http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue23/cartoon/Image1.jpg

This cartoon bascially shows an old lady who doesn't know how to us a computer. I find this cartoon pretty interesting as I feel that it is relevant to the world today.

I learnt how to use a computer way back when I was about 6 years old from my father. At that time it was just playing computer games. And over the years, I am able to learn the basic stuff like surfing the internet, installing programs, etc, on the computer. And this is largely due to exposure to the computer for a long time. Some of these stuff are also learnt from my father and friends. This is just for me and I assume that every other teenager learnt how to operate a computer the same way as I did.

But as for the old folks, most of them are not exposed to the modern technology, so naturally they would not know as much IT stuff as the youth unless they use and learn. From here, we can tell that the use of different technology varies with age. For example, we see more youths listening to mp3 then the middle-age and old folks. This is largely due to trends and thought of the different generation. The youths may think that it is 'in' to listen to music players, whereas the older generations don't really care.

In this modern world, new technologies come about every year. So I feel that even if we don't use them, it is good to at least know about them and keep updated as they are after all things that exist in our world.

Technological expert

Loke Jia Wei

Labels: old, Technology

11:18 PM

Technology and health

I came across an article in a tech magazine from The Straits Times called Digital Life. It talks about how overusing of digital tools or misusing them can be harmful to us.

As we all know, music players like iPod are quite common among people nowadays especially teenagers. Some people tend to blast their music especially in buses or train to drown out background noise. Sometimes I do hear the music clearly, coming out from the person’s earpiece, even when he is few feet away. This is bad as long exposure to loud sounds will cause hearing loss. And these people who blast their music are normally not aware of this. So as time goes by, their hearing will deteriorate.

The article also talks about repetitive stress injury (RSI). This injury is where poor posture or repetitive motions cause an injury to muscles, tendons, or nerves. For example, gamers who hold a controller for long hours, pressing the same buttons repetitive will risk affecting their fingers, hands or wrists. Other examples include slouching in a chair while using the computer will put extra strain on the back. Even SMSing for a long time will injure the person’s fingers.

Technology is meant to improve human condition, but misusing or overusing them will be harmful to us. But many people are not aware of this. Thus, technology ended up harming them instead.

Technological expert
Loke Jia Wei

Labels: health, Technology

10:42 PM

Labels: Technology

10:32 PM

It is true that technology has helped Man in his daily life and benefit the world. Simple form of transport like a cart in the past has evolved into the cars, ships and airplanes today. We are now able to travel to different parts of the world. With the invention of telephone, internet, communication among people is a lot easier. Technology also serves to bring us our basic needs. A gas stove for example allows us to cook our food easily compared to the past where people cooked food over a fire. Also, tools are made to assist further discoveries and developments. A microscope allows us to research on microorganisms, whereas a telescope helps in the study of outer space.

However, despite all these benefits, disadvantages come along with it too. For one, technology sometimes produces unwanted by-products, i.e. pollution. Factories, vehicles cause air pollution. Drilling in a construction area will produce noise pollution. Ethical questions will also arise for example in the case of bioengineering. Technology may also be used in other ways, for example, destruction. Technology may not necessary be used for peaceful purposes. Clubs used by caveman in the past have evolved into nuclear weapons today. Explosives were first invented to blow up buildings and mountains are used to blast humans. All these shows how technology may not necessary be flawless and benefits Man all the time.

All in all, I feel that we should not abuse the use of technology and ensure that it does not harm us more than it helps us. Only then can technology be truly beneficial to mankind.

Technological expert
Loke Jia Wei

Labels: Impacts, Technology

9:43 PM

Technology to us refers to material objects of use to humanity, such as machines, vehicles, etc. In the human society, it is the result of science and engineering, which produces the tools and craft for Man’s usage that affects the way of living. These tools are produced mainly for the sake of simplifying or aid Man’s work and allow us to lead a more comfortable life.

Use of technology began long ago where Man made use of natural resources as simple tools. For example, when people first discover and gain the ability to control fire, it increases the availability of food, and gives Man light and warmth. The invention of wheel helped human in traveling and transporting goods.

So through many years of technological developments and new discoveries/inventions, the world is what it is today. The invention of vehicles provides transport to people, enabling them to travel to far away places where traveling by foot is impossible. Invention of the telephone, internet has lessened physical barriers to communication and people are able to communicate with one another all over the world.

And now, we are still making many new discoveries and developments in technology. Technology has no doubt improved the human condition and society. However, these technological progresses may also have a bad impact on us. Ever since the invention of new tools and crafts, Man has been relying on them and may lead to over-reliance. It is also said that technology alienates people, destroying culture and tradition, etc. We have all heard these things on the use of technology. To me, I feel that there it cannot be help. We have already reached a point where we cannot live without technology. Technology is the source to our basic needs. Once it is removed, the whole world will change. As long as we do not forget the role of technology, that is to improve human condition and society, and not let it take over the world, technological progress is not really a bad thing.

Technological expert
Loke Jia Wei

Labels: Technology

9:42 PM

HEALTH PROBLEMS FROM GLOBALIZATION

Modern modes of transportation allow more people and products to travel around the world at a faster pace, they also open the airways to the transcontinental movement of infectious disease vectors. One example of this occurring is West Nile Virus. It is believed that this disease reached the United States via “mosquitoes that crossed the ocean by riding in airplane wheel wells and arrived in New York City in 1999.” With the use of air travel, people are able to go to foreign lands, contract a disease and not have any symptoms of illness until they get home, having exposed others to the disease along the way.

Because of globalization, the pace of people and goods traveling become faster and faster. As a result, the diseases spread much wider within a short time. To avoiding a tragic consequence, I think we need a more strict international health security check system to protect us. Otherwise, globalization should be blamed.

8:12 PM

Health and Environment


firstly, this is a picture of the farvelaes in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. for a close up of this pic, go to this site..

http://www.ephphata.net/images/favela-bresil2.JPG

as we can see, the farvelaes are all squashed and cramped together in a very limited space. So naturally, the environment there would be very dirty and filthy. With this type of environment, once again, it would definitely be natural for health problems and diseasese to surface.

Most of the people who live in the farvelaes came from the rurals areas in Brazil. And due to the large numbers of Urbanization, the city is unable to keep up with its pace thus resulting in numersous problems like inadequate housing and insufficient availability of jobs.

Without a home, many would either built themselves a home(farvelaes) or to go and rent a unit. However, with such limited jobs and low pay, the majority would have to chose to built themselves a home with whatever materials they can find.

Also, with little money due to the low pay or unavailabitlity of jobs, many would suffer from malnutrition thus affecting their health. Adding on to the dirty environment they are living in, diseases do occur which may result in death.

Environment and Health Expert
Denise Lim

11:00 PM

There is a wide economic gap between various countries. With WTA agreement, this gap would reduce, remain more or less same or would increase? What do you perceive?

Answer:
Globalisation can increase opportunities for better commerce to all countries. It can also bring about greater efficiency due to open competition. It can even increase the overall wealth of all countries put together through an overall increase in efficiency across the world. But, alas, it can not reduce by itself the economic differences between the countries. The best analogy is what happens to individual levels of wealth when an economy opens up - the differences do not reduce - in my perception, they actually increase even though every individual may have gained from it.
Globalisation can not let the differences remain unchanged either, because it does affect various countries in different ways depending on a number of complex factors, such as social culture, geographical peculiarities, demography etc.That takes me to my perceived conclusion that globalisation may actually further accentuate the extent of economic differences between various countries. Even though all countries may prosper, those with better resources and resolve would far outdo the others, thereby widening the gap.

This article is extremely true. I think it neatly sums up everything that I have been trying to put forward regarding economic globalisation. Even as countries open up to each other, and their economy grows, some situations among countries have not been resolved. The difference between the rich and poor is still predominant in the world's economy. Richer countries are taking measures to help poorer countries but they will only do this as long as their own economy is sustained and not threathened. They do not want to make the same mistake the US made years ago when it aided Japan after World War II. Japan was provided with so much help and resources from the USA that it is now one of the world's leading economies, and constantly competing the the US as to who's economy is stronger. In essence, richer countries naturally prefer having a slight advantage over poorer ones. Opening up their economies to the world might not neccesarily be the best thing for poorer countries.

However, those who are resisting economic globalisation are under severe pressure. For example, Myanmar has refused to open up its doors to free trade. It is under enormous pressure from many countries, in particular South East Asian countries, who feel that it is not contributing to world welfare. Naturally, the government in Myanmar is free to make its own decisions, therefore they cannot be forced to set up a free trade market. However, this is putting enormous tensions on relationships with Myanmar, and certainly not helping it to improve the state of its country.

Because of this, and what is stated in the article -which is mainly that while globalisation may improve the economy and conditions in the country, the gap between rich and poor will still be there, perhaps increased- it does not look like globalisation will do much to reduce economic differences between countries, or help social ties.

Labels: economic globalization, trade

7:08 PM

Labels: economic globalization, money tree

4:53 PM

Down in the mall, between the fast-food joint and the bagel shop, a group of young people huddles in a flurry of baggy combat pants, skateboards, and slang. They size up a woman teetering past wearing DKNY, carrying Time magazine in one hand and a latte in the other. She brushes past a guy in a Yankees' baseball cap who is talking on his Motorola cellphone about the Martin Scorsese film he saw last night. It's a standard American scene - only this isn't America, it's Britain. US culture is so pervasive, the scene could be played out in any one of dozens of cities. Budapest or Berlin, if not Bogota or Bordeaux. Even Manila or Moscow.

for the rest of the article click here

Convenience is today one of the key factors that affects our every decision. With only twenty four hours a day, one does not want to have to waste a single second on something could just as easily accomplished in half as much time. It is this speed that has allowed globalization to become so widespread and so entrenched in such a short period of time.

As the article rightly pointed out, it took Plato two thousand years to reach America. But today, the latest pop song or Hollywood movie reaches the four corners of the earth in a matter of days. It is this amazing speed that makes all the difference, that allows American culture to be pervasive. Today, online shopping allows for the homogenization of fashion, clothing being an integral part of culture, everywhere. One barely has to lift a finger, quite literally, to purchase the latest design from Levi's ten days before it's even released half way around the world, where you stay. Before, you'd have to wait four months for the letter from your best friend, with a rough sketch of the design to even hear of it. On top of that, it would take another for months your reply to reach her, and yet another for months for that long awaited garment to reach you- by steam ship no less. The difference is quite stark. People adopt American culture because it is so convenient.

Another prime example would be that of food. McDonald's is so successful simply because it's fast, it's tasty and it's everywhere. Today's pace of life is so fast that one no longer has the time to start baking bread after work. McDonald's and other fast food restaurants solve this problem. But in doing so, they've created a new one. The popularity of traditional food is waning, at best, they are reserved for special occasions. Yet this art might be irrecoverable as traditional culinary skills and recipes are lost through disuse. And so a facet of culture unique to different parts of the world will be replaced by identical restaurant chains and franchises. All in the name of "not wasting time".

In an increasingly globalized world, free trade is heralded but could also result in the emergence of oligopolies or a market condition where the sellers are so few that the actions of anyone of them would have a great impact. Hollywood has been identified as one such dominant market force. Many local film industries struggle to survive as Hollywood churns out movie after movie. Hence, our cinemas are saturate with movies depicting American culture and American points of view instead of celebrating local culture or exploring local issues. This is because global infrastructure and information exchange is so advanced that the same movie can be premiered on the same day all around the world.

Hence, the homogenization of culture is inevitable and irreversible as international communication networks and infrastructure becomes more and more advanced. Soon, information exchange will be instant and then, physical borders will be permanently erased as physical distance will be irrelevant.

Clare the cultural expert!

Labels: cultural globalization

1:24 PM

11:50 PM

The Internet. Conceived by the mind of a certain J.C.R. Licklider, it revolutionised the spread of information throughout the world. In almost 40 years, it has completely changed our personal universe as we know it. The internet has in fact, made an incredible impact on our source of knowledge and information.

Today, information about other cultures can be easily found and accessed from the comfort of home or office. The incredible ease and simplicity at which this can be done promotes the usage of the internet toward these means. For example, after acquiring a vague interest in Mongolian Ponies, one would possibly not want to go through all the trouble of taking the bus to the library and attempting to find a book on the subject, which may or may not contain the information relevant to your interest. This would mean that you would not get the information you wanted. So, instead, you would just utilise the power of the World Wide Web and google it.

The publication of material is easy; as such people who wish to spread their culture can easily do so and obtain an audience. A woman in Turkmenistan would perhaps wish to share one of her delightful recipes for the local variety of cupcakes and with the many versions of online publication available today, she could make her very own online cookbook with just a few simple steps. An Australian bachelor who desired a change in his daily repast would then come up with the daft notion of baking some Turkmenistan-ian cupcakes, so he would search for them and voila, there would be the Turkmenistan-ian lady’s cupcake recipes.

Without the internet, culture today would be much different. People would be ignorant of other cultures and all their intricacies. Another example; an American posted to India on business would not know the cultural traditions there, may even grievously (though unintentionally) insult old traditions, like shaking somebody’s left hand. However with the internet he could be forewarned about such occurrences and ‘Faux Pas’ and lead a happier existence there as a result.

In all, without the internet, the actual spread of information and culture would be greatly impeded and general knowledge would have no where near as much breadth as it does today. Truly, the world would be very different with the effects of what we now take for granted

Clare the cultural expert!

Labels: cultural globalization

11:07 PM

HEALTH PROBLEMS AND DISEASE PATTERNS IN AGRICULTURE
Melvin L. Myers

http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857200033&nh=0 (the article)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agriculture covers many settings: family farms, including subsistence agriculture; large corporate farms called agribusiness and plantations.

Since all kinds of agriculture work is associated with a variety of health problems, I want to talk about agribusiness as agribusiness is a generic term that refers to the various businesses involved in food production, including farming, seed supply, agrichemicals, farm machinery, wholesale and distribution, processing, marketing, and retail sales.

In the whole processes, large amount of harmful substances are produced. Firstly, I think is the chemical fertilizers and pesticides. These chemical fertilizers and pesticides seep into the earth and pollute groundwater and cause large number of lives in the water or soil die. Many land animals also affected by drinking the polluted water.

In America, Each year, an average of $270 million worth of wasted fertilizer flows down the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico, creating a "Dead Zone" of more than 5,000 square miles that is completely devoid of marine life.

The polluted water harms human healthy as well. As nitrate was contained in the polluted water, it causes a disease called Blue Baby Syndrome. It is a serious illness in infants which is caused when nitrate is converted into nitrite in the infant's body. Nitrite interferes with the oxygen carrying capacity of the child's blood (It replaces the oxygen on the red blood cells). This is an acute disease in that symptoms can develop rapidly in infants.
Most small villages in Syria lack adequate wastewater disposal systems, relying on individual household cesspits. This contributes to contamination of groundwater, which is often used, without treatment, for drinking. Extensive use of manure as fertilizer aggravates the problem as runoff seeps into aquifers. A major contaminant in such places is nitrate, which poses health risks, particularly for infants three months old and younger, as it leads to a diminished capacity of the blood to transport and transfer oxygen. Infants consequently suffer from the Blue Baby Syndrome. Residents of villages in the valleys of Syria hilly northeast coast are most prone, since villages’ upstream further increase the nitrate concentration in drinking water.

Those multinational agribusiness corporations even further extend the problem. environmental and healthy problem are getting worse as large area of water resouces are polluted and people are impacted by the using and drinking the water. Also, farmers do not well protect themselves from those chemical fertilizers and pesticides like wearing protective clothing. They are directly impacted by the harmful chemical substances.

11:09 AM

Food Security, Farming, CAFTA and the WTO
By Deborah James

Porfirio supports his family in Nicaragua by growing beans to eat and sell. He spends most of his day tending to his beans as well as working with his wife to maintain their house and raise all five of their children. If a new "free trade" agreement called CAFTA passes, Porfirio fears that he will not be able to get a decent price for his beans. The cheapest beans at the market in Managua are imported from the US where the average farmer receives $21,000 a year in subsidies from the government. It is impossible for Porfirio's beans to compete against corporate agribusiness. After producing beans and feeding his family his entire life, Porfirio has been told that the best way for him to compete in the free market (under CAFTA) is to produce sesame, an export crop. His success will be dependent on the whims of the international market. When international sesame prices fall, Porfirio will not be able to sell his sesame. He will have no money to buy food for his family, and his family can't survive eating sesame. He may have to sell his land and become one more unemployed person desperately looking for work in the cities or migrating to a wealthy country. (Witness for Peace)

As a necessary element to human survival, food is a human right. Small, local family farms are the bedrock of traditional rural communities and global food security- the ability of countries to produce the food they need to survive. Yet the global food supply is increasingly falling under the control of giant multinational corporations. Large agribusinesses have rewritten the rules of the global agricultural economy, using "free trade" agreements to turn food into a commodity for profit rather than a human right. The global corporatization of agriculture has had disastrous effects on farmers, food security, and the environment.

Implemented in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 'liberalized' trade between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Under NAFTA, farmers' income in all three countries has plummeted and millions of small farmers have lost their land, while agribusiness corporations have reaped huge profits.

In spite of its obvious failures, new trade agreements are being written to expand NAFTA-style corporate free trade. In March of 2004, the governments of the United States, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic completed the U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). If CAFTA is passed in the U.S. Congress, it would impose NAFTA-style agricultural policies on the heavily agriculture-dependent countries of Central America. Over 5.5 million workers and farmers' livelihoods would be put at risk. CAFTA would also cause a further decline in U.S. family farmers' incomes.

What's more, CAFTA would pave the way for a massive Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) currently in negotiations, which would extend the scope of NAFTA to include all countries in the western hemisphere except Cuba—thus multiplying the harrowing effects of NAFTA on small farmers and threatening food security for generations to come.

Both CAFTA and the FTAA are even more extreme than the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a global agreement involving 148 countries designed to shift world food production to export markets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A growing poverty gap is formed as the term 'globalization' is indoctrinated in our daily life. as a result, health inequalities is rising.

like what the article said large agribusinesses use "free trade" agreements to turn food into a commodity for profit rather than a human right. The global corporatization of agriculture has had disastrous effects on farmers, food security, and the environment.

The basic facts are known: 20% of the world’s population live in absolute poverty, with an income of less than $1 per day. Surviving on less than $2 a day is a reality for almost half the people on the planet. Those living in absolute poverty are five times more likely to die before reaching five years of age than those in higher income groups.

In many countries of the world health systems have deteriorated: food accessibility is poor, quality of food is poor, drugs are not available. In some low income countries over 70% of the health budget is coming from external sources.

The drive toward globalization of agriculture put transnational corporations in control of the entire food supply. Market forces, rather than national policies set by democratically elected officials, control agricultural food systems. Under this scenario, each country only produce a few export commodities, wiping out local food production, small family farms, and greatly compromising global food security. As a result, the human right to food would be dependent on multinational corporations and markets, increasing the risk of hunger and famine worldwide.

It seems that "globalization" is tool for those rich people or countries to gain more profit, while those poor farmers are suffering from the "globalization". The gap between richness and poverty is increasing and thus cause the food inequalities. People in poor countries have to depend on multinational corporations and markets and they even do not have enough money to maintain their families' daily life. The food security is very low as they are not able to access clean and healthy food. Also in those poor countries, hospitals do not have advanced equipment to treat patients and drugs are not enough or even not available. Healthy problem goes from bad to worse.

luxi

12:56 AM

11:59 PM

This picture was taken in Temasek Junior College, in Singapore.

I think this is one of the most recently activities in our college. This is the performance called Lv Yuan Zhi Ye which is performing on May 6. It is presented by Temasek Junior College Chinese Cultural Club.

In our college, we have such cultural clubs like Chinese calligraphy, Chinese orchestra, English drama, Indian cultural club and Malay cultural club. Our college provides those cultural clubs for different racial students. Besides the reason of Singapore is a multiracial country, Singapore government provides all kinds of scholarship for Asian students and takes in scholars from other countries.

11:39 PM

Firstly, I want to state this picture was taken in Temasek Junior College, in Singapore.

In Singapore, people won’t feel any surprised when they see those green plants all over the years, since Singapore is located near the equator of the earth. The temperature is constantly high which is around 30 Celsius and it is tropic climate. The climate provides a suitable environment for plenty of plants growing. Thus Singapore teems with infrequent plants.

Long time ago, people live beyond the places could hardly see those green plants in their own countries and they even did not know their existence. However, thanks to the “globalization”, people all over the world can come here and have a look these infrequent plants. And even transplant them to their hometown by using the high-technology. Moreover, for planting more eugenic plants, first-rate plants seeds, specific soil and fertilizer may be imported from other countries.

Thanks to the ‘globalization’, our surroundings are full of green plants.


Luxi

11:32 PM

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) can help your company to enter and compete more easily in the global marketplace. Trade agreements help level the international playing field and encourage foreign governments to adopt open and transparent rulemaking procedures, as well as non-discriminatory laws and regulations. FTAs help strengthen business climates by eliminating or reducing tariff rates, improving intellectual property regulations, opening government procurement opportunities, easing investment rules, and much more.
International trade is an integral part of the U.S. economy, accounting for more than one-quarter of U.S. gross domestic product and supporting more than 12 million U.S. jobs, including 1 in 5 manufacturing positions. FTAs can be a catalyst for accelerating economic growth by allowing greater competition, encouraging the formation of international partnerships, and by greatly liberalizing many industries. Most FTAs include specific obligations in the areas of intellectual property, services, investment, and telecommunications. Many FTAs also provide for groundbreaking cooperation in promoting labor rights and the environment.
On April 1, 2007, the United States Government concluded an historic free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea. This FTA will eliminate tariffs and other barriers to U.S. goods and services as well as promote economic growth and strengthen economic ties between the two countries.


Doesn’t the article seem to say it all? Free trade agreements are believed to be highly useful and beneficial to all countries who sign these agreements. Not only do they increase the income of the country, and therefore the country has more money to spend on developing itself, but they also help to strengthen ties between nations.

Firstly, doesn’t it seem a little too good to be true? Like all other treaties, free trade agreements have to have a downside. For example, is the strengthening of ties between nations necessarily good? Generally, yes, of course they are. However, how easily can a country manipulate this trust? If one country becomes too dependent on another, how simple would it be to just take over the entire economy of the country? Naturally, it is expected that countries are cautious when it comes to agreements and make sure to have a back-up plan in case the agreement fails. However, as proven by history it does not always succeed. An example of a case where a country has been backstabbed to a certain extent is what happened in 1946 in Europe to the USA. The USA believed that the Russians would keep to the agreement they had made earlier about how Germany was to be run once Hitler was overthrown. However, when Stalin took over Germany he did not allow the Germans to set up their own government under his control. Instead he became a second dictator, running Germany by his governing system in the Soviet Union, communism. While this example is not exactly one similar to free trade agreements, the main point that it is bringing across is that countries can be fooled.

This article gives concrete examples of how the US has benefited from these agreements. However, is it not likely that whoever signed the treaty did not benefit as much as the USA? Celine Charveriat, head of Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair Campaign stated that:

“Trade is important for growth but these agreements are bad for development. They require enormous irreversible concessions from developing countries and almost nothing in return from rich countries. These deals (free trade agreements) demand much faster liberalisation and stricter intellectual property rules than the WTO. They strip developing countries of the right to govern their economies and threaten their abilities to protect their poorest people and lift them out of poverty”

Further examples given of how free trade agreements can harm countries are the following:

1) Investment rules in free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties deny governments the right to protect workers, the environment and the economy, and can expose them to compensation claims that reach billions

2)Stricter intellectual property provisions threaten to deny poor people access to affordable medicines, undermine traditional farming methods, and remove rights to traditional knowledge

3) Harsh tariff liberalisation threatens farmers’ livelihoods and will impede future economic development
4) The web of different agreements undermines multilateralism and diverts trade

The implications for development are significant. In the first ten years after the NAFTA agreement, Mexico lost 1.3 million agricultural jobs. Manufacturing jobs were initially created but competition from cheap labour in China led to 200,000 job losses between 2001-4 as firms relocated. In Peru, up to 900,000 people could be left without access to medicines if the US-Peru trade agreement goes ahead.

For the full article: http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/2007/pr070321_free_trade_agreements


Notice that the examples given are all developing countries. Yet the example given in the first article is the USA, which is a developed country. This proves that it is mostly developed countries which benefit the most from free trade agreements. As mentioned by Celine Charveriat, developed countries hardly lose anything during free trade agreements, while developing countries seem to lose more. However, having free trade agreements is the best way to build up an economy fast, though initially the people might suffer. Take China for example. 200 000 people lost their jobs between 2001-2004. Yet it must be taken into account that China’s population during that period was approximately 1292.2 million people. Comparatively, 200 000 jobs are not that much. And it is evident that China’s economy has improved greatly over the last few years. Whether this is due to free trade agreements is not entirely clear, however it seems to be that they played a role in the advancement of China’s economy, whether significant or not.

Therefore free trade agreements have both positive and negative sides. It depends on what kind of condition the country is in. If a major problem is unemployment or lack of social services or discontentment with the government, it would be foolish to sign free trade agreements. On the other hand, gaining a stronger economy is important for developing countries, or they will not have the capital required to improve overall conditions in the country. Yet free trade agreements should be treated with utmost caution.

Labels: economic globalization, trade

6:29 PM

Because English is so widely spoken, it has often been referred to as a "global language", the lingua franca of the modern era. While English is not an official language in many countries, it is currently the language most often taught as a second language around the world. Some linguists believe that it is no longer the exclusive cultural sign of "native English speakers", but is rather a language that is absorbing aspects of cultures worldwide as it continues to grow. It is, by international treaty, the official language for aerial and maritime communications, as well as one of the official languages of the European Union, the United Nations, and most international athletic organisations, including the International Olympic Committee.

English is the language most often studied as a foreign language in the European Union (by 89% of schoolchildren), followed by French (32%), German (18%), and Spanish (8%). It is also the most studied in the People's Republic of China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Books, magazines, and newspapers written in English are available in many countries around the world. English is also the most commonly used language in the sciences. In 1997, the Science Citation Index reported that 95% of its articles were written in English, even though only half of them came from authors in English-speaking countries. (Link)

The English language itself was a product of globalisation, it was originally a sort Germanic Dialect that spread to England in the fifth century. However, academics disagree as to whether the language was adopted by the Native inhabitants, the Celts, or whether the Celts were displaced which would have coincided with the immigration of Anglo-Saxons. Either way, both of these processes are processes of globalization, at least of the known world. Later on in history, the Normans (from what today is known as France) invaded England. This is how many Norman, or Old French, words came to be part of the English language. As a result, the English language as we know it is an amalgamation of various languages and dialects and it has changed through the ages as various events take place.

The Great Vowel Shift is on such example. The Great Vowel Shift took place between the 14th and 16th centuries, though it reached its peak in the 15th century, largely due to the effects of the Black Plague. The Black Plague that was experienced in London caused a mass migration to South-East London this coupled with the rise of a standardized middle class led to the shift in pronunciation. This also coincided with standardization of spelling, hence the Great Vowel Shift is responsible for many of the spelling peculiarities present in the English language today.

Because of the Origins of the English language, it closely resembles numerous other languages such as Frisian (spoken in the Netherlands and some parts of Germany), German, Dutch and Afrikaans. It bears much similarity with French and Italian as well. Hence it was natural that it be adopted as the working language between countries. This was especially so since Britain was the paramount power.

The establishment of the British Empire followed by the rise of the United States as a superpower meant that from the twentieth century, English was informally adopted as the lingua franca of international business and eventually of politics and the like. Today English is the “global language” of our world. It is the most learned second language in the European Union and on a global scale; it is the first or second most commonly spoken language, rivaling all the Chinese dialects put together.

All this is a result of globalization, furthermore, as the English language becomes more popular, it has continued to pick up words and phrases from other languages, making it a truly global language.

Clare the cultural expert!

Labels: cultural globalization

10:46 PM

Alternative energy : natural gas- "Natural Gas - Interesting Facts About its use"

By: Carl Herkes

Like oil, natural gas is a product of decomposed organic material. It is a byproduct of plants and animals that decomposed without the presence of oxygen. As they were covered with sediment they became trapped. That is why natural gas is called a fossil fuel.

Natural gas is similar to oil, in many ways. The gas is often found mixed with oil or floating on top of underground pools of oil. The gas and oil are both extracted by drilling.

Natural gas didn't used to be regarded as a useful resource and was burned off as it was extracted from the ground. Imagine that? It wasn't until it was regarded as a useful fuel source that pipelines were developed for its transport.

It's not entirely clear how much natural gas remains in the ground. As far as experts can tell, there should be a supply of at least 60 years from now. It is estimated that Russia has vast supplies along with many more undiscovered sources in the world. This prediction puts the supply out to a couple human lifetimes from now. Who knows what the world will be like, that far into the future.

Natural gas was first used to provide light for houses and buildings, but it was manufactured from coal and oil. So the construction of pipelines began in the 50s and covered most of the nation by the 80s. Pipelines are still being added to this day.

Nearly 70% of US homes are heated with natural gas. The best home furnaces are over 90 percent efficient at utilizing the heat from the gas.

Even though natural gas is a fossil fuel and is made mostly of carbon, byproducts from gas are much less than coal or oil. Compared to coal, natural gas produces 43% less carbon byproducts for each unit of energy produced and 30% less than oil. A coal plant produces large amounts of ash where natural gas does not. However, burning gas still produces nitrogen oxides byproducts, contributing to smog and acid rain.

The natural gas market continues to grow at a rapid pace. Gas turbines have added to this. The turbines are less expensive than adding coal plants, for the production of electricity.

A fuel cell is a different approach to turn gas into electricity. Fuel cells convert natural gas directly into power without combustion. A molecule of gas is made up of carbon and hydrogen. When the hydrogen is separated from the carbon and fed into a fuel cell, it combines with oxygen to produce water, electricity and heat. The carbon is released as carbon dioxide, although in much smaller quantities than from gas turbines. Fuel cells are highly efficient, converting about 60 percent of the gas energy into electricity. They are totally silent and can be made in different sizes. They can be made small enough to power a car or large enough to provide electricity, heat and hot water to apartment buildings or factories.

Natural gas in the future may be produced from biomass. Biomass can be animal waste, sewage or trash. When these items decay, methane is given off. The methane can be captured and burned for heat or power.

I would not say that using natural gas as an alternative is a good choice. Because after all, it is still a fossil fuel and is made mostly of carbon, byproducts from gas. And comparing it to coal, as sated in the article, natural gas produces 43% less carbon byproducts for each unit of energy produced and 30% less than oil.

Also, though it is not known how much natural gas is present in the world, it was estimated to last us about 60 years. It is somehow similar to the use of coal and oil (natural gas is a fossil fuels). However, natural gas can be replenished in comparison to coal and oil.

So in the view of environment(higher emmisions of carbon would lead to global warming) and health(too much carbon would cause respiratory problems), though natural gas is not the best alternative to use, in comparison to coal and oil, it is still better. It was also mentioned that in the future, natural gas might be able to produced from biomass.

However, for countries with large amount of land. I would say that biomass would be the best alternative.

Just take Rio de Janeiro for example. By using landfills to produce methane, they are able to produce electricity form it(burn for heat or power). In this method, not only are they able to get rid of the unwanted waste, additionally, hardly any carbon is released. Also, in comparison to the alternatives of solar, wind, or the building of dams, the cost is as high or relatively equivalent to each other. But the factor which distinguishes biomass from the rest of the alternatives is that biomass is able to get rid of the country's/state's waste effectively.

Perhaps the only con of this alternative is the vast amount of land needed. That's why, as i had mentioned, this alternative is best for countries with vast amount of land space.

However even if natural gas were to be produced from biomass, taking into account the emissions and effects to the environment and human health, I still feel that bio mass is a better alternative.

Denise Lim
Health and Environment Expert.

3:03 PM

Health and Environment Aspect

Pollution - "Main Causes of Water Pollution"

By: Nathalie Fiset

Today, the world is facing one of the most serious problems of humanity and other forms of life, pollution. It is a known fact that pollution is very rampant all over the globe. Just look around and you will see rivers, lakes, beaches that are murky, stinky, and lifeless. Plastic, empty cans, bottles, and other trash have replaced the fishes and other wonderful marine creatures that used to reside under water. Yet, when scarcity arises and when epidemics occur many point their fingers to others and turn their backs from the responsibility. But in fact there is no one else to blame but the people. Man is the main cause of water pollution.

People pollute the water with chemicals and other hazardous materials. People have no regard to water - their source of life. They do not realize that this once abundant resource is rapidly being contaminated due to their negligence and carelessness.

Waste disposal has always been a chronic problem, not only because of the quantity of wastes, but because of its kind and the inadequate provision for a good system and technology to address the problem. There are many sources of water pollution but it is not the source that is really causing the problem but the improper disposal of the pollutants. People resort to careless disposal because it is cheaper, more advantageous, or simply convenient to them.

When you are taking a bath using your favorite shampoo or whenever you wash your laundry using no other than the best detergent in town, it is certain that before buying those products you really never consider asking yourself whether their contents can harm the environment or not. What mattered more was the scent and softness of your hair and the clean comfort of your clothes. Instead of finding an environmental friendly product, you simply chose convenience and your satisfaction of meeting your interests. However, if you will support environmental friendly products and become more conscientious of how you can avoid contributing to water pollution, then the world has gotten rid of one polluter.

In the same way, if chemical factories are only equipped with better facilities that can release treated wastewater, there will be no harm done to the lakes or rivers where they dump their by products. If home owners associations will work to build and provide their subdivisions with sewage treatment facilities, eutrophication can be controlled and dying bodies of water will be spared. But as mentioned, polluters choose the easier way where they can save on operation costs and where they can rid themselves of the hassles of responsibility. Anyway, they are not affected by the effects of their misdeeds.

Aside from improper and careless waste disposal, another main cause of water pollution is toxic substances coming from industrial, agricultural and domestic use. Trace elements of lead, cadmium, mercury, dioxins are detected in different water sources which sometimes accumulate in the water supply causing health problems. These toxic substances come from industries such mining, power plants, automobile manufacturers and others that produce toxic substances leading to bodies of water. Apart from these industries, these toxic materials contaminate the water through accidents like chemical or oil spills.

One more main cause of water pollution is the presence of excessive nutrients in the water. Nitrogen and phosphorous compounds that generally come from sewage, fertilizers, and animal manure are good food sources of algae. Excess nutrients in water also result to excessive growth of algae that deprive aquatic plants and animals adequate levels of oxygen to survive. Because of this many aquatic organisms die and decay which aggravates the problem.

Lastly, another considerable main cause of water pollution is sedimentation. Although it is hard to imagine how soil particles can contribute to water pollution, but it does. When huge amount of solid particles accumulate in water, whether due to deforestation, farming, or soil erosion, the sediments cloud the spawning grounds of fishes leading to their gradual extinction.

Humans greatly affect the environment. People will either be heroes or villains of Mother Nature. Toxic substances, algal bloom, sedimentation are all end results of human activities. These pollutants are not the real evils of water pollution but the people behind every wrong disposal and negligence. Unless man realizes that it is not the prohibition of pollutants nor banning industrial productions that should be changed but the behavior and attitude he possesses towards his environment, the rivers, lakes, and other water systems have no hope to be saved.

Indeed it is true that Globalization is the main cause of water pollution. Be it agriculture, Industrial, Domestic or technological, it is still the same. Not only the rivers, seas, lakes or ponds, but many aspects of the environment have been disfigured because of globalization thus resulting in the decline of health levels or even death for all living organisms. However, who was the one who triggered Globalization?

Simple, man.

In agriculture, the main problem is salination and its after effect. These over excess nutrients present in the soil would then make its way down to the near by rivers through rain and water. As mentioned in the article, this would lead to the water having too much nutrients resulting to excessive growth of algae. This would deprive aquatic plants and animals the necessary oxygen to survive and thus leading to death and decay.

In domestic, as stated in the article, consumers care not whether the product they buy are environmental friendly or not. And when these products are deposed, the tendency is that they are not being disposed of properly leading to water pollution.

For Industrial and technological, as mentioned in the article, waste are usually deposed of into the nearby rivers for convenience sake. They do not really bother about the results for their actions but only for their own convenience sake. This is because dumping waste into the rivers could be considered the cheapest means for disposal.

In water pollution, these waste products would greatly affect the aquatic life and would eventually result in death. Just take an oil spill for example. The interference of Oil would result in depriving the aquatic life from oxygen which is necessary for survival.

In the article, it was also mentioned "People will either be heroes or villains of Mother Nature.". However, i do not belief that even if people are able to rectify the pollution problem, they should be considered heroes. This is because, pollution is a result of man's irresponsible action. And to rectify it, naturally, should be their job. Why should men be named as a "hero" just for rectifying their past mistakes? They would be tarnishing the name of heroes!

Health and Environment Expert
Denise Lim

1:31 PM

Heath and Environment

Atricle

1970 Clean Air Act(US)

11:10 AM

Labels: economic globalization, money

11:06 AM