Current Event 5: Will China's parents rush to have more Children?

October 30th 2015

Current unit of study: Unit 2

'Two is too much trouble': will China's parents rush to have children?

Synopsis

Next Chinese new year is the year of the Monkey - a symbolic time for Chinese families to have children, and now that the Chinese government has scrapped its "one-child policy," doctors are preparing themselves to face a busy year. China expects to have a baby boom now with its "two-child policy," with many families eager to have more than one child. But will it be long lived and will these young couples even be able to support two children? Wang Feng, a sociologist and demographic expert from the University of California says  no looking out to the long run. This is because Chinese couples have smaller families due to social and economic factors rather than the rules regarding conceiving. China's population is aging...and fast. If more children are birthed, this means a positive outcome for the country's development, but raising a child, especially in places like Beijing, can be expensive. And with an uncertainty in the job market, this so called "baby boom" may not last long. 

Analysis 

Because of China's "one-child" policy, the countries fertility rate has been quite low. But now, since China has very recently abandoned the policy, the country is expecting a baby boom. Couples are now allowed to conceive two children, which would in turn benefit the country very much. This is because of the limit put on children. Now, the majority of the population is elderly and with the new children being born, the country's development would be positively impacted. But the only problem is that this movement may not be sustainable for long. Raising two children in a city like Beijing can be very expensive. With social and economic factors impacting families (not to mention the pressing financial situation), the baby boom does not look like it will be sustainable in the long run.

Link to the original article:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/30/two-is-too-much-trouble-china-parents-rush-more-children

Current Event 4: World Population Expected to Reach 9.7 Billion

October 23rd 2015

Current unit of study: Unit 2

World Population Expected to Reach 9.7 Billion by 2050


Synopsis

As of right now, the global population is about 7.3 billion. Yet, by 2050 it is estimated that the world's population will end up growing to 9.7 billion according to a projection done by the United Nations. With a number like this, this new estimate has surpassed last year's estimate by around 150 million people. Based off of this study, we can tell that the greatest increase in population will happen in or around Africa, and Asia following closely behind in numbers. Despite this, the UN does admit that  there's an 80% chance that population could be as low as 9.4 or even as high as 10 billion by then. This is assumed by analyzing fertility patterns of the past and applying them to the future. This new number is not fully based off of fertility rates, as they have in fact been down in most places, but rather on longer life spans, as about 12% of the population is over the age of 60.

Analysis 

It's kind of scary to think that by the time I'm 50, the world's population will be exceeding the population we have now by 2.1 billion! It's remarkable! Yet at the same time, it's nice to know that it's not based off of total fertility rate (TFR) but rather the longer life spans being acquired. While reading this article, I found myself thinking back to our discussion in class on the "Do it for Denmark" campaign where they were basically bribing couples into having kids to increase Denmark's population and in return get a free fancy vacation and 3 years of baby supply. So it brought to mind... because the fertility rates have been going down could there be a sudden baby boom based off of things like the declining rate or fertility and the Denmark campaign? But then again, this estimation of having a population of 9.7 billion people isn't entirely based off of fertility rates, but rather longer life spans. But you never know...heck, I'd be easily bribed by the notion of a free vacation.

Link to original article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/world-population-expected-to-reach-9-7-billion-by-2050/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20150801news-datapointspopulation&utm_campaign=Content&sf11585780=1

Current Event 3: Earth is Loosing Topsoil

Thursday October 15th, 2015

Current unit of study: Unit 1 Basic Concepts

Earth Could Lose a Third of Its Topsoil

October 15th, 2015 7:31PM

Synopsis

Although it may not seem like a pressing issue currently (since the Earth has so much soil), the problem of earth loosing top soil can become a relevant problem. Due to erosion, pollution, acidification, nutrient depletion and bad land management, 33 percent of our planet's soil resources are being degraded. Because of this, the loss of topsoil could on the whole, have a catastrophic effect on the world's supply of food and agriculture. Without this precious topsoil, we will no longer be able to grow food crops who absorb excess carbon and supply us with new antibiotics. On and even darker note, besides our effort to replenish the soil through natural processes, it is being lost much faster than we could imagine. Many scientists have suggested fixing the problem by changing methods of agriculture, such as eliminating synthetic fertilizers which are currently the main culprit in this issue. But is it now too late to prevent further damage? Or do we still have a chance of salvaging the soil?

Analysis

As presented in the article, we as a human race are beginning to face a major issue with loosing earth's topsoil. Because of our careless actions and new agricultural methods, soil is literally slipping through our fingers. While things such as synthetic fertilizers may seem to work faster than natural fertilizers, it is taking a serious toll on our top soil. In key issue 4, we address sustainability and resources. But what is a resource? A resource is classified as a substance in the environment that is useful to people, economically and socially acceptable to use. Top soil, although it may not seem like it, is one of our most important resources as it provides us with nutritious food that is good for our health. Without it, we are doomed. There would be a huge loss of farmers and jobs as the soil is what keeps most of them in business. Top soil may also become classified as an non renewable resource at the rate it's going, despite our efforts to save it and keep it and renew it. 

Link to the original article:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/earth-could-lose-a-third-of-its-topsoil-151015.htm

Current Event 2: Places where animals thrive without humans

October 9th, 2015

Chernobyl and Other Places Where Animals Thrive Without Humans
October 9th, 2015


Synopsis

In places deemed polluted or too dangerous for people to live,wildlife populations have suddenly been coming back strong and taking over the areas. This phenomenon is especially prevalent in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster zone in Ukraine, an area evacuated and left untouched by humans for nearly 30 years. The nuclear accident in Ukraine 1986 is considered one of the worst in history. The accident forced the evacuation of 116,000 people from 1,600 square miles of land. Now, animals such as wolves, bears, elk and even deer along with many other species thrive in this once forbidden area which bridges the border between Ukraine and Belarus. With its newly gained population, Chernobyl stands as a symbol of life without human population, as the trees now cover the decaying buildings which people lived and worked in at one time, and animals reclaim the kingdom. As an earth and environmental science professor named Smith puts it, "Nature flourishes when humans are removed from the equation, even after the world's worst nuclear accident."

Analysis

As humans, when we choose to settle down somewhere, we often look for places that are suitable for our needs. When an area is not all that we need it to be, we end up modifying it and building a community. But on very rare occasions, we end up causing severe damage to the area we choose to settle in and we are then forced to abandon or leave it due to our actions, such as the case in this article. In Chernobyl, the nuclear accident caused the huge evacuation of 116,000 people because of the hazardous chemicals we would have been exposed to had we chosen to stay there after the accident. Now after nearly 30 years, wildlife has made its return to Chernobyl. Animals such as the European lynx and European brown bear have shown up in the area, species which have not in fact been seen in the region for nearly a century.

 As soon as I saw this article, the first thing that crossed my mind was environmental determinism. Although this belief is that the physical environment limits human action and forces us to find ways to adapt to the environment, I feel this article applies to the concept a bit differently. When we deal with something as serious as a nuclear accident, there is no way that we as humans can find a way to adapt to the living conditions, therefore we have to leave the area. In Chernobyl, the new tainted environment determined that human life was no longer sustainable, but wildlife was. Because of this, animals have now flocked to this area now forgotten by humans. This can serve as an abstract example of migrant diffusion, as some of the species found in Chernobyl shows these creatures thriving and staying strong. Yet once out of the Chernobyl woods, we begin to see the wildlife population fade out. 

Link to original article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151008-chernobyl-animals-thrive-without-people-science/

Current Event 1 : Sheltering Syrian Refugees is an Impeachable Offense

October 1st 2015


Current unit of study: Unit 1 Basic Concepts

Congressman Says Sheltering Syrian Refugees Is An Impeachable Offense

October 1st, 2015 2:28PM

Synopsis

During what is now called the "worst refugee crisis in decades," President Barack Obama is setting plans to allow some 10,000 refugees to enter into the United States to claim shelter next year. As this may seem to be the right thing, many congressmen such as Rep. Mo Brooks disagree with his plan, stating, "We’re going to be giving welfare to all these people!” Yet, many agree with Obama's radical decision saying that it is his responsibility, as well as the American people's responsibility to reach out to these war-stricken refugees, as the President is the "Primary world player."  The only pending questions left up in the air is how exactly will we support the incoming refugees, and what affect will it have on us as a whole?

Analysis

It is quite obvious that Obama means well in his plan to offer shelter to the Syrian refugees, and I'm sure many other Americans agree with the idea, but when it comes to reality, the congressmen may actually have something right this time around. Besides the current population we have now, we will be adding 10,000 more people and expected to provide for them as we do our own, but that alone raises a major concern. How exactly does Mr. President intend to provide food, welfare and shelter for these people when we currently have starving American citizens on the streets? All these questions bring me back to the lesson in class in which we discussed the "Three pillars of sustainability," all which play an extremely relevant role in the pending crisis. The first being the environment pillar. This pillar can only be sustained and developed if conservation and preservation of natural resources is embraced. 

Second, the economic pillar remains sustainable when efforts are based on both supply and demand and the environment, and third the society pillar. I personally feel this one plays the biggest role out of all three, as it has to find a way to modify the wants of cultures in regards to shelter, food and clothing to objects that are sustainable. Already, some Americans are displeased with the over all decision to let Syrian refugees in, so how will Obama find a way to please both Americans and the incoming Syrians? And on top of it all, will this effort be sustainable? On the brighter side, by the Syrians coming here, they provide the perfect example of relocation diffusion (the spread of an idea through physical movement of people from one place to another). This way they will be bringing their language, culture and tradition with them to the states, which will hopefully give Americans a better understanding of the Syrian culture.

Link to original article:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/01/3708000/mo-brooks-impeach-obama-refugees/