Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
MWF 10am
16 comments:
Launie B.
said...
How can the world increase the rate of food production and still achieve sustainability? With the population rate increasing, I do not think that the rate of food production will ever catch up. The only way I can think that the food population can stay stable with the population is if humans stop reproducing. I know for a fact that will not happen. Borlaug said, "[Man] is using his powers for increasing the rate and amount of food production. But he is not yet using adequately his potential for decreasing the rate of human reproduction. The result is that the rate of population increase exceeds the rate of increase in food production in some areas." What Borlaug is saying is true. How can we stop humans from reproducing in order to save the rate of food production? Reproduction is needed in the world but it looks like we are producing faster than the rate of death. If we continue producing at this rate, will that mean by the year 2050 there will not be enough agriculture to feed the humans? The world hunger is a serious case and I feel bad that sometimes I waste food when there is people in the world that is starving and do not know when there next meal is. How can we stop the world from the poverty of food? Will the slower rate of population be enough to help the millions that are starving on a daily basis? World hunger is an issue but, what about the way, in which we are polluting our environment? By Sanchez's rough calculation, humans now use some 171 million tons of nitrogen as fertilizer every year, much of which ends up polluting lakes, rivers, streams and even the ocean. These numbers is a big problem that those play a factor in the sustainability. "Sustainability is still an unsolved problem, it is the same problem Malthus identified about 200 years ago," Sachs added. "How we feed the planet, slow population growth, and thereby raise living standards is still an open question." I will like to know the answer to the question that Sachs has rising. Will we ever be able to have sustainability? If so, when will it happen?
“Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy’s first Law of Equivalent Exchange. ~ Alphonse Elric, Full Metal Alchemist. Nothing is for free... Every cause has an effect so in order to produce more food, the environment is crumbling, the earth’s natural resources are vanishing. The soil is been overworked and the pollution is increasing affecting the production of food therefore the probability of sustainability seems less plausible than before. As we seek for different methods to increase the food production, the birthrate is also increasing which creates an argument; how are we supposed to feed more people when there is less food? Shouldn’t sub-Saharan Africans consider creating a law that obliges families to have less offspring? But it seems that even though is a reasonable solution it may not have the support of some African leaders as in the case of Uganda's president,- Yoweri Museveni, who believes that their countries are under populated, and that a bigger internal market and workforce will boost their economic prospects.-(Article history, Xian Rice). And how can the food production increase if the soil and water that is needed is polluted? When would be the time that projects are turned into actions?. At this rate just when things get worst people’s consciousness may arise to look for a solution but its time would be late. Denisse Unda
I believe it’s injustice, ignorance, and selfishness that humanity attempts to alter the world by means of using industrialization, agriculture, and technological uses that ironically damage the environment we live in rather than helping it. It is certain that the world consists of imbalances in food and in needs that may be abundant in some areas and insufficient in other areas. Perhaps enforcing the conservation of foods in some affluent areas and distributing them to places with adverse poverty may help decrease the amount of hunger in poorer areas. Nevertheless, the damage has already been done. The planet has been harmed and depleted by its own selfish inhabitants that do not heed to share nor distribute food to its own kind or to attempt to stop the sources that contribute to pollution or harm. However, it’s logically possible to follow Parfit’s transporter tale of transporting to another planet or another world that will enable humans to become nourished and healthy by means of consuming food from another universe. Perhaps the transportation method can be subtly used by transporting America’s cheeseburgers to Africa’s malnourished inhabitants. The possibilities are immense. Nonetheless, even with the profuse amount of logical possibilities I doubt that the word will grow humility, empathy, and awareness of their own destruction and ignorance that has conceded in a helpless dwelling.
I understand that the problem is that we don't produce enough food to feed everyone because the populations rate keeps increasing but reproduction will always be there. It's needed to keep our species going and if you look back during the centuries reproduction rate has changed. Some sources say that the population growth over the centuries has increased and some say it's decreased. I mean in some cultures women you'd to give birth to tons of kids, while Americans for example don't usually have as many per family. In China there are laws to one child (or maybe its girl) per household. However I don't think it's right to put a law against how many children you can have, there shouldn't be a limit. Also the life expectancy for today's day compared to years ago is far longer, so I don't think will be solving world hunger anytime soon if ever. It's a real shame because honestly, so much of our food goes to waste between people who throw it out and the chemicals and stuff we put in our soil and fertilizer that contaminates it all.
World population vs food production. The most obvious solution to this problem seems to be control over both of the variables involved. Since we have not been abe to conclude the rate of human reproduction, having a significant impact on this percentage is quite doubtful. Expanding agriculture to feed the immeasurable poverty-stricken population would only worsen many current ecological problems. I believe a more achievable goal would be to help the ones in need using the excess resources already available. For example, "27 percent of all food is thrown out, which works out to a pound of food every day for every American." (http://www.greenecoservices.com/food-waste-in-restaurants/) Awareness should be spread so that more food and money is accessible to the empty-handed.
Garrett Hardin, an ecologist, says that in an overpopulated (or overexploited) world a system of the commons leads to ruin. He argues that developed countries shouldn’t help poor and overpopulated countries (like sub-Saharan Africa and India) by sending only food because we would be harming them instead. However, if we want to truly help countries with starving people we should not only send them food but also some form of non-food energy.
As a solution to the overpopulation problem, Professor of philosophy Margaret P. Battin suggests the reversal of what she calls the “default mode” which can be used to help in the issue of overpopulation. The “default mode” according to her, is the average outcome of sexual intercourse: pregnancy. The reversal of the default mode, however, is Battin’s idea suggesting that everyone worldwide could be able to use automatic contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies and yet still satisfy peoples reproductive needs. Therefore, if people in poor countries like sub-Saharan Africa and India can have access to these automatic contraceptives, population in their countries could be controlled to the point where developed countries can finally supply the starving people with food.
In my opinion, sustainability is an ongoing problem but maybe it doesn’t have to be if we give Battin’s idea of reversing the “default mode” a try. Sure the negative and positive sides would have to be analyzed but for now it seems to be a reasonable solution.
I believe that their should be a regulation of human reproduction overall the countries. In China, you are only allowed to have one child, which is probably extremist, but still a regulation. In this there can be a balance of food production as well as the rate of human birth.Poor countries which are not well developed and not exposed to education, are the one's who have the highest rate of human reproduction. I believe that through education we can fight this issue to reach a balance between these two important factord:human reproduction and food supply.
I want to begin with this statement, nature is brutal. It does what it needs to do to bring the earth back into an equilibrium. Humans have constantly been changing nature in ways that later on it will force upon some consequences. Scientists have made the average life span longer and longer causing another mouth to feed for extended amount of time. Politics have gotten in the way of allowing those hungry and poor to recieve the right nutrition. Not only politics but missionaries have also been the cause for creating poverty. When a tribe of indigenous people who have never been connected to the outside world encounter a missionary who tries to change their minds to enter our “life style” they are struck with jealousy and wanting to be like the other people, leading them into our system, with nothing. Nature will clean things up in ways like natural disasters or other ways we haven’t thought of. Everything will reach its equilibrium through us or by nature so hopefully it will be us.
I don't if we will ever be able to achieve sustainability, especially when the population is not decreasing simultaneously. Humans will need to slow down or cease reprocreating in order for us to get to where food were to ever to become plentous. However, I truly believe food is wasted greatly, especially by us in America. We have nearly everything we could ever desire in regards to food, and yet we discards tons of food each day. Just think, we waste more than enough food to help most of us including those in the poorest countries. We all need to look at ourselves and make changes from within and then maybe we could make a huge difference in achieving sustainability.
I don't think if we will ever be able to achieve sustainability, especially if the population is not decreasing simultaneously. Humans will need to slow down or cease reprocreating, if we are ever to get in a place where food would be plenteous. However, I truly believe food is wasted greatly, especially by us in America. We have nearly everything we could ever desire in regards to food, and yet we discards tons of food each day. Just think, we waste more than enough food to help most of us including those in the poorest countries. We all need to look at ourselves and make changes from within and then maybe we could make a huge difference in achieving sustainability.
It almost seems impossible that we will be able to increase the production of food anytime soon. The problem at hand is not making more food but to limit a population that is at constant growth and creates problems around the world. Over the last couple years we have seen that undeveloped countries continue to grow exponentially, and create a risk that puts everyone in that country at the brink of ecological collapse. We are using too many of our resources and unless the actual populations are controlled then we will not see any balance achieved in keeping all humans well fed. The target strategy is to limit and stop growth in countries where the sources are already scarce and being a process of rehabilitation. This of course goes hand and hand with education as the less developed countries lack education and thus we see a greater amount of growth. If one wants to limit population the best bet is to educate women on birth control and how to create a stable atmosphere.
World Hunger has always been an interesting topic to discuss. There are various elements that contribute to the rising rate of poverty striken countries who are first hand victims of world hunger. Although most of the blame is due to the unequaled rate of reproduction and food production, alot of the blame should be imposed on countries such as the U.S. We consume way more food than those countries suffering from hunger. The true villain behind all of this is "poverty". Because of the immense amount of poverty in these countries such as "Africa" people have less to eat in certain scattered regions of the country. In my opinion poverty is also to blame for overpopulation. If people had the resources to gain knowledge about contraceptives and were able to buy them, they probably wouldn't be having as many kids. The other issue at hand is that we are literally eating away all the other species. This is a problem because as food becomes more scarce, more and more people around the world are going to start to feel the effect. In the U.S. we are so used to going to the supermarket and buying whatever we want that we fail to realize the problem that we will one day encounter (lack of food). When are we going to do something about this crisis? When it's to late to do anything at all?. At this point I think the only thing that would save us is some sort of new found technology (cloning), and even then that might not even be enough.
World population has proven difficult, if not impossible to regulate. There are some that say that in the natural course of the universe, natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and plagues, are the methods that mother nature employs as checks and balances to correct impending extinction due to imbalance such as the food production rate falling behind the rate of world population. One outcome that supports this theory is the fact that the mortality rate in developing countries due to natural disasters is many times the corresponding rate in developed regions. Accordingly the ratio of food production to population increase seems to be most problematic in the underdeveloped countries that seem to be more prone to high mortality rates due to natural disasters. Sustainability and food production are variables that we have more hope of controlling and hopefully increasing to offset the strain of a growing population. If we can create and implement more efficient ways of producing food while using methods that are less taxing on our environment, we can close the gap in the world population/food production ratio. Leydi Escobar.
I believe the world is over populated and there must be a way to regulate the procreation of humans. I know this may sound harsh, but theres alot of life being made thayt doesnt need to be made. I understand its not the babies fault, but poor baby when so many teenages now a days have kids and just give them away to adoption. This irresponsibility is causing adoption places to be full, and little kids waiting for homes some never get it, and we have to give these kids alot of food. The way to prevent this is prevent the making of life that parents dont want coming into this world, stop it before its made. Thats much easier than said. Also we want to always save lives. I believe that saving lives and new advances in medicine is beautiful, but we are harder to die. We have no natural predators just ourselves, and we can survive many things that should kill us but they dont. So while the death rate goes down the life rate goes up. the only way were gonna get food to everyone is to start producing more food and find a way to get food to people that really need it. no one ever thinks about our fellow men and women across the ocean that are starving horribly while most of here in the us gluttonize. Its a hard dilema that i dont think anyone can solve. This is something we all need to be educated in and as a world and a joined HUMAN race try to find a solution to together.
I am a partisan of capitalism. In fact, I am capitalist and I wonder if I would feel good in another economic system. However, it is obvious that the wealth of the world is unequally shared. As a result, there is a waste of goods and products in the rich countries while people live in total poverty in some countries, particularly in Africa. There are starving permanently. What are the real causes? There is no reason to say that the developed countries are responsible of this kind of situation even if in many cases the poverty is largely due to colonialism. I would prefer saying that underdevelopment is a sum: political problems, historic mistakes, lack of production and education, absence of health care service. This is one of the major negative aspects of capitalism: excessive materialism resulting on inequality. Is there a way to solve the problem? What could be the solution? People have one life to live in a common space: earth. If they want to live it with happiness, they need to help each other. One cannot live quietly and easily in between poverty. This is a way to say that the problems of any country – even the smaller – must concern the whole planet. This is the ere of globalization which makes of the world a big village. The holes in the protecting layers of the atmosphere are a threat for everybody. Let’s reduce pollution, let’s help other countries in education, infrastructure, let’s provide alimentation, health care service to people in need. We will have a better world.
16 comments:
How can the world increase the rate of food production and still achieve sustainability? With the population rate increasing, I do not think that the rate of food production will ever catch up. The only way I can think that the food population can stay stable with the population is if humans stop reproducing. I know for a fact that will not happen. Borlaug said, "[Man] is using his powers for increasing the rate and amount of food production. But he is not yet using adequately his potential for decreasing the rate of human reproduction. The result is that the rate of population increase exceeds the rate of increase in food production in some areas." What Borlaug is saying is true. How can we stop humans from reproducing in order to save the rate of food production? Reproduction is needed in the world but it looks like we are producing faster than the rate of death. If we continue producing at this rate, will that mean by the year 2050 there will not be enough agriculture to feed the humans?
The world hunger is a serious case and I feel bad that sometimes I waste food when there is people in the world that is starving and do not know when there next meal is. How can we stop the world from the poverty of food? Will the slower rate of population be enough to help the millions that are starving on a daily basis? World hunger is an issue but, what about the way, in which we are polluting our environment? By Sanchez's rough calculation, humans now use some 171 million tons of nitrogen as fertilizer every year, much of which ends up polluting lakes, rivers, streams and even the ocean. These numbers is a big problem that those play a factor in the sustainability.
"Sustainability is still an unsolved problem, it is the same problem Malthus identified about 200 years ago," Sachs added. "How we feed the planet, slow population growth, and thereby raise living standards is still an open question." I will like to know the answer to the question that Sachs has rising. Will we ever be able to have sustainability? If so, when will it happen?
“Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy’s first Law of Equivalent Exchange. ~ Alphonse Elric, Full Metal Alchemist. Nothing is for free... Every cause has an effect so in order to produce more food, the environment is crumbling, the earth’s natural resources are vanishing.
The soil is been overworked and the pollution is increasing affecting the production of food therefore the probability of sustainability seems less plausible than before. As we seek for different methods to increase the food production, the birthrate is also increasing which creates an argument; how are we supposed to feed more people when there is less food? Shouldn’t sub-Saharan Africans consider creating a law that obliges families to have less offspring? But it seems that even though is a reasonable solution it may not have the support of some African leaders as in the case of Uganda's president,- Yoweri Museveni, who believes that their countries are under populated, and that a bigger internal market and workforce will boost their economic prospects.-(Article history, Xian Rice).
And how can the food production increase if the soil and water that is needed is polluted? When would be the time that projects are turned into actions?. At this rate just when things get worst people’s consciousness may arise to look for a solution but its time would be late.
Denisse Unda
I believe it’s injustice, ignorance, and selfishness that humanity attempts to alter the world by means of using industrialization, agriculture, and technological uses that ironically damage the environment we live in rather than helping it. It is certain that the world consists of imbalances in food and in needs that may be abundant in some areas and insufficient in other areas. Perhaps enforcing the conservation of foods in some affluent areas and distributing them to places with adverse poverty may help decrease the amount of hunger in poorer areas. Nevertheless, the damage has already been done. The planet has been harmed and depleted by its own selfish inhabitants that do not heed to share nor distribute food to its own kind or to attempt to stop the sources that contribute to pollution or harm. However, it’s logically possible to follow Parfit’s transporter tale of transporting to another planet or another world that will enable humans to become nourished and healthy by means of consuming food from another universe. Perhaps the transportation method can be subtly used by transporting America’s cheeseburgers to Africa’s malnourished inhabitants. The possibilities are immense. Nonetheless, even with the profuse amount of logical possibilities I doubt that the word will grow humility, empathy, and awareness of their own destruction and ignorance that has conceded in a helpless dwelling.
I understand that the problem is that we don't produce enough food to feed everyone because the populations rate keeps increasing but reproduction will always be there. It's needed to keep our species going and if you look back during the centuries reproduction rate has changed. Some sources say that the population growth over the centuries has increased and some say it's decreased. I mean in some cultures women you'd to give birth to tons of kids, while Americans for example don't usually have as many per family. In China there are laws to one child (or maybe its girl) per household. However I don't think it's right to put a law against how many children you can have, there shouldn't be a limit. Also the life expectancy for today's day compared to years ago is far longer, so I don't think will be solving world hunger anytime soon if ever. It's a real shame because honestly, so much of our food goes to waste between people who throw it out and the chemicals and stuff we put in our soil and fertilizer that contaminates it all.
World population vs food production. The most obvious solution to this problem seems to be control over both of the variables involved. Since we have not been abe to conclude the rate of human reproduction, having a significant impact on this percentage is quite doubtful. Expanding agriculture to feed the immeasurable poverty-stricken population would only worsen many current ecological problems. I believe a more achievable goal would be to help the ones in need using the excess resources already available. For example, "27 percent of all food is thrown out, which works out to a pound of food every day for every American." (http://www.greenecoservices.com/food-waste-in-restaurants/) Awareness should be spread so that more food and money is accessible to the empty-handed.
Angelica Valencia
Garrett Hardin, an ecologist, says that in an overpopulated (or overexploited) world a system of the commons leads to ruin. He argues that developed countries shouldn’t help poor and overpopulated countries (like sub-Saharan Africa and India) by sending only food because we would be harming them instead. However, if we want to truly help countries with starving people we should not only send them food but also some form of non-food energy.
As a solution to the overpopulation problem, Professor of philosophy Margaret P. Battin suggests the reversal of what she calls the “default mode” which can be used to help in the issue of overpopulation. The “default mode” according to her, is the average outcome of sexual intercourse: pregnancy. The reversal of the default mode, however, is Battin’s idea suggesting that everyone worldwide could be able to use automatic contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies and yet still satisfy peoples reproductive needs. Therefore, if people in poor countries like sub-Saharan Africa and India can have access to these automatic contraceptives, population in their countries could be controlled to the point where developed countries can finally supply the starving people with food.
In my opinion, sustainability is an ongoing problem but maybe it doesn’t have to be if we give Battin’s idea of reversing the “default mode” a try. Sure the negative and positive sides would have to be analyzed but for now it seems to be a reasonable solution.
Yessica Ardila
I believe that their should be a regulation of human reproduction overall the countries. In China, you are only allowed to have one child, which is probably extremist, but still a regulation. In this there can be a balance of food production as well as the rate of human birth.Poor countries which are not well developed and not exposed to education, are the one's who have the highest rate of human reproduction. I believe that through education we can fight this issue to reach a balance between these two important factord:human reproduction and food supply.
- Estefa Pinares
I want to begin with this statement, nature is brutal. It does what it needs to do to bring the earth back into an equilibrium. Humans have constantly been changing nature in ways that later on it will force upon some consequences. Scientists have made the average life span longer and longer causing another mouth to feed for extended amount of time. Politics have gotten in the way of allowing those hungry and poor to recieve the right nutrition. Not only politics but missionaries have also been the cause for creating poverty. When a tribe of indigenous people who have never been connected to the outside world encounter a missionary who tries to change their minds to enter our “life style” they are struck with jealousy and wanting to be like the other people, leading them into our system, with nothing. Nature will clean things up in ways like natural disasters or other ways we haven’t thought of. Everything will reach its equilibrium through us or by nature so hopefully it will be us.
Miguel Ramos
I don't if we will ever be able to achieve sustainability, especially when the population is not decreasing simultaneously. Humans will need to slow down or cease reprocreating in order for us to get to where food were to ever to become plentous. However, I truly believe food is wasted greatly, especially by us in America. We have nearly everything we could ever desire in regards to food, and yet we discards tons of food each day. Just think, we waste more than enough food to help most of us including those in the poorest countries. We all need to look at ourselves and make changes from within and then maybe we could make a huge difference in achieving sustainability.
Maritza Cozart
I don't think if we will ever be able to achieve sustainability, especially if the population is not decreasing simultaneously. Humans will need to slow down or cease reprocreating, if we are ever to get in a place where food would be plenteous. However, I truly believe food is wasted greatly, especially by us in America. We have nearly everything we could ever desire in regards to food, and yet we discards tons of food each day. Just think, we waste more than enough food to help most of us including those in the poorest countries. We all need to look at ourselves and make changes from within and then maybe we could make a huge difference in achieving sustainability.
M.Cozart
It almost seems impossible that we will be able to increase the production of food anytime soon. The problem at hand is not making more food but to limit a population that is at constant growth and creates problems around the world. Over the last couple years we have seen that undeveloped countries continue to grow exponentially, and create a risk that puts everyone in that country at the brink of ecological collapse. We are using too many of our resources and unless the actual populations are controlled then we will not see any balance achieved in keeping all humans well fed. The target strategy is to limit and stop growth in countries where the sources are already scarce and being a process of rehabilitation. This of course goes hand and hand with education as the less developed countries lack education and thus we see a greater amount of growth. If one wants to limit population the best bet is to educate women on birth control and how to create a stable atmosphere.
World Hunger has always been an interesting topic to discuss. There are various elements that contribute to the rising rate of poverty striken countries who are first hand victims of world hunger. Although most of the blame is due to the unequaled rate of reproduction and food production, alot of the blame should be imposed on countries such as the U.S. We consume way more food than those countries suffering from hunger. The true villain behind all of this is "poverty". Because of the immense amount of poverty in these countries such as "Africa" people have less to eat in certain scattered regions of the country. In my opinion poverty is also to blame for overpopulation. If people had the resources to gain knowledge about contraceptives and were able to buy them, they probably wouldn't be having as many kids. The other issue at hand is that we are literally eating away all the other species. This is a problem because as food becomes more scarce, more and more people around the world are going to start to feel the effect. In the U.S. we are so used to going to the supermarket and buying whatever we want that we fail to realize the problem that we will one day encounter (lack of food). When are we going to do something about this crisis? When it's to late to do anything at all?. At this point I think the only thing that would save us is some sort of new found technology (cloning), and even then that might not even be enough.
Kissel A.
World population has proven difficult, if not impossible to regulate. There are some that say that in the natural course of the universe, natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and plagues, are the methods that mother nature employs as checks and balances to correct impending extinction due to imbalance such as the food production rate falling behind the rate of world population. One outcome that supports this theory is the fact that the mortality rate in developing countries due to natural disasters is many times the corresponding rate in developed regions. Accordingly the ratio of food production to population increase seems to be most problematic in the underdeveloped countries that seem to be more prone to high mortality rates due to natural disasters.
Sustainability and food production are variables that we have more hope of controlling and hopefully increasing to offset the strain of a growing population. If we can create and implement more efficient ways of producing food while using methods that are less taxing on our environment, we can close the gap in the world population/food production ratio.
Leydi Escobar.
I believe the world is over populated and there must be a way to regulate the procreation of humans. I know this may sound harsh, but theres alot of life being made thayt doesnt need to be made. I understand its not the babies fault, but poor baby when so many teenages now a days have kids and just give them away to adoption. This irresponsibility is causing adoption places to be full, and little kids waiting for homes some never get it, and we have to give these kids alot of food. The way to prevent this is prevent the making of life that parents dont want coming into this world, stop it before its made. Thats much easier than said. Also we want to always save lives. I believe that saving lives and new advances in medicine is beautiful, but we are harder to die. We have no natural predators just ourselves, and we can survive many things that should kill us but they dont. So while the death rate goes down the life rate goes up. the only way were gonna get food to everyone is to start producing more food and find a way to get food to people that really need it. no one ever thinks about our fellow men and women across the ocean that are starving horribly while most of here in the us gluttonize. Its a hard dilema that i dont think anyone can solve. This is something we all need to be educated in and as a world and a joined HUMAN race try to find a solution to together.
OLIVER REYES
I am a partisan of capitalism. In fact, I am capitalist and I wonder if I would feel good in another economic system. However, it is obvious that the wealth of the world is unequally shared. As a result, there is a waste of goods and products in the rich countries while people live in total poverty in some countries, particularly in Africa. There are starving permanently. What are the real causes?
There is no reason to say that the developed countries are responsible of this kind of situation even if in many cases the poverty is largely due to colonialism. I would prefer saying that underdevelopment is a sum: political problems, historic mistakes, lack of production and education, absence of health care service. This is one of the major negative aspects of capitalism: excessive materialism resulting on inequality. Is there a way to solve the problem? What could be the solution?
People have one life to live in a common space: earth. If they want to live it with happiness, they need to help each other. One cannot live quietly and easily in between poverty. This is a way to say that the problems of any country – even the smaller – must concern the whole planet. This is the ere of globalization which makes of the world a big village. The holes in the protecting layers of the atmosphere are a threat for everybody. Let’s reduce pollution, let’s help other countries in education, infrastructure, let’s provide alimentation, health care service to people in need. We will have a better world.
Post a Comment