Collapse Examiner APES

Globalization describes the interrelations that countries share in terms of communicated ideas or shared resources all over the

world. This connection of ideas and resources confirms that any country in devastation will cause trouble to even the most prosperous

countries on even different continents. All countries today share resources that will affect each other. This mindset often contributes to

how if one country were to collapse, their impact will reach other countries and set them at disadvantages.

A primary example of this includes the results of poverty in Mexico. Mexican citizens are willing to emigrate abroad to achieve a

low- paying job outside of their country that’s enough to support a living for them and their family. Their home countries’ gover nment

lack a willingness to provide public benefits in return for their support, so an influx of desperate Mexican immigrants are willing to

risk their lives as illegal immigrants and emigrate to the United States. Since their home country is reluctant to provide public support,

this puts stress on the secondary country because it often already deals with enough issues to be strained by more negative impacts.

It is worthy to note that these illegal immigrants occur all over the world by impoverished nations to developed countries that

may not have the capabilities to support them. If a country like China, the largest contributor to ozone destructive substances, severely

outputs toxic pollutants into the Earth, neighboring countries will also be negatively impacted by these pollutants being transported

globally. Because the world is interconnected, unlike past ancient societies, once our resources are depleted, there will be no

alternative courses if our troubles escalate.

Destruction of forests is the Destruction of Civilization

David Feng Edition

Developing a society requires the usage of wood by

deforestation. Experts recognize that indisputable

fact from the way past civilizations dealt with

constructing shelter and creating tools.

Other civilizations acquire lumber

Through imports when they’re

unattainable in their native land. In

extreme cases, some societies burn

down vast areas of land in order to

create farmlands for food.

Regardless of the incentives for

destroying a forest, consequences

will inevitably arise that may

threaten a society’s existence. As

mentioned, trees do provide several

 benefits. For example, their leaves contain

nutrients that are recycled back into the soil

 by thriving decomposers. Additionally, forests

also provide a habitat for a bio diverse group of animals.

Settlers not only benefit from the wood that’s deforested,

 but also gain access to meat and other products of animals living in

the forested area. . By reducing the density of forests, forest fires can become controlled in the specific location.

The consequences of careless management of forests wreak havoc on society. To begin with, because most nutrients are

collected inside trees, the soils beneath lose more nutrients which reduces that agricultural output that society relies on.

This strains food resources that people need to sustain life. Another factor that reduces the amount of food produced is by

man-made droughts. These are created when enough trees, which contribute significantly to the water cycle via

transpiration, are truncated. Afterwards, once populations reduce forest cover significantly, soils become exposed to the

sun, sinking moisture levels and further dwindling the amount of harvestable crops. Without tree obstacles, soil is

susceptible to wind erosion, which also transports the nutrients and agricultural chemicals that alter lands miles away.

These issues contribute to fewer trees grown in future years, thereby perpetuating the problems mentioned above. All of

these setbacks challenge the lives of settlers. If products are depleted completely, disaster is inevitable.

Five deadly Contributions to a Collapse

The collapse of many civilizations has been attributed to a variety of circumstances. As shown in the past histories

of ancient civilizations such as Easter Island and Mayans, many of their demises were followed by environmental

neglects. Most society’s collapse cannot be solely attached to just environmental damage. Frequently, leaders

overtake neighboring societies because of hostile relations (the most notable incident, Roman Empire’s conquest).

Conversely, a lack of supporting societies (but not hostile) also contribute to the fall of a society. Most civilizations

relied on other’s for importing and exporting goods, so when relations became strained, goods became restricted

which weakened both neighbors.

In other times however, damage to the environment begins the destruction of their society. The most common

incident tends to be overexploitation of a resource to the point of becoming non-renewable. When populations show

distrust amongst each other, a tendency for an individual to take more than his or her “fair share” arises, leaving the

group devoid of their necessities (known as tragedy of the commons). This leads to outbreaks of crimes and hatred

which eventually escalates to war and genocide (as is the case in Rwanda and Anasazi groups). The most significant

contribution to a society’s collapse or resilience relates to the response societies undertake.

Though I find it very convincing that many environmental decisions and actions lead to declines by reducing

resources and wealth, Diamond appears to understate the circumstance that arises in each of the civilizations

mentioned. Sure, Haiti overexploited their resources and is left with nearly nothing. However, one must examine the

 backgrounds of each civilization to recognize the underlying causes. Some factors are not their decisions, such as the

recent catastrophic earthquakes that altered their lives. Can they really have predicted that?

 August 8th 2014

Haiti and the Dominican Republic

:

Differences in decisions result

in contrasting future 

Two societies living on Hispaniola’s island have shown

dramatic contrast in their well-being. Haiti suffers from

chronic political corruption and a serious public health

threat. After facing various political corruption and outbreaks

of war, the Dominican Republic, however, succeeded in

rebuilding a socioeconomic change for the better. While the

Dominican Republic’s prospective future gleams positively

economically and politically, Haiti is transforming into one

of the poorest and overcrowded country in the world. Many

experts predict that no hope exists for the country since it is very deficient in both natural resources and educated population.

How did this divergence begin despite the fact that both countries are located on one exact island?

In Hispaniola Island, it appears obvious that the forest cover in both countries differ greatly. These forests provide the

countries with valuable wood that can be exported (with financial benefits) or used to construct homes and buildings.

Unfortunately, when these forests are overexploited, the rate at which logging occurs faster than the sustainable rate, the

consequences include loss of timber, soil erosion (leading to less soil fertility and fewer crops grown for comestibles), loss of

 biodiversity, and decreased precipitation (drier environment).

The Dominican Republic imposes strictly enforced regulations on the 74 national parks and reserves while Haiti struggles

with corrupt governments selfishly ignoring public affairs and concerns about the impact of deforestation. Retaining forest

cover enabled the Dominican leaders to industrialize and open an exporting economy with overseas trading which gradually

 phased out their reliance on forests for fuel. In contrast, because of Haiti’s poverty, its people were forced to remain dependent

on wood to create charcoal and fuel, which further accelerated deforestation. This destruction resulted in less food production

from crops, loss in other natural resources that could grow the economy with exports. This shows that the environmental

attitudes correlate strongly with the economical benefits (or lack thereof).

“The interests of big

businesses, environmentalists,

and society coincide more

often than one expects despite

mutual blaming” 

Living in a first-world country where struggles in life are minimal (in a secular perspective), one considers the words “war” and

“genocide” absolutely abominable and unjustified. It is generally accepted that the contributions leading up to the RwandanGenocide

were political ethnic hatred between two groups: Hutus and the Tutsis. When German and Belgian settlers initially arrived, they

viewed the Tutsi’s as superior and were given special privileges. Because of this prejudice, the Hutu’s and the Tutsis grew with

contempt because they were belittled and mistreated. Eventually, independence came to both countries in 1962.

This gave the Hutu’s the opportunity to overthrow the Tutsis, Violence spiraled into widespread murder in regards to an individual’s background. Hutu general Habyarimana, a leader who at first decided to leave the Tutsi in peace, tolerated Tutsi mass

executions because of accumulating economic problems so he could maintain his public support and assuage the resource crisis. This impetus sparked an unknown group (still amystery today) to fire two missiles at Habyarimana’s aircraft in April of 1994,

killing him and Burundi’s provisional government. Within hours, Hutu extremists carried plans to kill the Hutu prime minister  and all Tutsi’s (an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 murders). 

Though many scholars and intelligence agencies attribute these attacks to political motives, it must be taken into consideration that many civilians were motivated by reasons other than ethnic hatred. Taking into account Rwanda’s high population densityand

the countries failure to modernize their agricultural productions, many citizens starved in desperation for food. Farmlands were distributed unequally, with the smaller ones shrinking and the larger ones growing. Therefore, many desperate people resulted to

arrogate other civilian’s land (specifically Tutsi’s) forcefully when political leaders encouraged killings. This genocide was also propelled by farmers desire to acquire more land and sustain their families, thus killing many people to gain their survival.

We all hear it often on TV: “Those avarice oil

companies care only about expanding their financial

assets.” or “They could care less if Earth becomes

 bio hazardous!”On the other side of the spectrum, big

 businesses often rebuttal: “Tree huggers need to

understand the importance of jobs and a strong economy.

Do they wish to revert back to pre-industrialized

standards?” or “The people desire jobs and a living; we need to develop as a country together.” Though this may seem

contradictory, both companies frequently encounter aligned goals.

It’s obvious that most environmentalists wish for the Earth to become “greener” and strives for public support in

reducing (ideally eliminating) all detriments to the environment including forest preservation and soil/ wetland

 protections. In contrast, images of oil spills, carcasses of aquatic organisms trapped around a field of black, and heavy

drilling ruining natural beauty shifts public perception. Instead, several oil companies reached a consensus that providing

strict environmental regulations within the proximity of an oil field financially places them in an advantage since the

consequence sinks the risks of catastrophe. Companies like Exxon control large areas where logging, hunting, and

farming are strictly prohibited and heavily enforced. Anyone violating the rigid management regulations faces the risk of

expulsion from the property (including employees).

This reduces not only the huge financial outputs of cleaning oil spills and compensating other business, but also

increases the public’s satisfaction as well as their reputation. Pressures from foreign countries, knowing the wealth of oil

companies thus charging exorbitant fees for road building and land use, restrict companies from constructing and

destroying excessively by charging for the value of trees, forests, and land area. All in all, saving them over 20 percent of

their revenue, these initiatives prevent many environmental disasters that could potentially bankrupt oil businesses. The

motives may be different, but environmentalists and oil companies share some similar objectives.

“It is not rare, even today to hear Rwandans argue that war is necessary…to

bring numbers into line with the available land resources” 

Why does a world food problem even exist? 

If you are reading this, chances are you have never experienced actual hunger in which food was

unattainable for more than two days. The standard of living recently increased tremendously to which longevity

has grown and resources are abundant throughout your local town. It is also likely that in your town, the

agricultural output exceeds per-capita consumption, thereby wasted food are disposed by the tons. Why then,

are large populations starving in other countries while first world countries enjoy food almost luxuriously? Some

 proponents suggest that only a logistical consideration of food transportation from the countries with a

mammoth surplus of food will ultimately solve this predicament. Unfortunately, that argument avoids the

fundamental flaws of the situation which will develop further complications.

The first problem with the proposal deals with financial assets. For instance, although Americans place aside

aid funding in transporting food to countries agonizing from the consequences of natural disasters, few are

willing to allocate (through taxes and non-profit organizations) funds on a regular basis to feed billions of

 people. Even if an annual fund provided a poverty-stricken country with food, the rate of population growth

would grow beyond control (because of available food resources) which mitigates the initial aid’s impact. In

addition, even though first world countries consume more comestibles than necessary, their citizens show no

interest in lowering their food consumption in order to equalize food distribution.

Thanks to Globalization, all countries share resources and affect each other  

 AP Environmental Science

“The values to

which people cling

most stubbornly

under

inappropriate

conditions are

those values that

were previously

the source of their

greatest triumphs” 

 —  Jared Diamond