Document 2: Learning from the past - Denton ISD



Framing QuestionsHow have states, communities, and individuals become increasingly independent, and how has this process been facilitated by the growth of institutions of global governance? (6.3.II)During the period of unprecedented global population expansion of the 20th century, how have humans fundamentally changed their relationship with the environment? (6.1.II)How have rapid advances in science & technology spread through the world and affected population & environmental issues? (6.1.I)How have movements throughout the world protested the inequality of environmental and economic consequences of global integration? (6.3.II.C)Inner Circle One: Question: How have states, communities, and individuals become increasingly independent & how have they become more interdependent? How has this process been facilitated by the growth of institutions of global governance? (6.3.II)The following documents provide a starting point for the discussion around nation building in the 20th century. You may bring in outside sources as well as long as you cite them in the discussion. Document 1: Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points address of January 8, 1918XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.Questions:How has Wilson’s dream of an association of nations come true in the 20th century? In what ways has the UN helped to foster independence of nations and global governance that helps humanity? Document 2: From Kwame Nkrumah, I Speak of Freedom: A Statement of African Ideology (London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1961), pp. xi-xiv. For centuries, Europeans dominated the African continent. The white man arrogated to himself the right to rule and to be obeyed by the non-white; his mission, he claimed, was to "civilise" Africa. Under this cloak, the Europeans robbed the continent of vast riches and inflicted unimaginable suffering on the African people. It is clear that we must find an African solution to our problems, and that this can only be found in African unity. Divided we are weak; united, Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the world. Although most Africans are poor, our continent is potentially extremely rich. Our mineral resources, which are being exploited with foreign capital only to enrich foreign investors, range from gold and diamonds to Uranium and petroleum. Our forests contain some of the finest woods to be grown anywhere. Our cash crops include cocoa, coffee, rubber, tobacco and cotton. As for power, which is an important factor in any economic development, Africa contains over 40% of the potential water power of the world, as compared with about 10% in Europe and 13% in North America. Yet so far, less than 1% has been developed. This is one of the reasons why we have in Africa the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty, and scarcity in the midst of abundance....A loose confederation designed only for economic co-operation would not provide the necessary unity of purpose. Only a strong political union can bring about full and effective development of our natural resources for the benefit of our people.Questions:Does Nkrumah believe Africa is weak in natural resources? What kinds of resources does he see Africa having? What is the key to Africa’s political success in the world according to Nkrumah? What challenges do you see in reaching this kind of goal? Document 3: Article in Humanisme Musulman, the journal of Al Qiyam, an Algerian Islamic association, 1965“All political parties, all regimes and all leaders which do not base themselves on Islam on Islam are decreed illegal and dangerous. A communist party, a secular party, a Marxist- Socialist party, a nationalist party (the latter putting in question the unity of the Islamic world) cannot exist in the land of Islam.”Questions: Are there limits to national and individual freedoms that humanity is willing to tolerate? Is it healthy to impose these kinds of limits in a society? How has this view played out in the 21st century? Document 4: Sebastian Kurz, Minister for European and International Affairs of Austria, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s seventieth session. 21 September 2016 – Globalization has brought enormous benefits to humankind, such as reduced international poverty, new technologies and reduced distances between countries...Events on the other side of the globe can have real impact on our lives. The more the world connects, the more responsibility we have to not look away from what happens elsewhere, and the more we become globalized, the more interest we should have in working for stability and prosperity in other parts of the globe.Underlining the need to join forces for a better future, he emphasized the importance of the UN, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), as well as effective multilateralism in achieving stability and security.Inner Circle Two: (6.1.II)Question: During the period of unprecedented global population expansion of the 20th century, how have humans fundamentally changed their relationship with the environment? The following documents provide a starting point for the discussion around population & environmental issues in the 20th century. You may bring in outside sources as well as long as you cite them in the discussion. Document 1: V. Saravanand Naiker, newspaper story in Malaysian The New Straits Times Press, 11 July 2000 “People have come to realize that biological resources have limits, and that we are exceeding those limits and, thereby, reducing bio-diversity. People. ?. ?. have?hunted, fished and gathered species for food, fuel, fiber, and shelter. They have eliminated competing or threatening species, domesticated plants and animals, cut down forest, used fire to alter habitats and, recently, changed the global climate. Each year, the human population grows, and . ?. ?. species are becoming extinct faster. As species disappear, humans lose today’s food and industrial?products. . ?. ?. The Government should look at sustainable development seriously although development is vital. ?. ?. Without bio-diversity the lives of?humans will become precarious as every living creature plays a role in ?balancing the ecosystem. We need tigers, elephants and wild boars. They too ?have a right to exist.”Questions: What is the root of the problem with humanity's relationship with nature according to Naiker? What solutions do you believe in when it comes to maintaining biodiversity? Document 2: Learning from the past Tue, Dec 6, 2016Remarks by Ibrahim Thiaw, UN Environment Deputy Executive Director At the COP 13 Session with the Mexican PresidentYour Excellencies, Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen,An old Mexican proverb says that: "It's not enough to know how to ride. You must also know how to fall." Ladies and gentlemen, we just learned how to fall.We agreed a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity … [and we] are on track to meet a third of those commitments. For example, we said that by 2020 we would protect at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10% of coastal and marine areas. We currently stand at 13% and 5% respectively. That's a huge success, and I would like to congratulate all those countries that have achieved their national targets. Indeed, conserving biodiversity means: Providing rice for the 3 million people who rely on wetlands to eat. Providing livelihoods for 62 million people who depend on fish - to feed, clothe and educate their family. Providing for the 1 billion people who live in extreme poverty and depend on biodiversity and ecosystems to survive.Or for that matter the 7 billion people on this planet - rich or poor-who all depend on nature to eat, to drink or to breath.However, make no mistake. While for over 200 years the world of conservation has made some great strides with great success at individual sites in many countries, overall we are losing the battle. Species are disappearing at a horrific rate. We have lost them for ever.In 2002 governments set a target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Losing species at up to 10,000 times the natural rate of extinction - 1 every 20 minutes - was unacceptable.Questions:How are biodiversity and human prosperity connected in this perspective? Would you personally argue that we are winning or losing the battle to protect biodiversity? Document 3: “World Scientists’ Warning To Humanity,” 1992The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished. [...] This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.What does this document predict about population growth?This document was written in 1992 and says “no more than one or a few decades remain” to avert a population crisis. Do you think this document’s predictions have come true? Inner Circle Three: Question: How have rapid advances in science & technology spread through the world and affected population & environmental issues? (6.1.I)The following documents provide a starting point for the discussion around technology & the environment in the 20th century. You may bring in outside sources as well as long as you cite them in the discussion. Document 1: Dr. Julian Simon, Speech in Pamplona to Roman Catholic group, Opus Dei, 1998“If we base our conclusions on the facts proven by science, the current pessimism?about the "crisis" of our planet is false. Even ecologists now recognize that, in?recent decades, the quality of water and air in the wealthy countries. ?. ?. has?improved. Every agricultural economist knows that the population of the world has eaten better and better since the Second World War. Every economist who is an expert in natural resources knows that the availability of resources has grown [by three fourths] a fact that is reflected in a drop in prices with respect to previous decades and centuries. . ?. ?. The population growth causes problems. But people solve problems. The principal fuel for the acceleration of progress is our "stock" of knowledge; and the brakes are: a lack of imagination and erroneous social regulations of activities. People are the ultimate resource. ?. ?.”Questions: Based on your knowledge of environmental history, what aspects of Simon’s statement are true and which are false? What advances were made in the 20th century that helped to alleviate these environmental problems?Document 2: "Al Gore's Speech On Renewable Energy." NPR. NPR, 17 July 2008. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse - much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.Questions: What major environmental issue of the 20th century is Gore speaking about here? What are some of the major problems with coming to a global agreement on this issue? Document 3: Dr. Norman Borlaug, United States agricultural scientist involved in Green Revolution research, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Nobel Lecture, 1970. In the developing countries, . . . the land is tired, worn out, depleted of plant nutrients, and often eroded; crop yields have been low, near starvation level, and stagnant for centuries. Hunger prevails, and survival depends largely upon the annual success or failure of the cereal crops. . . . For the underprivileged billions in the forgotten world, hunger has been a constant companion, and starvation has all too often lurked in the nearby shadows. To millions of these unfortunates, who have long lived in despair, the Green Revolution seems like a miracle that has generated new hope for the future. . . . The Green Revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the Green Revolution will be ephemeral only. According to Borlaug, why is the Green Revolution necessary?What is the Green Revolution Dr. Borlaug is discussing? How did it affect countries like India?Document 4: Dr. Vandana Shiva, Indian physicist, from her article in the Ecologist, an environmental affairs magazine, 1991. The Green Revolution has been a failure. It has led to reduced genetic diversity, increased vulnerability to pests, soil erosion, water shortages, reduced soil fertility, micronutrient deficiencies, soil contamination, reduced availability of nutritious food crops for the local population, the displacement of vast numbers of small farmers from their land, rural impoverishment, and increased tensions and conflicts. The beneficiaries have been the agrochemical industry, large petrochemical companies, manufacturers of agricultural machinery, dam builders, and large landowners. The Punjab is frequently cited as the Green Revolution’s most celebrated success story. Yet, far from bringing prosperity, two decades of the Green Revolution have left the Punjab riddled with discontent and violence. Instead of abundance, the Punjab is beset with diseased soils, pest-infested crops, waterlogged deserts, and indebted and discontented farmers. Instead of peace, the Punjab has inherited conflict and violence. Traditionally, irrigation was only used in the Punjab as an insurance against crop failure in times of severe drought. The new seeds, however, need intensive irrigation as an essential input for crop yields. One result of the Green Revolution has therefore been to create conflicts over diminishing water resources. Intensive irrigation has led to the need for large-scale storage systems, centralizing control over water supplies and leading to both local and interstate water conflicts. According to Dr. Shiva, what effects has the Green Revolution had in India & other developing (3rd world) countries? Who has benefited?Consider the authors of this document & the previous document. How does the author’s perspective influence their views on the Green Revolution? Document 5: Microcredit as a Means of Fighting Poverty: "Grameen Bank - Facts". . Nobel Media AB 2014. Web. 19 Jan 2017. < establishing Grameen Bank in 1983, Muhammad Yunus sought to realise his vision of self-support for the very poorest people by means of loans on easy terms. The bank has since been a source of inspiration for similar microcredit institutions in over one hundred countries.Banks in the traditional system have been reluctant to lend money to anyone unable to give some form or other of security. Grameen Bank, on the other hand, works on the assumption that even the poorest of the poor can manage their own financial affairs and development given suitable conditions. The instrument is microcredit: small long-term loans on easy terms.When Grameen Bank was awarded the Peace Prize in 2006, more than seven million borrowers had been granted such loans. The average amount borrowed was 100 dollars. The repayment percentage was very high. Over 95 per cent of the loans went to women or groups of women. Experience showed that that ensured the best security for the bank and the greatest beneficial effect for the borrowers' families.Questions: List off the possible ripple effects that could occur as poverty rates go down in the world through institutions like the Grameen Bank? How do these loans to women help fight population growth as well? Document 6: The Truth About Genetically Modified Foods, Scientific America. By David H. Freedman on September 1, 2013A Clean Record\The human race has been selectively breeding crops, thus altering plants' genomes, for millennia. Ordinary wheat has long been strictly a human-engineered plant; it could not exist outside of farms, because its seeds do not scatter. For some 60 years scientists have been using “mutagenic” techniques to scramble the DNA of plants with radiation and chemicals, creating strains of wheat, rice, peanuts and pears that have become agricultural mainstays. The practice has inspired little objection from scientists or the public and has caused no known health problems.The difference is that selective breeding or mutagenic techniques tend to result in large swaths of genes being swapped or altered. GM technology, in contrast, enables scientists to insert into a plant's genome a single gene (or a few of them) from another species of plant or even from a bacterium, virus or animal. Supporters argue that this precision makes the technology much less likely to produce surprises. Most plant molecular biologists also say that in the highly unlikely case that an unexpected health threat emerged from a new GM plant, scientists would quickly identify and eliminate it. “We know where the gene goes and can measure the activity of every single gene around it,” Goldberg says. “We can show exactly which changes occur and which don't.” [For more on how GM plants are analyzed for health safety, see “The Risks on the Table,” by Karen Hopkin; Scientific American, April 2001.][break]And although it might seem creepy to add virus DNA to a plant, doing so is, in fact, no big deal, proponents say. Viruses have been inserting their DNA into the genomes of crops, as well as humans and all other organisms, for millions of years. They often deliver the genes of other species while they are at it, which is why our own genome is loaded with genetic sequences that originated in viruses and nonhuman species. “When GM critics say that genes don't cross the species barrier in nature, that's just simple ignorance,” says Alan McHughen, a plant molecular geneticist at U.C. Riverside. Pea aphids contain fungi genes. Triticale is a century-plus-old hybrid of wheat and rye found in some flours and breakfast cereals. Wheat itself, for that matter, is a cross-species hybrid. “Mother Nature does it all the time, and so do conventional plant breeders,” McHughen says.Could eating plants with altered genes allow new DNA to work its way into our own? It is theoretically possible but hugely improbable. Scientists have never found genetic material that could survive a trip through the human gut and make it into cells. Besides, we are routinely exposed to—we even consume—the viruses and bacteria whose genes end up in GM foods. The bacterium B. thuringiensis, for example, which produces proteins fatal to insects, is sometimes enlisted as a natural pesticide in organic farming. “We've been eating this stuff for thousands of years,” Goldberg says.Persistent DoubtsNot all objections to genetically modified foods are so easily dismissed, however. Long-term health effects can be subtle and nearly impossible to link to specific changes in the environment. Scientists have long believed that Alzheimer's disease and many cancers have environmental components, but few would argue we have identified all of them.And opponents say that it is not true that the GM process is less likely to cause problems simply because fewer, more clearly identified genes are switched. David Schubert, an Alzheimer's researcher who heads the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., asserts that a single, well-characterized gene can still settle in the target plant's genome in many different ways. “It can go in forward, backward, at different locations, in multiple copies, and they all do different things,” he says. And as U.C.L.A.'s Williams notes, a genome often continues to change in the successive generations after the insertion, leaving it with a different arrangement than the one intended and initially tested. Summarize the argument that GMO’s are safe? Summarize the argument that GMO’s are possibly dangerous? Inner Circle Four: Question: How have movements throughout the world protested the inequality of environmental and economic/social consequences of global integration? (6.3.II.C)The following documents provide a starting point for the discussion around nation building in the 20th century. You may bring in outside sources as well as long as you cite them in the discussion. Document 1: "Famous Speech Friday: Severn Suzuki's 1992 UN Earth Summit speech." Famous Speech Friday: Severn Suzuki's 1992 UN Earth Summit speech. N.p., 1992. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.I’m only a child and I don’t have all the solutions, but I want you to realise, neither do you! You don’t know how to fix the holes in our ozone layer. You don’t know how to bring salmon back up a dead stream. You don’t know how to bring back an animal now extinct. And you can’t bring back forests that once grew where there is now desert. If you don’t know how to fix it, please stop breaking it!Questions:What is unique about Suzuki being a speaker to the United Nations? What does her being in this position and her message say about the spreading of frustration amongst humans? Document 2: Pope Francis, excerpts from Laudato Si’: On Care For Our Common Home, encyclical letter to the Catholic Church, 2015More than fifty years ago, with the world teetering on the brink of nuclear crisis, Pope Saint John XXIII wrote an Encyclical which not only rejected war but offered a proposal for peace. He addressed his message Pacem in Terris to the entire “Catholic world” and indeed “to all men and women of good will”. Now, faced as we are with global environmental deterioration, I wish to address every person living on this planet. (1) [...]We have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor. (49) [...]Every ecological approach needs to incorporate a social perspective which takes into account the fundamental rights of the poor and the underprivileged. (93) [...]We are not faced with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the underprivileged, and at the same time protecting nature. (139) [...]According to Pope Francis, why are environmental issues and issues of economic inequality linked? How have the world’s developed countries & developing countries differed in their responses to environmental issues?Document 3: Andrew Berg and Jonathan Ostry, International Monetary Fund Research Department. “Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin?”Over the long run, sustained growth is central to poverty reduction. The rapid growth seen inmuch of the world over the past few decades—notably, but not only, in China and India—hasled to an unprecedented reduction in poverty. And, in general, increases in income per persontend to translate into proportional increases in income of the poor. As Dollar and Kraay(2002) memorably put it, ―Growth Is Good for the Poor.‖ All the more reason, then, to placesustainability of growth at the center of any poverty reduction strategy.The recent global crisis—and the impact this is having on economic activity, jobs, and thepoor—is thus rightly spurring a renewed focus on the drivers of growth, including possiblelinks between income inequality, crises, and growth sustainability. Piketty and Saez (2003)underscore the sharp rise in income inequality in the United States in the past two decadesand its return to levels not seen since the late 1920s. [...] Kumhof and Rancière (2010) detail the mechanisms that may have linked income distribution and financial excess, arguing that the same factors may have been at play in both the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Meanwhile, recent events in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East underscore the importance of better understanding the complex relationship between growth, income distribution, and crises.Some inequality is integral to the effective functioning of a market economy and theincentives needed for investment and growth (Chaudhuri and Ravallion, 2006). But too muchinequality might be destructive to growth. Beyond the risk that inequality may amplify thepotential for financial crisis, it may also bring political instability, which can discourageinvestment. Inequality may make it harder for governments to make difficult but necessarychoices in the face of shocks. Or, inequality may reflect lack of access of the poor to financeand thus fewer opportunities to invest in education and entrepreneurial activity.What do these authors say is the connect between poverty and economic growth?In your opinion, how do we balance the goal of economic growth, reducing poverty, and protecting the environment? What’s most and least important?Document 4: From Green Warriors to Greenwashers, by Sharon BederWhen Greenpeace emerged as an international organization in the 1970s, it embodied a spirit of courageous protest by activists who were willing to place their bodies on the line to call attention to environmental injustice. Its mission was to "bear witness" to environmental abuses and take direct nonviolent action to prevent them.In the 1990s, however, a new current of thought emerged, both at the international level and at the level of national affiliates such as Greenpeace Australia. Greenpeace leaders and many members began to talk of going beyond negative criticism. The Greenpeace Australia website proudly asserts this new philosophy: "We work with industry and government to find solutions."...The philosophy that Greenpeace espouses today contrasts markedly with positions that it took in the early 1990s, when "green marketing" first emerged as part of a strategy that the PR industry calls "cause-related marketing". A series of media reports and books, such as The Green Consumer Guide by John Elkington and Julia Hales, gave the impression that the environment could be saved if individuals changed their shopping habits and bought environmentally sound products. There was a surge of advertisements claiming environmental benefits, and green imagery became a symbol used to sell products.... The state Minister for the Olympics, Bruce Baird, wasn't complaining: "They've shown a much more constructive approach lately", he told Good Weekend. "It is a new style of environmentalism I find much more persuasive. Before they were seen as ultra-green and opposing everything."....Indicative of this shift is the replacement of the previous chair of Greenpeace Australia, former nuclear activist, author and academic Jim Falk, with Bob Wilson, a former government bureaucrat. Wilson presided over the Sydney Water Board in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the Board was using large doses of public relations and outright secrecy to cover up the gross contamination of the ocean that its sewage discharges were creating, because they contained so much toxic waste. ….Now Wilson heads the Greenpeace board which selects the head of Greenpeace, who in turn appoints Greenpeace campaigners.Questions:Which version of GreenPeace do you think is more effective? The radical environmentalist approach of exposing damage or the boardroom negotiators? Make a positive argument for both approaches then make a negative argument for both approaches. Document 5: Right Wing Watch, “Truth In Action Ministries Film Decries Climate Scientists As Idolaters And Communists”In the new film from Truth In Action, formerly known as Coral Ridge Ministries, Southern Baptist Convention official Richard Land describes environmentalists as “watermelons” who are “green on the outside and pink on the inside.”“Environmentalism has become a religion,” Land says. “These are recycled communists, recycled socialists, recycled collectivists who are trying to use a flawed theory of environmentalism to bring about the collectivist society they were unable to bring about politically through socialism and through communism.”Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, also interviewed for the film, accuses environmentalists of “worshiping the environment” instead of God. Truth In Action Ministries host John Rabe, meanwhile, warns that policies targeting climate change could lead to the return of communist dictatorships that left “over 100 million people killed.”He also accuses scientists who are working on climate issues of having a “pretention to omniscience” and committing idolatry: “One of the ways we can commit idolatry is by substituting ourselves as the creature for God, that’s what many of these scientists and bureaucrats are trying to do.”Questions:What dangers do these speakers see in the environmentalist movements? Document 6: Wise Use Movements: The Center for Media and Democracy The so-called "Wise Use" movement is an industry-front and anti-environmentalist organization founded by Ron Arnold in the late 1980s, primarily dealing with timber and mining issues in the western US. [...]The original organisation inspired a number of spin-off groups, including the "Share" groups in the Canadian province of British Columbia (B.C.), which give the appearance of being grass-roots community organizations, but are in fact organized and funded by major corporations. (For example, the "B.C. Forest Alliance" was chaired for its initial period by an executive of Burson-Marsteller.) This type of "fake grass-roots" group led to their description of the advocacy as being an astroturf campaign [the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant]."Wise Use groups are often funded by timber, mining, and chemical companies. In return, they claim, loudly, that the well-documented hole in the ozone layer doesn't exist, that carcinogenic chemicals in the air and water don't harm anyone, and that trees won't grow properly unless forests are clear-cut, with government subsidies. [...] To Wise Users, environmentalists are pagans, eco-nazis, and communists who must be fought with shouts and threats."[1] ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download