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.
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.
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.
In Canada today there are many rules/opportunities for the general public to communicate thoughts to the government. The first option would be to use pressure groups, a pressure group is a group of people that agree on the same thing and want to bring their cause to the government. It is a great option to use, because you can bring your ideas to the government and you can see how many people in your group shows how passionate people are about changing it. However this can have a drawback, because a lot of the time its just average people and they aren’t as noticed, unless they have a lobbyist to help persuade the government more. It also might not apply to the general publics best interest, for example golf recognition day in BC; the golfers of BC would appreciate it but not to many else people would really care enough for the government to really validate that. A lobbyist can greatly help a pressure groups cause, considering most of them used to be high in the government, but they also cost a lot money and sometimes the cause isn’t worth it.
The next option would to be to start a petition to try and change something. A petition is a great way to show the government how many people care about a cause in masses. The petitions have and can work, it can be seen in things like the BC HST case, enough people signed the petition to get the government to look at the tax. Some disadvantages can be the amount however because the government set numbers that need to be met in order for the petition to even be considered, which can be a problem with smaller cases. This can be considered a better way to take into the account of the entire nations needs because it can be done way easier and gain way more people joining into the movement.
Another option would be to use civil disobedience, which is the refusal/rejection of rules. In the Viola Desmond case it can be seen that this does get the governments attention a lot of the time because for someone to go and break the law you know its for a serious reason. It can have some repercussions however, it can be seen in Viola’s case even that it can get violent/ cause injury’s. Some other disadvantages to this could be that since you are breaking rules although making a statement you also have to face the consequences of breaking the law, which can lead to imprisonment.
In this “disappearing” coin magic trick an example of the effects of light refraction can be seen taking place. In this video a side by side comparison can be seen between the two cups and how the positioning of the coin allows for the trick to happen. At the start of the video both the coins are visible (despite the placement of the coin) through the glass. As the water is poured into the cup the medium changes from air to water and so does the refractive index. The cup on the left can’t be seen because it goes through air to glass to water and the light bends around the coin to mask it, but on the right cup the light only travels through water to glass so it can be see, in these cases the refractive index is whats causing the “magic” trick to occur.
Constructive Wave: When two crest (or troughs) meet and their energies combine to make displace the medium and make one large trough then they separate back out again
