a matter of time. There is no way to guarantee the complete stop and spread of diseases.
|
|
|
Country densities
Taiwan
Arithmetic: 645.8
Physiological: 3019.1
Agricultural: 217
Percentage of Farmers: 8%
Percent of Arable Land: 24%
Rwanda
Arithmetic: 479.83
Physiological: 613.5
Agricultural: 283.84
Percentage of Farmers:87%
Percent of Arable land: 75.3%
Bangladesh
Arithmetic:1061.2
Physiological: 917.02
Agricultural: 715.27
Percentage of Farmers: 71.11%
Percent of Arable land: 70.1%
UK
Arithmetic: 263.12
Physiological: 370.5
Agricultural: 2.89
% of Farmers: 20.4%
% of Arable Land: 71%
Australia
Arithmetic: 3.007
Physiological: 14.7
Agricultural: 1.49
% of Farmers:10.9%
% of Arable Land: 52.8%
Arithmetic: 645.8
Physiological: 3019.1
Agricultural: 217
Percentage of Farmers: 8%
Percent of Arable Land: 24%
Rwanda
Arithmetic: 479.83
Physiological: 613.5
Agricultural: 283.84
Percentage of Farmers:87%
Percent of Arable land: 75.3%
Bangladesh
Arithmetic:1061.2
Physiological: 917.02
Agricultural: 715.27
Percentage of Farmers: 71.11%
Percent of Arable land: 70.1%
UK
Arithmetic: 263.12
Physiological: 370.5
Agricultural: 2.89
% of Farmers: 20.4%
% of Arable Land: 71%
Australia
Arithmetic: 3.007
Physiological: 14.7
Agricultural: 1.49
% of Farmers:10.9%
% of Arable Land: 52.8%
Taking actions to promote sustainability
In the video, Story of Change, the narrator highlights three important steps needed for change to take place: a big idea, a large number of people committed to that idea, and action. However, she seems to have oversimplified the steps needed to take in order to bring about the change that we need. As Naomi Klein states, little baby steps are insufficient. What is needed is a drastic uproot of the system by engaging in politics and enforce environmental regulation. Right now, there is a fundamental clash between our economic model and what we need to do in order to respond to climate change. As a result, Klein suggests for a much more managed economy and figuring out what parts of it we want to grow. More importantly, we must also fight climate change deniers and to have them understand truly what’s at stake. Anyhow, Klein also goes on to say that many of the different movements in the liberal left must work together instead of fighting amongst themselves for the same pot of gold. The mentality that because someone else was worrying about the issue and you didn’t worry about it has to stop. An issue is only going to be resolved, as shown in the video, if there is commitment from everyone. Essentially, Klein wraps things up by saying that in the future, many of these movements will need to understand that the issues they are fighting for have a secondary layer to them, and not only what they are directly frightened of, like toxic water or land.
There are five basic root causes of unsustainable practices that must be addressed in order for a sustainable world: policy failure, rural inequalities, resource imbalances, unsustainable technologies, and trade relations. Klein only addresses policy failure. These root causes must be addressed or the sustainable world that comes out will only be temporary and phony. The disappearance of pollution and the emerging of natural life will merely be for show and for the short term. It is only when the address the root causes, like finding a balance between development and sustainability, for instance, that we will be able to fully eliminate this problem.
In order to truly create a sustainable world, certain actions must be taken, the first regarding policy. States right now all have the common interest in creating a sustainable world, but also simultaneously grow their economies. If we manage to find a way to enforce this and keep corporations out of government, things will begin to change for the better. This is only the first challenge towards a sustainable Earth. It is in Plan B by Lester Brown that he hypothesizes and addresses all the aspects needed for a green world.
There are five basic root causes of unsustainable practices that must be addressed in order for a sustainable world: policy failure, rural inequalities, resource imbalances, unsustainable technologies, and trade relations. Klein only addresses policy failure. These root causes must be addressed or the sustainable world that comes out will only be temporary and phony. The disappearance of pollution and the emerging of natural life will merely be for show and for the short term. It is only when the address the root causes, like finding a balance between development and sustainability, for instance, that we will be able to fully eliminate this problem.
In order to truly create a sustainable world, certain actions must be taken, the first regarding policy. States right now all have the common interest in creating a sustainable world, but also simultaneously grow their economies. If we manage to find a way to enforce this and keep corporations out of government, things will begin to change for the better. This is only the first challenge towards a sustainable Earth. It is in Plan B by Lester Brown that he hypothesizes and addresses all the aspects needed for a green world.
Explaining pas geographically
Pacific American School is named as such as it is located in the Pacific Ocean, or more specifically, Taiwan. Regarding site, the school is located on Kuang-Fu Rd. on the East side of Hsinchu. For situation, PAS is situated on the third floor of Guang-Fu High School and next to National Tsing Hua University. Relatively windy, Hsinchu City is nicknamed the Windy City, but was officially named as Chukung. However, in the late 19th century, Fukienese immigrants dominated the plain along the coast, and it is generally unsure whether it was them or the Spanish missionaries that renamed it. Hsinchu is located between Taipei and Taichung. Moreover, it is a technological hub, well known for its Science Park that houses many companies, especially in the semi-conductor industry.
In terms of regions, PAS itself is located within Hsinchu. As Hsinchu is above the tropical line, the school is, as follows, also in the subtropical zone. Second, the school is located within the Eastern District of Hsinchu, and finally, within Hsinchu City, PAS is located on Guangfu Road. In terms of functional regions, the first is the Science Park. If not within it, the school is right next to it. Anyhow, the Science Park is the center for hundreds of technological companies that aim to innovate patents and such. Moving on, Big City is undoubtedly a magnet for clusters of people to become drawn to. Offering a cinema and a fairly vast shopping mall, this commercial center definitely makes an enormous sum of revenue. Finally, the last nodal region could be the HSR station at Jhubei. While it is definitely a transportation hub, it attracts large numbers of people every day commuting from city to city and is extremely convenient. Finally, in terms of vernacular regions, Hsinchu is considered a blue-region that supports the KMT and has two of the top-tier universities in Taiwan, NCTU and NTHU.
Most of the people in Hsinchu are concentrated within the downtown area from the old train station all the way to Big City and the City Temple. However, a new rising development, Jhubei is fairly empty and while the old areas are still filled with some people, the new areas especially around the river are rather unpopulated, as of now.
Hsinchu is quite quintessential of northern Taiwan or arguably spread of Western culture. To begin with, the ubiquitous Western chain franchises like McDonald’s or Starbucks are quickly on the rise, not to mention the rising number of people going to western schools or specialized cram schools, like TAS or Goosemom. While there are still traditional food stands that are everywhere, there is an invasion of other foods, excluding McDonald’s like Italian or Vietnamese. Similar to other places on Earth, Hsinchu has been influenced by the stretching arm of globalization and has been put under her invisible touch.
In terms of regions, PAS itself is located within Hsinchu. As Hsinchu is above the tropical line, the school is, as follows, also in the subtropical zone. Second, the school is located within the Eastern District of Hsinchu, and finally, within Hsinchu City, PAS is located on Guangfu Road. In terms of functional regions, the first is the Science Park. If not within it, the school is right next to it. Anyhow, the Science Park is the center for hundreds of technological companies that aim to innovate patents and such. Moving on, Big City is undoubtedly a magnet for clusters of people to become drawn to. Offering a cinema and a fairly vast shopping mall, this commercial center definitely makes an enormous sum of revenue. Finally, the last nodal region could be the HSR station at Jhubei. While it is definitely a transportation hub, it attracts large numbers of people every day commuting from city to city and is extremely convenient. Finally, in terms of vernacular regions, Hsinchu is considered a blue-region that supports the KMT and has two of the top-tier universities in Taiwan, NCTU and NTHU.
Most of the people in Hsinchu are concentrated within the downtown area from the old train station all the way to Big City and the City Temple. However, a new rising development, Jhubei is fairly empty and while the old areas are still filled with some people, the new areas especially around the river are rather unpopulated, as of now.
Hsinchu is quite quintessential of northern Taiwan or arguably spread of Western culture. To begin with, the ubiquitous Western chain franchises like McDonald’s or Starbucks are quickly on the rise, not to mention the rising number of people going to western schools or specialized cram schools, like TAS or Goosemom. While there are still traditional food stands that are everywhere, there is an invasion of other foods, excluding McDonald’s like Italian or Vietnamese. Similar to other places on Earth, Hsinchu has been influenced by the stretching arm of globalization and has been put under her invisible touch.
short reflection on socratic seminar 8/27/14
In the beginning, the discussion seemed awkward and stale, not going anywhere. However, as time progressed, everyone slowly became accustomed to this new type of seminar and overcame their shyness, as they joined in, slowly mixing in the discussion with their opinions. Still, that itself was a problem. The volume of opinions that were introduced into the conversation seemed unbalanced in comparison with the amount of evidence that backed it up. Personally, I was one who made this mistake and one contributing factor to this was the fact that I did not exactly grasp the concepts of the text well enough. Moreover, I did not completely think through my thoughts; thus, as it exited my mouth, it seemed like a load of unorganized words that didn't point towards somewhere specific.
manufactured landscapes in connection with 4 global forces
Demography is a very broad term essentially aimed at describing one thing: people. This is illustrated here with the massive number of people working in this factory, and can imply that the population in the surrounding area, city, or country is also rather large, and underwent fast population growth (Smith 19).
This image may just seem like normal, as it depicts people a developing country stripping down an oil tanker. However, in this picture is an invisible force. Globalization. According to TIME, many of these large ships are stripped down in developing countries to reduce costs. However, this poses many dangers to the shipyard workers. Toxins and falling sections are only the least of their dangers, as they toil and mix in with the mud to earn a paltry salary. Globalization did not kill this economy in this case. It killed off lives by deregulating trade in this region (Smith 24).
This picture here is a superb exemplar of natural resource demand. Ever since its debut in 1859, it has been a powerful source of energy to drive industries. By the end of World War II, liquid-fuels market took off and it is in these oil fields in California that provide the necessary tools required for growth (Smith 22).