סוגיות בסביבה, קיימות ושמירת טבע - אב"ג
- 186 שאלות
- 929 תגובות
- 0% הושלמו
- equalizer סטטיסטיקות
- share שתף
Discuss, Learn and be Happy דיון בשאלות
help
brightness_4
brightness_7
format_textdirection_r_to_l
format_textdirection_l_to_r
Before the industrial revolution, birth rates and family size were:
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 115
השאלה הזו לא מופיעה בשאלון המתורגם
מוניטין: 1635
פעם היה צריך הרבה ילדים שיעבדו
מוניטין: 2095
כל הילדים קופצים עובדים
מוניטין: 1
חחחחחחחחחחחוחחחחחחח
מוניטין: 258
מופיע בסיכום תמונת מסך מהוידיאו - נושא 8.2
מוניטין: 277
ילד עובד בשדה > ילד רעב
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Birth-rate and family size before the Industrial Revolution – “High birth rates and large families.”
Prior to industrial modernity, virtually all agrarian societies operated under the demographic regime ancien: crude birth rates hovering around 40–50 live births per 1 000 population and total fertility well above six children per woman. The economic logic was self-reinforcing: children constituted labour assets—herding, sowing, gleaning, cottage manufacture—thereby offsetting their subsistence cost and functioning as old-age security for parents in the absence of pensions. Mortality was indeed high, yet families offset that risk with a quantity strategy: many births to insure that some offspring would survive to adulthood. Only with proto-industrial wage labour, urban schooling laws and declining infant mortality (19ᵗʰ c.) did the calculus shift towards smaller families; thus the pre-industrial pattern is unambiguously characterised by large, labour-oriented households rather than deliberately small ones.
In recent decades, most of the world population growth is happening in:
1
| done |
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
Alright, buckle up for a joyride through demography—because nothing says “good times” like birth rates and mortality curves. In the grand theatre of global population dynamics, the spotlight these days painfully shines on the developing world. Here’s the grim rundown:
1. Demographic Momentum
Many developing countries still hover in the late-transitional phase of the demographic transition model: high (though falling) fertility meets rapidly declining mortality. That means even if each woman only has, say, three children instead of six, you’re still adding millions of mouths—because last generation survived in droves. 😬
2. Age Structure Bulge
A hefty proportion of the population is under 25, which translates into a tsunami of potential parents. More adolescents → more marriages → more births, regardless of whether they really want six kids or not. Fun! 🤡
3. Socio-Economic Factors
Limited access to contraception, early marriage customs, and agricultural livelihoods that prize large families combine to keep fertility rates elevated—despite all those TED Talks on “empowering women.”
4. Contrast with Developed Regions
In the U.S., E.U., Japan, and the like, low fertility (often <2.1 children per woman) plus aging societies mean stagnation or outright shrinkage. Cue the eugenic panic about “too many retirees.” 💀
Answer: D. The poor (developing) nations 😏
What factor/s allowed the fast growth of the human population during the 20th century:
1
| done |
What was the contribution of the green revolution to population growth?
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
The Green Revolution’s contribution to population growth
Norman Borlaug’s “Green Revolution” (mid-1960s → 1980s) hinged on dwarf, high-yielding wheat and rice cultivars that responded vigorously to nitrogen fertiliser, enabling developing countries—India, Pakistan, Mexico, later parts of South-East Asia—to multiply grain output per hectare by factors of two to four within a single generation. By decoupling food supply from the Malthusian ceiling of arable land, it dramatically suppressed famine risk and permitted cumulative global population to expand from ~3 billion (1960) to > 6 billion (2000). Environmental policies, pesticide externalities and public-health side-effects were real but secondary; the primary demographic lever was the surge in caloric availability produced by modern plant breeding and intensive input packages. Hence the single best answer is the first statement (high-yield varieties increasing food supply).
Human population regulation is:
1
| done |
מיין לפי
Environmental refugees are:
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
Environmental Refugees: “Forced Rural Exodus” 🌾➡️🏙️😢
Ah, the modern tragedy: your ancestral farmlands turn to breadcrumbs of dust, so off you trudge to overcrowded cities—only to find the same smog you fled. 🎭 Let’s unpack why those fleeing dying rural areas truly fit the “refugee” label:
• Not Just a City Commute
• Choosing“cleaner neighborhoods”? That’s gentrification—pay a premium to escape a local hotspot.
• Eco‐aware folks fretting climate doom? That’s a feature on Vice, not forced displacement.
• Government‐expelled activists? Political refugees, yes—but not our category.
• True Environmental Refugees
1. Ecological Collapse
• Desertification, soil salinization, groundwater depletion turn once‐fertile land into a sterile stage. Your family’s crops can’t survive, nor can your goats. 💀
2. Livelihood Extinction
• When no harvest comes, no money flows. You can’t pay for seeds or school fees—so staying put means starvation.
3. Compelled Migration
• This isn’t wanderlust; it’s a forced voyage to the city’s margins, where you bivouac in informal settlements, chasing that ever‐elusive “urban dream.” 🌆
What the term “economies of scale” means?
1
| done | ||
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 4412
העליתי גרסה מתוקנת לשאלה הזאת - https://www.quizme.co.il/question/58151
In the species-area relationship curve, high 'Z' values (e.g., 0.6) reflects the sampling of species in:
1
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 4412
שאלה זו לא כוללת את כל התשובות שניתנו בבחינה - העליתי גרסה מתוקנת - https://www.quizme.co.il/question/58152
Which of the following polluting groups is typical for greywater?
1
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
1. Physicochemical Mayhem
• Surfactants & Detergents: Those cheery bubbles from your shampoo don’t vanish—they stick around as chemical markers (think elevated COD/BOD, foaming potential, pH swings). 🧼😬
• Nutrients & Organics: Phosphates, nitrates, fats, oils, greases—the organic buffet that wakes up downstream algae blooms like a toxic smoothie. 🍹💀
• Salts & Metals: Hard-water minerals plus trace metals from soaps, rusting pipes, and whatever your cookware shed this week.
2. Microbiological Bedlam
• Fecal Coliforms & E. coli: Yes, even “grey” water can harbor a not-so-grey hint of your toilet’s micro-escapades. 🦠🤢
• Skin Flora & Pathogens: Every wash cycle sheds bacteria, fungi, and viruses—because your epidermis is basically a petri dish.
3. Why “Ecological Parameters” Don’t Cut It
• Measuring dissolved oxygen or macroinvertebrate diversity in your bathtub effluent is like installing a disco ball in a mausoleum—technically “ecosystem,” but totally missing the point. 🙄
• Greywater isn’t a river: it’s an industrial‐strength chemical-biological assay waiting to happen.
Ecosystem services are:
1
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Ecosystem services = benefits people obtain.
At last, a definition that centres the true protagonist of nature: us. Pollination, flood mitigation, spiritual uplift—all conveniently re-branded as deliverables for Homo sapiens, because a service un-monetised is a service un-realised. By restricting the phrase to “benefits people obtain,” we keep the spotlight where it belongs and sidestep the messy question of whether ecosystems possess intrinsic value. After all, gratitude is easiest when the invoice is itemised.🫡