1. It would be best to intervene at the point of cant afford medication, although as we discussed in class it would be impossible to make it free or very unlikely because so many people are in need it could be taken out of taxpayers money to contribute to funding for that, because that is part of why the population is rising in some parts of the world they want a kid that will survive but HIV highly reduces the span of life if they dont have access to the medications to control it. They could even offer it at a heavily discounted price to its just clearly not affordable right now for the places that suffer from a high prevalence.

2. It would be best to intervene at child works endlessly to make money for basic needs, because that is the one that determines the rest of their lives basically. If the kids don’t have time for education or even play they won’t develop skills that are nessacary to advancing in life, mainly because they will have low literacy. To fix it they should open those places like we saw in the documentary the ones by UNICEF that make in mandatory that employers give them a couple hours to go hangout and live like a kid, although it is practically impossible to fully erase child labour that would definitely start to get more kids out of that cycle.

3.It would be best to intervene at arn’t aloud to go to school, I think school should be allowed for every kid they don’t know what they are missing out on and how it can set them back in the future, a way to fix this could be having rules put in place by government that are enforced that make all girls schools for special hours because then they still can help out at home and get an education it is a comprise for the parents that don’t think they have time at all so they will more likely want to send them.

Pessimists/Malthusians: Negative outlookers on the worlds population, that we would run out of food, and countries would face disease and potential war however this was before medical advances were taken into place.

Neo Malthusians:People who believe that the world will run into disaster, especially in the developing countries, and there is no way of stopping the disaster that will soon occur in 50 years. Africa is the most at risk, and overpopulation will eventually lead to major deaths due to starvation, disease, and war.

Optimists/cornucopians: People who have hope and faith that we can adapt to earths growing population, using increased globalization tactics to create more equal food and other resources around to countries who are developing.

After watching the two documentaries it became clear that the videos showed off two different viewpoints on our population distribution. The first video called “Kenya’s Human Time Bomb” has a neo malthusian point of view. The people of the video do have a negative outlook on the future and even the now of their population, they are overtaken by violence already, and the overcrowded schools (see 8:50) in the nation is leading for more boys to stray towards militia which is just starting a downward spiral and the people of the land are helpless. Brutal murders are only making matters worse and can be seen as a valid point in their predictions of a potential war (civil war) between the people of africa, and with that deaths will be inevitable as hospitals are already overcrowded on a regular day (see 5:10). Its causing people to flee and take refuge within their country. A lot of people recognize not a lot is being done to help and therefore they have lost hope, and that is why I think they are in the neo malthusian category. In the second TED talk video the man says he is neutral but I tend to see him as more of an optimist. He sees the plan of the world and where our population is going but he hasn’t given up yet, thats why he’s giving this ted talk in the first place, he recognizes that large funding organizations for developing countries can make changes ( 8:30) and that child survival in those countries will contribute to solving our future dilemma.

1.

2.

.

The dependency ratio in Italy is pretty low as the number of people within the 15-65 age group sees a large spike in population, which allows dependent people to be balanced out with the “working” age group.

3. Italy is in roughly stage 5 which is the decline stage, the number of women to men is fairly even except for when they get older the women tend to outnumber the men. It has more of a hexagon shape, because of this large spike in population.

4. I think they need to be ready to accommodate this large sum of people that will be retiring all at once, which will be needing more health care as a lump sum because as this baby boomer gen. passes through the bottom of the scale needs to start to be able to even out, and because stage 5 is part of a decline stage they are going to need to figure out how to start to maintain the population up to a reasonable number. So just in general starting to reproduce more and more to start to catch up, so your dependency ratio doesn’t shoot really high as these baby boomers start to hit older age.

https://sd43bcca-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/personal/132-jblackmon_sd43_bc_ca/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B75b7934a-15fb-4491-a44c-b48d029ed95f%7D&action=edit

https://sd43bcca-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/personal/132-jblackmon_sd43_bc_ca/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B75b7934a-15fb-4491-a44c-b48d029ed95f%7D&action=edit

#1 Senator:

I have put senator as my number one because of many reasons, it is not a lot work for the amount of money they are getting paid. I like how they were average people before and now they get to become a big voice in Parliament, with them representing no one just using their life experience as a canal to form their views. That’s why they like to keep them until they are so old because they allow their “un-biast” opinions to flourish in order to keep the people happy (as they represent them).

#2 Governor General: The reason why I put the Governor General in number 2 spot is because I think it’s a cool job, you get to live your life as a regular person, like our current GG got to be an astronaut before she got this high political ranking. They also make a lot of money, and not a lot of work, they overview a lot of stuff but never really intervene, unless there is a violation of the constitution.

#3 Prime Minister: The Prime Minister makes the most money ($345,000 without any add on’s), but it does come with a lot of responsibility. I chose to put this position here because it is such a big role and responsibility that I don’t know if I would like all the pressure of it. It would be great to make this sort of money, and a lot of what he does is just giving presentations and speeches but he doesn’t have to even write his speeches if he doesn’t want to. It is a lot of power and I feel like because so many people are watching over what you’re doing it could be hard to difficult decisions. Also I don’t speak a second language and I don’t know if I would want to put in the effort to learn a new one.

#4 Minister: They can propose laws but I don’t really find any intrest’s in that, I think it would be better if the people came up with laws, also they represent a party more which I don’t like the restraints of that. They are like more detailed parts of the gov. and I would like having a more general role. They might be getting their jobs switched up a lot because they only stay in cabinet for as long the Prime Minister who appointed them is in term too.

#5 MP: Too much debating and work for not as much pay. They basically have to go to every House of Commons meeting (it’s their job) and debate over their political party views and why think things should happen. They have to have a “set” strong opinion because they are under a party name. I think that changes the mindset of a debate, and their viewpoints which isn’t necessarily the same thing as a senate is allowed to do, also a party whip may be highly influential some people. I just would not see a payoff in my vote compared to the other positions that would give me even more.