2014 FRQs 1 and 2
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, nations have rapidly advanced, progressing from traditional agrarian societies to ones that are focused on mass-consumption of secondary and tertiary services. Development of countries have followed general trends that have been described by both Rostow’s five-stage model of economic growth and Wallerstein’s three-part world theory system. While the two both describe how nations tend to develop, they do differ in fairly significant ways and both have their own drawbacks.
Rostow’s five-stage model focuses primarily on the national level when describing a nation’s development. Nations, he argues, begin with a traditional society that focuses on close family units and low-economic growth. Most economic activity is concentrated in the primary sector of the economy, and, even then, the majority of farming is subsistence in nature. Then, in the pre-conditions for take-off, society’s elites begin to work together in developing new technology, which allows the nation to begin its progress towards industrialization. The next stage, take-off, occurs once technology begins to proliferate, enabling larger crop yields and exploration into manufacturing. The drive to maturity, the next stage, is marked by incredibly high economic growth from the secondary sector of the economy, and the tertiary sector of the economy begins to materialize. The final stage, the era of mass-consumption, is ushered in by its comparatively lower economic growth and a majority focus on the tertiary sector of the economy. It is in this period that nations arguable trend towards democracy, according to Rostow.
Wallerstein’s theory focuses more on an international level. The core-periphery concept of his three-part world system describes how nations interact with each other and how development occurs as a result. The “core” of the concept describes the world’s developed nations — the United States, Canada, European states, and Russia. The “periphery” refers to states that are either undeveloped or developing and can be further broken down into the “periphery” and the “semi-periphery,” the latter of which refers to nations that are on track to joining the “core.” In this theory, the central idea is that in the hierarchy of development (core, semi-periphery, and periphery, in that order), nations are exploited by those above them in the hierarchy and can exploit those below them. For example, China, arguably a “semi-periphery” state in terms of development, is exploited heavily by “core” states for its cheap labor, but China itself can exploit “periphery” states like less economically developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa for cheap resources.
With these two models, there are some differences to be found. The main difference between the two is the significance of foreign nations in the development of a nation — Rostow’s model inherently ignores the effects that foreign nations can have in a nation’s development because it does not describe anything about foreign intervention. Modern “core”/”semi-periphery” states like Taiwan and South Korea were only rapidly developed due to intense foreign investment and funding, and thus Rostow’s model cannot explain their development. In comparison, Wallerstein’s model focuses on the interaction between nations, and is much more suitable for describing Taiwan and South Korea’s development in the past 70 years.
Other differences that arise between the two models are the significance of domestic governance and described relative power of supposedly “similar” nations. Of the former difference, Rostow’s model also fails to account for how forms of governance can affect the defelopment of a nation. Rather, his model assumes that all nations adopt capitalism in their development, but nations arguably can develop in different manners under other forms of economic governance. For example, should a nation nationalize and subsidize industries that are of significant importance to development (energy, for example), development could occur much more rapidly than in a capitalist society. The latter difference, the relative power of supposedly “similar” nations, is also noteworthy. Rostow’s model essentially ignores the existence of outside powers (with the exception of existing as trade partners), and Wallerstein’s model gives equal significance to countries across any one hierarchy. The United States and Luxembourg are both “core” states in his model, but in reality they have vastly different amounts of power, economically, culturally, and militarily. Likewise, DPRK and Sudan are the results of vastly different conditions, but Wallerstein’s model relegates them to the umbrella term of “peripheral” states.
The models are useful in different ways, but Wallerstein’s is perhaps better at describing Mexico’s level of economic development. It is a “semi-peripheral” state under the world system theory, and its status accurately depicts its level of economic development. “Core” states exploit Mexico’s relatively cheap labor for manufacturing, yet Mexico can also exploit other states like Honduras that are marked as “periphery” states. Mexico’s status as “semi-periphery” implies that it is not yet developed, and further examination of the division of its economy shows that this is accurate. Mexico remains agriculture and manufacturing-based, with comparatively little activity in the services — this relative lack of tertiary sector activity indicates that it is not quite developed yet, but its high level of manufacturing shows that it is far from undeveloped. “Semi-peripheral,” then, is an apt descriptor.
While traditionally an international concept, the core-periphery model can also be applied below the national scale. Washington DC can act as a “core” in terms of politics, and it holds a fair amount of power over the states, the “periphery.” The federal government arguably exploits the states for federal taxes, and federal government can do whatever it wishes with said taxes. A different way the core-periphery model can be applied to the United States is the cultural dominance of a “core” in California: Hollywood. As the “core,” Hollywood produces the films that “represent” modern American culture, and the rest of the country, the “periphery,” is subject to cultural influence by content Hollywood outputs, reinforcing the substantial cultural influence that Hollywood holds.
Rostow’s five-stage model focuses primarily on the national level when describing a nation’s development. Nations, he argues, begin with a traditional society that focuses on close family units and low-economic growth. Most economic activity is concentrated in the primary sector of the economy, and, even then, the majority of farming is subsistence in nature. Then, in the pre-conditions for take-off, society’s elites begin to work together in developing new technology, which allows the nation to begin its progress towards industrialization. The next stage, take-off, occurs once technology begins to proliferate, enabling larger crop yields and exploration into manufacturing. The drive to maturity, the next stage, is marked by incredibly high economic growth from the secondary sector of the economy, and the tertiary sector of the economy begins to materialize. The final stage, the era of mass-consumption, is ushered in by its comparatively lower economic growth and a majority focus on the tertiary sector of the economy. It is in this period that nations arguable trend towards democracy, according to Rostow.
Wallerstein’s theory focuses more on an international level. The core-periphery concept of his three-part world system describes how nations interact with each other and how development occurs as a result. The “core” of the concept describes the world’s developed nations — the United States, Canada, European states, and Russia. The “periphery” refers to states that are either undeveloped or developing and can be further broken down into the “periphery” and the “semi-periphery,” the latter of which refers to nations that are on track to joining the “core.” In this theory, the central idea is that in the hierarchy of development (core, semi-periphery, and periphery, in that order), nations are exploited by those above them in the hierarchy and can exploit those below them. For example, China, arguably a “semi-periphery” state in terms of development, is exploited heavily by “core” states for its cheap labor, but China itself can exploit “periphery” states like less economically developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa for cheap resources.
With these two models, there are some differences to be found. The main difference between the two is the significance of foreign nations in the development of a nation — Rostow’s model inherently ignores the effects that foreign nations can have in a nation’s development because it does not describe anything about foreign intervention. Modern “core”/”semi-periphery” states like Taiwan and South Korea were only rapidly developed due to intense foreign investment and funding, and thus Rostow’s model cannot explain their development. In comparison, Wallerstein’s model focuses on the interaction between nations, and is much more suitable for describing Taiwan and South Korea’s development in the past 70 years.
Other differences that arise between the two models are the significance of domestic governance and described relative power of supposedly “similar” nations. Of the former difference, Rostow’s model also fails to account for how forms of governance can affect the defelopment of a nation. Rather, his model assumes that all nations adopt capitalism in their development, but nations arguably can develop in different manners under other forms of economic governance. For example, should a nation nationalize and subsidize industries that are of significant importance to development (energy, for example), development could occur much more rapidly than in a capitalist society. The latter difference, the relative power of supposedly “similar” nations, is also noteworthy. Rostow’s model essentially ignores the existence of outside powers (with the exception of existing as trade partners), and Wallerstein’s model gives equal significance to countries across any one hierarchy. The United States and Luxembourg are both “core” states in his model, but in reality they have vastly different amounts of power, economically, culturally, and militarily. Likewise, DPRK and Sudan are the results of vastly different conditions, but Wallerstein’s model relegates them to the umbrella term of “peripheral” states.
The models are useful in different ways, but Wallerstein’s is perhaps better at describing Mexico’s level of economic development. It is a “semi-peripheral” state under the world system theory, and its status accurately depicts its level of economic development. “Core” states exploit Mexico’s relatively cheap labor for manufacturing, yet Mexico can also exploit other states like Honduras that are marked as “periphery” states. Mexico’s status as “semi-periphery” implies that it is not yet developed, and further examination of the division of its economy shows that this is accurate. Mexico remains agriculture and manufacturing-based, with comparatively little activity in the services — this relative lack of tertiary sector activity indicates that it is not quite developed yet, but its high level of manufacturing shows that it is far from undeveloped. “Semi-peripheral,” then, is an apt descriptor.
While traditionally an international concept, the core-periphery model can also be applied below the national scale. Washington DC can act as a “core” in terms of politics, and it holds a fair amount of power over the states, the “periphery.” The federal government arguably exploits the states for federal taxes, and federal government can do whatever it wishes with said taxes. A different way the core-periphery model can be applied to the United States is the cultural dominance of a “core” in California: Hollywood. As the “core,” Hollywood produces the films that “represent” modern American culture, and the rest of the country, the “periphery,” is subject to cultural influence by content Hollywood outputs, reinforcing the substantial cultural influence that Hollywood holds.
Israel's Complicated HistoryAfter World War One, the Ottoman Empire was destroyed, and its territories were then split up into many different nations. What is now modern-day Iran was actually held by the British, the Ottomans, and the Soviets during the war, but after the war, the Ottoman Empire was broken up and the Soviets focused on their own revolutions, and the British continued to secure their oil interests in Iran. More importantly, however, the British and the French signed the Sykes-Picot Accord, which focused on the postwar division of the Ottoman Empire — the two nations decided to divide up the empire between them. In contrast, United States President Woodrow Wilson claimed that his nation had fought in the war for a set of arguably “higher” ideals, a goal that the Sykes-Picot Accord undermined.
The League of Nations believed that these newly-liberated areas were not ready for self-determination, and thus established “mandates,” which gave Britain and France the authority to control and manage the new states. While not officially colonies, these areas saw them as such, and resented their status. One of the British mandates was the mandate of Palestine, an area of much significance in the decades to come. |
A map of British and French influence in the Middle East, 1926.
(right click + open image in new tab to enlarge) |
A map of the UN-proposed Partition of Palestine,1947
|
With the advent of World War Two, two significant outcomes came to fruition. The first was that the world realized the importance of securing oil interests in the Middle East, and the second was the birth of the state of Israel. After the events of the Holocaust, Jewish people were tired of being persecuted wherever they went, and Zionism, the movement for establishing the state of Israel, flourished through post-war Jewish survivors. Between 1922 and 1939, Zionists moved to Palestine and raised their population from 84,000 to 445,000 in just under two decades. While the British (who controlled Palestine) and the United Nations tried to create a peaceful plan for cohabitation of the area, conflicts marred the region. In 1947, the British announced that they would leave Palestine in exactly one year, and Zionists acted by taking control of large swaths of land, even those that were predominantly Arab.
As the date of the British departure approached, violence on both sides increased, and terrorism was widespread. When the British finally withdrew, the Zionists proclaimed independence as a state in May of 1948. The day after the declaration of independence, Egyptian, Syrian, Transjordanian, Lebanese, and Iraqi forces invaded Israel. This conflict raged on for just under a year, ending in January of 1949 after the Zionists had reclaimed and seized large amounts of land. More than 750,000 Palestinians became refugees, and the animosity from this conflict set the stage for the decades of violence. Meanwhile, the United States was divided on the issue of supporting Israel. On the one hand, they wished to protect their oil interests by not offending the Arab nations by acknowledging Israel, but on the other hand, the United States wished to combat the growing Soviet influence in the world, and Israel was a prime target. In fact, the Soviets had already begun to increase their activities in the Middle East. In Iran, the Soviets delayed the withdrawal of their troops after the war. In Turkey, they raised territorial claims along the Soviet border and insisted on sharing control of the straits connecting the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. In response, the United States announced the Truman Doctrine, a plan in which it offered aid to capitalist countries, namely Greece and Turkey. |
Egypt’s Gamal Abd al-Nasser, an army colonel who gained power after a coup, voiced a need for pan-Arabism. His message was very popular, and the West could not ignore this, and they pandered to his demands in an attempt to dissuade them from communism. Nasser, however, accepted aid from both the Soviets and the Americans, all while the United States began building strong relations with the Israelis through generous arms sales.
In June of 1967, the Israelis took the initiative and attacked their Arab neighbors in the Six-Day War. They launched surprise attacks on the Egyptians and the Syrians, and rolled in their tanks across the Sinai all the way to the Suez Canal. Within two days, the Egypt and Jordan were ready to accept a cease-fire, but the Israelis kept attacking, capturing Syria’s Golan Heights. They had a complete victory.
In June of 1967, the Israelis took the initiative and attacked their Arab neighbors in the Six-Day War. They launched surprise attacks on the Egyptians and the Syrians, and rolled in their tanks across the Sinai all the way to the Suez Canal. Within two days, the Egypt and Jordan were ready to accept a cease-fire, but the Israelis kept attacking, capturing Syria’s Golan Heights. They had a complete victory.
In October of 1973, however, the October War took place. On Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Egyptians, under Anwar al-Sadat, and the Syrians launched a two-day surprise offensive against Israel. However, Israel’s army quickly recovered and regained much land, reaching the west bank of the Suez Canal and the Golan Heights again. Fighting stopped soon after, but the Arabs had been humiliated again. In reaction to the United States’ support for Israel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) organized an oil embargo on the United States; this proved to be extremely effective and led to US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to negotiate two agreements to end the fighting between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Syria.
In 1978, United States President Jimmy Carter invited Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Begin to Camp David, a location for presidential retreats, for peace talks. Originally intended to last three days, the negotiations dragged out to two weeks, but they were successful in finding a middle point. Egypt acknowledged Israel’s existence afterwards, and the United States gave generous amounts of aid to both Egypt and Israel in return. Unfortunately, this alienated Syria and Iraq and pushed them towards the Soviets, but the Arab countries could not cut out the United States — its importance in marketing Arab oil was too significant. Today, Israel still faces hostile relations with its neighbors, although much less so than it did during the Cold War. Today’s physical conflicts are no longer with Egypt, Jordan, or Syria, but rather with the displaced Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. No longer are the conflicts as violent, but they are much more lopsided, for Israel controls Palestine’s imports and exports; this too has led to many protests against Israel’s actions and its American support. However the conflict turns out, oil will still play a major role in the future of the region. How significant, however, is unknown, especially with the recent decline in the price of oil. Regardless, the Middle East remains one of the most volatile areas of the world, and it seems as though cooperation is the only way to keep violence at bay. |
Israel Political Map of gains and losses in throughout five decades 1967-2005
|
A modern-day political map of the Middle East, aka. Southwest Asia. ISIS gains are not pictured.
Language Essential Questions
What is language and which languages are the most widespread?
The book defines a language as “a system of communication through speech, a collection of sounds that a group of people understands to have the same meaning.” While this excludes certain languages that are nonverbal, such as American Sign Language, the general idea that the book holds seems pretty inclusive while definitive. The languages that are most widespread in the world today are, in decreasing order, Mandarin (spoken by 14.4% of the world), Hindi (12.55%), Spanish (6.15%), English (5.43%), and Arabic (4.43%). This reflects the UN’s six official languages: English, Arabic, Mandarin, Spanish, French, and Russian.
Why are some languages very similar while others are very different?
Some languages are very similar because they stem from the same precursors. For example, Italian, French, and Spanish are very similar because they are all derived mainly from Latin. This is attributable to regional differences — one cannot reasonably expect French and Korean to sound similar partially because they are so geographically distant. However, modern migration have made these distances more easily conquerable, facilitating the spread of languages like English to continents around the world. Another reason why languages are very similar is that many languages borrow words from other languages, even if unrelated. For example, English contains many languages that have Latin roots as a result of the Norman’s occupation of England during the language’s development. However, English is a West-Germanic in origin and thus more distinctive from French than would, say, Portuguese be.
How did English develop and spread around the world?
English developed as a result of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, Germanic tribes, invading the English isles. Modern English ahs evolved primarily form the language spoken by them. The geographical spread of these invaders left their once-common language evolving into different dialects, and then other peoples subsequently invaded and added their own languages. Vikings arrived in the ninth century and added their fair of share words as did the Normans in the eleventh century. As time passed, England’s influence over the world grew as a result of their strong shipping businesses and their colonization of most of the rest of the world. Centuries later, after World War 2, one of England’s former colonies, the United States of America, became a global superpower and has been able to push its cultural superiority ever since.
The book defines a language as “a system of communication through speech, a collection of sounds that a group of people understands to have the same meaning.” While this excludes certain languages that are nonverbal, such as American Sign Language, the general idea that the book holds seems pretty inclusive while definitive. The languages that are most widespread in the world today are, in decreasing order, Mandarin (spoken by 14.4% of the world), Hindi (12.55%), Spanish (6.15%), English (5.43%), and Arabic (4.43%). This reflects the UN’s six official languages: English, Arabic, Mandarin, Spanish, French, and Russian.
Why are some languages very similar while others are very different?
Some languages are very similar because they stem from the same precursors. For example, Italian, French, and Spanish are very similar because they are all derived mainly from Latin. This is attributable to regional differences — one cannot reasonably expect French and Korean to sound similar partially because they are so geographically distant. However, modern migration have made these distances more easily conquerable, facilitating the spread of languages like English to continents around the world. Another reason why languages are very similar is that many languages borrow words from other languages, even if unrelated. For example, English contains many languages that have Latin roots as a result of the Norman’s occupation of England during the language’s development. However, English is a West-Germanic in origin and thus more distinctive from French than would, say, Portuguese be.
How did English develop and spread around the world?
English developed as a result of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, Germanic tribes, invading the English isles. Modern English ahs evolved primarily form the language spoken by them. The geographical spread of these invaders left their once-common language evolving into different dialects, and then other peoples subsequently invaded and added their own languages. Vikings arrived in the ninth century and added their fair of share words as did the Normans in the eleventh century. As time passed, England’s influence over the world grew as a result of their strong shipping businesses and their colonization of most of the rest of the world. Centuries later, after World War 2, one of England’s former colonies, the United States of America, became a global superpower and has been able to push its cultural superiority ever since.
Unauthorized Immigration?
Border patrols: Americans would like more effective border controls so that fewer people can sneak in.
Bloomberg reports that Americans increasingly want tighter border patrols according to a poll taken by the Pew Research Center. The same poll reported that those in favor increased from 25% to 33% of the population in just eight months. In contrast, only 23% stated that they would rather prioritize creating ways for undocumented immigrants ways to attain a legal status. Workplace: Most Americans favor programs that make it legal for immigrants to take the jobs that nobody wants. “Most support a path to US citizenship for unauthorized immigrants.” The Pew Research Center found that 50% of Americans are in favor of President Obama’s recent executive action regarding immigration. Roughly 82% of Republicans disapprove and 71% of Democrats approve of these recent events, showing that there are strong opinions on both sides. Interestingly enough, in a different study, 70% of Americans say that there should be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally. Civil rights: Many favor letting law enforcement verify the legal status of individuals, but they don’t want their civil rights to be violated either. Unfortunately, I could not find much data on this part of the issue, but referring to statistics regarding Arizona’s 2010 law, the Pew Research Center reported that 73% of the people approved of requiring documents verifying their legal status if law enforcement ask for them. 59% of Americans overall approve of the law, while 32% disapproved. The Supreme Court later nullified some parts of the law, such as sections that allowed for arrests without warrants in some cases and classifying not carrying legal documentation as a misdemeanor. Local initiatives: Polls show that most Americans believe that enforcement of unauthorized immigration is a federal government responsibility. As for determining the public’s preference on whether the federal or state governments should be held responsible for enforcement against unauthorized immigration, Rasmussen Reports found that that 60% of Americans believe that the states should have the right to patrol the borders. This reflects the fact that 59% of the population holds the view that the federal government has been doing a poor job in dealing with illegal immigration. 61% of voters nationwide, in fact, favor using their state’s National Guard if necessary to deal with immigration problems. |
Interestingly enough, the public is losing interest in immigration...
|
Human Migration Essential Questions |
Pick me to evaluate!
|
What are the most important advantages and disadvantages of human migration?
While cheetahs have speed and dogs have teamwork, humans appear to have no distinct trait. Only from a longer time frame can one see exactly where it is that humans excel: endurance, specifically when traveling. From running track in high school to conquering ultra-marathons, humans display a propensity for moving long distances, and it is no surprise that we migrate far and often. However, human migration brings about both advantages and disadvantages. On a positive note, our migration has allowed for ideas to disperse farther, especially during the period of time when the United Kingdom gripped the world tight as it colonized areas. While colonization itself is horrendous, the ideas that arrived with the English were quickly spread, benefiting and harming the colonized. A separate, economic, benefit of human migration is the supplementing of economies that are stagnating as a result of shrinking workforces. Japan, notorious for its greying population, now has over 2.2 million foreigners, many of whom help compensate for the workforce loss that has resulted from low birth rates, as reported by the Japanese Ministry of Justice. Likewise, the United Arab Emirates has a significant number of foreign workers (3.8 million) in its labor force to supplement the local lack of workers. Furthermore, those who migrate for economic reasons (the majority) send remittances to their families in their home countries. This brings a significant amount of money to these developing nations, allowing for more investment in infrastructure and economies, mutually benefitting both nations.
To what extent can the demographic transition explain patterns of migration?
Unfortunately, human migration also has its disadvantages. As alluded to earlier, there are many foreign workers in the world, but the large majority of them are not treated in an acceptable fashion. Referring back to the United Arab Emirates, human rights abuses of foreign workers is rampant; the British Broadcasting Corporation reports that many construction workers are not paid for “months on end,” and that they know they will lose their jobs to the elastic labor supply if they dissent. On a different note, introducing many foreign groups to an area will help generate fear and hate, especially if the groups fail to understand each other. The Native Americans and Americans, for example, had many conflicts as a result of both misunderstandings and American greed. Cultural clashes are highly probably as a result of migration, and it is difficult to reach compromise. This is becoming especially prominent in regards to terrorism. The public tends to generalize terrorists with all Muslims, and, as such, develops distrust for the group as a whole. However, this only serves to achieve terrorism’s goals, for developing an “us versus them” mentality only further divides groups and exacerbates the tensions. This sort of thing happened during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles when the Los Angeles Police Department refused to help protect Korean Americans who resorted to personally defending their property.
What have been the similarities and differences in interregional migration in the US, Canada, Russia, China, and Brazil?
The Demographic Transition Model correlates with patterns of migration quite well. Stage 1 of the model depicts an undeveloped, agrarian society, but as the model shifts to stage 2, intraregional migration begins due to the allure of newfound manufacturing wages that have sprung up from industrialization. Farmers become factory workers, and the countryside becomes even more barren. As a nation maintains stage 2 and approaches stage 3 of the Demographic Transition Model, areas of specialization pop up for different industries — automobiles, healthcare, computer parts (although silicon technology is high-tech to the point where we need an existing infrastructure to actually connect research centers), etc. This specialization motivates migration for those who have skills that suit working in the industries, sparking interregional movement. As we move towards stage 4, international migration becomes prevalent as immigrants from less developed countries arrive in hopes of economic profit; it is at this point where nations are seen to be well-developed and “rich,” and many come in hopes of accumulating their own fortunes.
Between the United States, Canada, Russia, China, and Brazil, interregional migration is fairly similar. Not only are people moving from the countryside to urban areas, a feat of intraregional migration, they are doing so across the country. This is especially prevalent in China, as many head to the manufacturing centers of the world in hopes of landing a decent job (hint: they don’t). Canada is a notable example of urban clustering: By far, the large majority of the population (75%) live within 100 miles of the United States border. Another similarity is that many have relocated to the energy sector’s primary areas of activity for hydrocarbon extraction in the United States, Canada, Russia, and China.
To what extent does the US provide equal opportunities for immigrants, both legal and illegal, and what are the greatest obstacles to human migration?
The United States does not provide equal opportunities for its immigrants. While people continually chase the American dream, the sad reality is that foreigners are regularly discriminated against. The elastic labor supply of immigrants also reduces them to accepting and keeping low-pay jobs, for they do not have the education for higher positions and do not have the money to pursue higher education. Laws discriminating against immigrants have also been passed, most notably Arizona’s SB 1070 that arguably encourages racial profiling. Legislation has also played a major role in immigrant inequality: it is incredibly notoriously difficult to legally enter the United States. Partnered with the anti-immigration stance that many Americans hold, this makes it difficult to immigrate. However, difficulties arise not only in the United States; many European Union nations are pushing for anti-immigration laws due to the potential for abuse of the Schengen Agreement, which allows European Union residents to move freely the European Union. Physical barriers like the United States’ fence pose obstacles for immigrants. However, the economic opportunity proves to be worth the risk, and many gamble their lives, futures, and even families, for the chance of a better future.
While cheetahs have speed and dogs have teamwork, humans appear to have no distinct trait. Only from a longer time frame can one see exactly where it is that humans excel: endurance, specifically when traveling. From running track in high school to conquering ultra-marathons, humans display a propensity for moving long distances, and it is no surprise that we migrate far and often. However, human migration brings about both advantages and disadvantages. On a positive note, our migration has allowed for ideas to disperse farther, especially during the period of time when the United Kingdom gripped the world tight as it colonized areas. While colonization itself is horrendous, the ideas that arrived with the English were quickly spread, benefiting and harming the colonized. A separate, economic, benefit of human migration is the supplementing of economies that are stagnating as a result of shrinking workforces. Japan, notorious for its greying population, now has over 2.2 million foreigners, many of whom help compensate for the workforce loss that has resulted from low birth rates, as reported by the Japanese Ministry of Justice. Likewise, the United Arab Emirates has a significant number of foreign workers (3.8 million) in its labor force to supplement the local lack of workers. Furthermore, those who migrate for economic reasons (the majority) send remittances to their families in their home countries. This brings a significant amount of money to these developing nations, allowing for more investment in infrastructure and economies, mutually benefitting both nations.
To what extent can the demographic transition explain patterns of migration?
Unfortunately, human migration also has its disadvantages. As alluded to earlier, there are many foreign workers in the world, but the large majority of them are not treated in an acceptable fashion. Referring back to the United Arab Emirates, human rights abuses of foreign workers is rampant; the British Broadcasting Corporation reports that many construction workers are not paid for “months on end,” and that they know they will lose their jobs to the elastic labor supply if they dissent. On a different note, introducing many foreign groups to an area will help generate fear and hate, especially if the groups fail to understand each other. The Native Americans and Americans, for example, had many conflicts as a result of both misunderstandings and American greed. Cultural clashes are highly probably as a result of migration, and it is difficult to reach compromise. This is becoming especially prominent in regards to terrorism. The public tends to generalize terrorists with all Muslims, and, as such, develops distrust for the group as a whole. However, this only serves to achieve terrorism’s goals, for developing an “us versus them” mentality only further divides groups and exacerbates the tensions. This sort of thing happened during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles when the Los Angeles Police Department refused to help protect Korean Americans who resorted to personally defending their property.
What have been the similarities and differences in interregional migration in the US, Canada, Russia, China, and Brazil?
The Demographic Transition Model correlates with patterns of migration quite well. Stage 1 of the model depicts an undeveloped, agrarian society, but as the model shifts to stage 2, intraregional migration begins due to the allure of newfound manufacturing wages that have sprung up from industrialization. Farmers become factory workers, and the countryside becomes even more barren. As a nation maintains stage 2 and approaches stage 3 of the Demographic Transition Model, areas of specialization pop up for different industries — automobiles, healthcare, computer parts (although silicon technology is high-tech to the point where we need an existing infrastructure to actually connect research centers), etc. This specialization motivates migration for those who have skills that suit working in the industries, sparking interregional movement. As we move towards stage 4, international migration becomes prevalent as immigrants from less developed countries arrive in hopes of economic profit; it is at this point where nations are seen to be well-developed and “rich,” and many come in hopes of accumulating their own fortunes.
Between the United States, Canada, Russia, China, and Brazil, interregional migration is fairly similar. Not only are people moving from the countryside to urban areas, a feat of intraregional migration, they are doing so across the country. This is especially prevalent in China, as many head to the manufacturing centers of the world in hopes of landing a decent job (hint: they don’t). Canada is a notable example of urban clustering: By far, the large majority of the population (75%) live within 100 miles of the United States border. Another similarity is that many have relocated to the energy sector’s primary areas of activity for hydrocarbon extraction in the United States, Canada, Russia, and China.
To what extent does the US provide equal opportunities for immigrants, both legal and illegal, and what are the greatest obstacles to human migration?
The United States does not provide equal opportunities for its immigrants. While people continually chase the American dream, the sad reality is that foreigners are regularly discriminated against. The elastic labor supply of immigrants also reduces them to accepting and keeping low-pay jobs, for they do not have the education for higher positions and do not have the money to pursue higher education. Laws discriminating against immigrants have also been passed, most notably Arizona’s SB 1070 that arguably encourages racial profiling. Legislation has also played a major role in immigrant inequality: it is incredibly notoriously difficult to legally enter the United States. Partnered with the anti-immigration stance that many Americans hold, this makes it difficult to immigrate. However, difficulties arise not only in the United States; many European Union nations are pushing for anti-immigration laws due to the potential for abuse of the Schengen Agreement, which allows European Union residents to move freely the European Union. Physical barriers like the United States’ fence pose obstacles for immigrants. However, the economic opportunity proves to be worth the risk, and many gamble their lives, futures, and even families, for the chance of a better future.
The Cause of the Large Majority of Human Migration
Modern-day science’s tracing of mankind’s movement through history suggests that humans originally lived isolated in Africa. This isolation that is a far cry from the globalized world in which we live, for we not only inhabit virtually all regions around the world. The migrations that our forerunners partook in, as well as today’s migration, arguably are mostly due to economic factors.
Defining an “economic factor” as a factor related to the creation or acquisition of monetary wealth in the form of goods and services, we can trace the close connection between economic factors and human migration to the beginning. Hunter-gatherers and nomads, as we once were, migrate for economic gain: they follow the herds wherever they graze. While bearing in mind that this is not specifically money, the goods that these people sought to own held value, and thus their attempts (migration) to acquire them were due to economic factors.
Moving forward in time, we can again see the role that economic factors played in human migration. From an interregional perspective, people in the United States have historically been moving West since the nation’s inception. In the late 1700s, settlers wished to move past the Appalachian Mountains, and, in the mid-1850s, Americans relocated to land located past the Mississippi River. The gradual Westward shift of the mean center of population reflects the interregional migration that Americans have undertaken for over two centuries now, and the interregional migration to different areas tends to correlate with the opportunities that were available at the time.
From an intraregional perspective, the population shifts from rural to urban areas show that people turn away from traditional agricultural sources of income as their nations’ economies shift towards manufacturing. As a result, the populations of urban areas like New York grew rapidly during the Industrial Age to form the beginnings of the cosmopolitan cities that we have today.
On an international scale, modern-day migration occurs heavily for financial reasons. The millions of immigrants that flock to the United States each year migrate for the same reason the Europeans did so: economic opportunity. In the Southern regions of the United States, for example, millions of immigrants from Latin America risk their lives crossing the Mexico-US border through both legal and illegal means, even if only for jobs like farm labor that offer relatively low pay. While the income that immigrants earn is greater than what they would have earned in their home countries, they also migrate for other economic reasons. The possibility of sending one’s kids to American schools (which, while relatively subpar amidst those of rich countries, are still better than those of immigrants’ home countries), for example, is arguably an economic cause of migration for it is a service that serves as a fairly direct precursor to the creation or acquisition of monetary wealth.
Throughout the history of mankind, then, it can be said that humans have migrated primarily for economic reasons. While some exceptions may apply — evolutionary reasons or personal satisfaction, for example — the large majority of humans did, and continue to, migrate for economic gain.
Defining an “economic factor” as a factor related to the creation or acquisition of monetary wealth in the form of goods and services, we can trace the close connection between economic factors and human migration to the beginning. Hunter-gatherers and nomads, as we once were, migrate for economic gain: they follow the herds wherever they graze. While bearing in mind that this is not specifically money, the goods that these people sought to own held value, and thus their attempts (migration) to acquire them were due to economic factors.
Moving forward in time, we can again see the role that economic factors played in human migration. From an interregional perspective, people in the United States have historically been moving West since the nation’s inception. In the late 1700s, settlers wished to move past the Appalachian Mountains, and, in the mid-1850s, Americans relocated to land located past the Mississippi River. The gradual Westward shift of the mean center of population reflects the interregional migration that Americans have undertaken for over two centuries now, and the interregional migration to different areas tends to correlate with the opportunities that were available at the time.
From an intraregional perspective, the population shifts from rural to urban areas show that people turn away from traditional agricultural sources of income as their nations’ economies shift towards manufacturing. As a result, the populations of urban areas like New York grew rapidly during the Industrial Age to form the beginnings of the cosmopolitan cities that we have today.
On an international scale, modern-day migration occurs heavily for financial reasons. The millions of immigrants that flock to the United States each year migrate for the same reason the Europeans did so: economic opportunity. In the Southern regions of the United States, for example, millions of immigrants from Latin America risk their lives crossing the Mexico-US border through both legal and illegal means, even if only for jobs like farm labor that offer relatively low pay. While the income that immigrants earn is greater than what they would have earned in their home countries, they also migrate for other economic reasons. The possibility of sending one’s kids to American schools (which, while relatively subpar amidst those of rich countries, are still better than those of immigrants’ home countries), for example, is arguably an economic cause of migration for it is a service that serves as a fairly direct precursor to the creation or acquisition of monetary wealth.
Throughout the history of mankind, then, it can be said that humans have migrated primarily for economic reasons. While some exceptions may apply — evolutionary reasons or personal satisfaction, for example — the large majority of humans did, and continue to, migrate for economic gain.
Midterm FRQ Rewrite #1 (Malthus)
Malthus' Validity
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.
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 Rewrite #2 (Population Pyramid Analysis)
Decoding Population Pyramids
The population pyramids shown to the right 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 caused due to culture. Generally, it is the case that changing culture takes time, and requires much more time for the people to adapt. 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. 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.
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. 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.
Differences in Health Risks Faced by the World
Health risks are defined in this case as dying from a certain disease.
There are two parts to healthcare: preventative and curative care. Because of the differences in access to both, the developed world faces health risks that are primarily chronic, rich-people diseases because they can treat the majority of diseases, and they need something to die from (so anything non-infectious, which is usually chronic in nature). In comparison, the developing world gets rekt by infectious diseases (although it could avoid dying from these, provided that they had lots of money and weren't facing such high debt). Individuals in the developed world generally face lower rates of infection when it comes to diseases. If broken down, preventative care is seen to comprised of two parts: education and sanitation. In both cases, the developed world spends far more money on both, securing a lower likelihood of being infected. The first reason, education, is channeled through two ways. The first is through basic education, not unlike that that we receive in primary and secondary education. This basic education offers the invaluable knowledge of general health practices, such as not sneezing onto others or not touching others’ bodily fluids. It is through our education systems that developed countries foster a culture of basic cleanliness in |
regard to disease. The second education channel through which populations are informed is health education that is directly gained from medical practitioners. Granted that while the two channels definitely overlap in content, the distinction between the two is that the latter offers more specific medical advice, such as specifying through which way an infected individual must not contact others. The spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), for example, is one issue that may be taught about through both channels, especially due to its prevalence throughout both the developed and developing world. The developed world may spend a comparatively lower percentage of its population on education, but it is the nominal amounts that matter; if examined, the high spending on education in more economically developed countries (MEDCs) for exceeds that of less economically developed countries (LEDCs), displaying an eye-opening correlation between education spending and infectious disease-related deaths. The second aspect of preventative care that contributes to lower infection rates is sanitation. Educating the population about sanitation is beneficial, but taking action to do so is even better. In many impoverished locations, people openly defecate into open waters that others utilize as drinking water. Such contamination ensures that the water is in no way potable; sanitation must be achieved at all costs. Easily one of the most preventable causes of death in the developing world, infectious diseases that result from fecal matter-related contamination are highly prevalent as well, highlighting the preventative healthcare differences between the developed and developing world.
Curative healthcare, the counterpart to preventative healthcare, also plays a role in the different health risks faced in different parts of the world. The access to healthcare is, like preventative healthcare, comprised of two parts: affordability of treatments and access to healthcare. Access to healthcare is a very important role in curative healthcare, for if there were healthcare with no access for anybody, there would effectively be no healthcare at all — a situation that is happening with the affordability of treatments. Even with costs scaled down and technology reduced, an LEDC’s susceptibility to infectious diseases is still high, even with cheap, affordable solutions like simple $3 USD mosquito nets. The spending per capita on healthcare in MEDCs far towers over that of LEDCs, and this disparity in spending (perhaps even adjusted for differences in cost) shows an alarming connection between death to infectious disease and low spending per capita. This lack of access is one of the main reasons why LEDCs suffer — antibiotics, for example, are extremely cheap for citizens of MEDCs, but when 2.8 billion people who live in LEDCs live on less than 2 dollars per day, this “cheap” healthcare ends up out of reach of the average person. Access to healthcare is also of paramount importance. For example, if human capital is spread too thin (Liberia has 0.01 physicians for every 1,000 people), very few people will be able to receive healthcare, even if they could pay for it. In comparison, Cuba has 6.72 physicians for every 1000 people — if an epidemic broke out in Cuba, it would be much more manageable than that of ebola in Liberia today (granted that Cuba is also an island but shh). Also, richer countries are more capable of addressing newly-discovered diseases (ahem ebola which isn't even new to be honest like there were outbreaks in the past), mostly because they have the capability to research and develop treatments/vaccines, whereas poorer countries do not have the money to do so.
So yes, the developing world generally dies from curable, infectious diseases, and the developed world dies from rich peoples' diseases. Perhaps we should embark upon another "white man's burden" crusade, but with healthcare instead. This time, it'd actually be helpful.
Curative healthcare, the counterpart to preventative healthcare, also plays a role in the different health risks faced in different parts of the world. The access to healthcare is, like preventative healthcare, comprised of two parts: affordability of treatments and access to healthcare. Access to healthcare is a very important role in curative healthcare, for if there were healthcare with no access for anybody, there would effectively be no healthcare at all — a situation that is happening with the affordability of treatments. Even with costs scaled down and technology reduced, an LEDC’s susceptibility to infectious diseases is still high, even with cheap, affordable solutions like simple $3 USD mosquito nets. The spending per capita on healthcare in MEDCs far towers over that of LEDCs, and this disparity in spending (perhaps even adjusted for differences in cost) shows an alarming connection between death to infectious disease and low spending per capita. This lack of access is one of the main reasons why LEDCs suffer — antibiotics, for example, are extremely cheap for citizens of MEDCs, but when 2.8 billion people who live in LEDCs live on less than 2 dollars per day, this “cheap” healthcare ends up out of reach of the average person. Access to healthcare is also of paramount importance. For example, if human capital is spread too thin (Liberia has 0.01 physicians for every 1,000 people), very few people will be able to receive healthcare, even if they could pay for it. In comparison, Cuba has 6.72 physicians for every 1000 people — if an epidemic broke out in Cuba, it would be much more manageable than that of ebola in Liberia today (granted that Cuba is also an island but shh). Also, richer countries are more capable of addressing newly-discovered diseases (ahem ebola which isn't even new to be honest like there were outbreaks in the past), mostly because they have the capability to research and develop treatments/vaccines, whereas poorer countries do not have the money to do so.
So yes, the developing world generally dies from curable, infectious diseases, and the developed world dies from rich peoples' diseases. Perhaps we should embark upon another "white man's burden" crusade, but with healthcare instead. This time, it'd actually be helpful.
Population Statistics - TW, GER, FRA, VIE, and ZIM
Pacific American SchoolPacific American School (PAS) is a private, for-profit international school located in Hsinchu, Taiwan, a windy af city in northeastern Taiwan. PAS can be found at 24.816667° North and 120.983333° East, just off of Guangfu Road. It rents part of the third and sixth floors of the building it occupies from Guangfu High School, and is relatively close to National Chiao Tung University and National Tsing Hua University.
Because Hsinchu is located just outside of the Tropic of Cancer, it can be considered subtropical, especially with its humid climate and its long rainy season. It is just east of the Taiwan Strait and is bordered by Hsinchu County. Pacific American School is part of a variety of regions. In terms of formal regions, PAS is located in the subtropics, as previously mentioned. Again being in Hsinchu, we can also see that PAS is located within the bloc that generally leans in favor of the Kuomintang. A third formal region that PAS resides within is the East District (東區) of Hsinchu. |
In terms of functional regions, Hsinchu is a very important node in the semiconductor industry as a result of the high quantities of technology companies located within its Science Park. It is also a hub for those who wish to travel in Taiwan - the high-speed rail system of Taiwan has a stop in Hsinchu (County but it's still called the Hsinchu stop). PAS also acts as a nodal region, drawing in test takers for standardized tests such as the SAT.
The people of Hsinchu also group themselves together, particularly for their wealth. The Science Park brings lots of money into Taiwan, and Hsinchu's residents, in general, earn more money than does the rest of Taiwan. For PAS, we appear to consider ourselves to be part of the growing group of international students throughout Hsinchu, grouping ourselves with students from the International Bilingual School of Hsinchu, Hsinchu International School, and Hsinchu American School, rather than local schools like Guangfu High School. A third vernacular region would be a feeling of pride in having NTHU and NTCU, two of the best universities in Taiwan, in Hsinchu.
Pacific American School is located within one of the fairly populated parts of Hsinchu. While Hsinchu and Hsinchu County together have a dense population in comparison to somewhere like Sonoma Valley, the concentration of such a population is not as uniform. PAS is located within the East District of Hsinchu, so the population is more concentrated than that of Zhubei, but less concentrated than that of downtown Hsinchu. The pattern of the roads around PAS, however, are haphazardly drawn and are far from organized.
In regards to globalization of the economy and culture, Pacific American School is placed in one of the two best places in Taiwan (if you're looking for global similarity, the other location being Taipei). Because the Science Park is located in Hsinchu (and a good portion of PAS's students are the offspring of Science Park workers), the school is nicely situated upon one of the most productive technology areas in the world. The economy of Hsinchu is quite developed, relying mainly on semiconductor businesses, and PAS was actually created with the kids of Science Park workers in mind as students. Culturally, it's in a global place, with evident influences of the outside world in the cuisines offered, the clothing sold, and the entertainment watched.
Hsinchu is unique because it is situated at the crossroads of the semiconductor industry, a democratic, non-American government, its physical location, and climate. No other place has all of these combined, and the reasons why it is unique are not limited to the ones listed.
Hsinchu is similar to other places on the Earth because it is not the only developing country (albeit nearer to the developed end) that has adopted outside cultures and integrated it into its own and because other places have similar population distributions.
The people of Hsinchu also group themselves together, particularly for their wealth. The Science Park brings lots of money into Taiwan, and Hsinchu's residents, in general, earn more money than does the rest of Taiwan. For PAS, we appear to consider ourselves to be part of the growing group of international students throughout Hsinchu, grouping ourselves with students from the International Bilingual School of Hsinchu, Hsinchu International School, and Hsinchu American School, rather than local schools like Guangfu High School. A third vernacular region would be a feeling of pride in having NTHU and NTCU, two of the best universities in Taiwan, in Hsinchu.
Pacific American School is located within one of the fairly populated parts of Hsinchu. While Hsinchu and Hsinchu County together have a dense population in comparison to somewhere like Sonoma Valley, the concentration of such a population is not as uniform. PAS is located within the East District of Hsinchu, so the population is more concentrated than that of Zhubei, but less concentrated than that of downtown Hsinchu. The pattern of the roads around PAS, however, are haphazardly drawn and are far from organized.
In regards to globalization of the economy and culture, Pacific American School is placed in one of the two best places in Taiwan (if you're looking for global similarity, the other location being Taipei). Because the Science Park is located in Hsinchu (and a good portion of PAS's students are the offspring of Science Park workers), the school is nicely situated upon one of the most productive technology areas in the world. The economy of Hsinchu is quite developed, relying mainly on semiconductor businesses, and PAS was actually created with the kids of Science Park workers in mind as students. Culturally, it's in a global place, with evident influences of the outside world in the cuisines offered, the clothing sold, and the entertainment watched.
Hsinchu is unique because it is situated at the crossroads of the semiconductor industry, a democratic, non-American government, its physical location, and climate. No other place has all of these combined, and the reasons why it is unique are not limited to the ones listed.
Hsinchu is similar to other places on the Earth because it is not the only developing country (albeit nearer to the developed end) that has adopted outside cultures and integrated it into its own and because other places have similar population distributions.
Cool-ass Map
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/08/business/how-much-hospitals-charge.html?_r=0
Manufactured Landscapes and Smith's Four Forces
This is the photograph of your average supermarket. Here, we can find many mass-produced goods that probably stem from all over the world, created by our rising demand for sweet things. The hydrocarbons required to transport these goods (as a result of globalization), are under immense pressure due to too rapid draining of our limited supply (21). Granted, while our increased demand is tied to our population growth, it has more to do with modernization, a stage which many cities are quickly approaching. The increase in global goods (no doubt due to comparative advantage) will sure lead to increased fossil fuel consumption, which in turn leads to greater climate change, an end to which civilization generally does not wish to reach. The forecasted results of doing so appear to be unfortunately objectionable.
|
This photograph is one of what appears to be a shipyard, and a massive one at that. The massive ships to be built in this ship yard are designed to aid connecting the world and each nation's unique products, aka globalization. While globalization and population growth are not directly related, the two do seem to go hand-in-hand (21), and it can be reasoned that without such population growth, we would not have the required to necessitate the creation of such large ships. Our increased demand for products from other nations only aggravates our decreasing levels of fossil fuels, and we will deplete the Earth (relatively) soon if we continue and accelerate these levels.
|
This is a huge pile of used tires, sitting as a rubbish in the middle of nowhere. It is evidence our massive demand, having this many tires as trash. Not as if they are currently being used, but as trash. Worse yet, rubber and many other synthetic materials are derived from oil. It is imperative to stress exactly how important oil is to our industrial success - a single barrel of oil holds an equivalent amount of energy as does an average man's work for eight years straight (22). Again, the same drill applies: our growing population tends to create increased demand, and comparative advantages tend to pop up, promoting globalization all while climate change slowly picks up speed. We really need to reduce our impact on the Earth, either through intensive policy changes or through changing the hivemind's entire attitude.
|