DVC Culture Geography Discussion
Description
After watching the mini-lecture, please read each of my responses to the frequently asked questions I’ve posted below. Then reply, making sure not to just reply to the original FAQ (20 points).(in 100-150 words each)
mini-lecture
FAQ1: How might the standard of living be based on population density and how will labor shortages be impacted as the industrialization advancement continues to grow and develop as well as the effects of climate change?
A: Standard of living is influenced by population density by higher densities creating more economic opportunity and societal collaboration, e.g. more jobs, civic groups (e.g. Food First), and community centers in mostly urban Contra Costa County versus mostly rural Placer County.
The future of labor shortages and its effects will depend on many factors, primarily how cultures adapt and respond to, or fail to do so, changes in industrialization. The forestry industry is a prime example: its employment numbers have plummeted over recent decades due to increased, high-tech mechanization of logging mills (e.g. via laser guided cuts and integrated software systems). Unfortunately most forests have been poorly treated and managed (e.g. fire suppression, over-“harvesting”, etc.) and that has contributed to job loss. Anthropogenic climate change is severely impacting their ecological capacities and resilience in many parts of the world (e.g. western US, eastern Australia, the Iberian Peninsula i.e. Spain and Portugal).
What is your take on your question?
FAQ2: Thomas Malthus argued that “human ability to multiply far exceeded our ability to increase food production. Consequently, operating check on population would necessarily act as a natural control on population”. If he was alive today, would he still support his theory about overpopulation? Considering the fact that annually billions of tons of foods and agricultural products are thrown away in advanced countries, is poverty the result of rapid population growth (Malthus) or the unfair distribution of the wealth and inequality (Marx and Engels)? Why wealthy countries like Australia with only 0.5 percent and North America with only 4.9 percent of world’s population can produce surplus foods and export them to other countries and some poor countries in Africa cannot feed their own people? Finally, are “moral restraint” and measures like abstinence, and punishing the parents who have more children than they can afford (Malthus), practical solutions for overpopulation?
A: Malthus was classist and racist, and he had a large political motive in devising his theory. Unfortunately it gained traction and had a lasting effect by spreading to other areas of the world as well. Marks and Engels were correct about the maldistribution of wealth and resources being the driving factor of poverty.
Australia, Canada and the U.S. each are massive countries, have enormous and flat agricultural land bases (which are mostly in prime mid-latitude climates perfect for wheat), and are the offspring of Britain’s oppressive imperialism, which created enormous disparities in wealth and access to modern farming technology. Not everybody in those three countries has access to enough food though; e.g. 1 out of 6 U.S. children are food-insufficient. Many African countries have food insecurity due to lasting effects of colonialism (e.g. slave trade and export driven market economies) and neo-colonialism, both including significant inter-generational trauma. I personally don’t see your referenced “moral restraint” measures as sustainable. I’ll unpack “overpopulation” more in other responses in this board.
What is your take on the question: Why wealthy countries like Australia with only 0.5 percent and North America with only 4.9 percent of world’s population can produce surplus foods and export them to other countries and some poor countries in Africa cannot feed their own people?
FAQ3: Is there any way that we can preserve the earth’s natural resources and can it be possible to create or fabricate these valuable resources?
A: There are many ways we can preserve the earth’s natural resources and are already doing so, just not commonly enough. Many studies have shown that if we just implemented the solutions already known and not cave to status quo, powerful lobby groups and corporate greed, then we would have a mostly sustainable earth. The largest source of carbon emissions is from the energy sector and they are literally killing us, yet full-scale transition to net-zero energy generation models exist. See here: https://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_a_40_year_plan_for_energy?language=en
With full transcript here: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pp/adhoc…
In regards to the latter question above, very few natural resources can be fabricated.
What are your perspectives on these issues?
Have a similar assignment? "Place an order for your assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."
