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
During the last 60 years the size of the world's population has:
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 4412
60 שנה -> 1960
מוניטין: 0
Ishtibachtick
מוניטין: 362
בגיל 60 - בין 3 ל7 ילדים
מוניטין: 454
הכי ספציפי
מוניטין: 454
1960 - 60
מוניטין: 0
Last 60 years: population leapt from 3 B to >7 B.
A demographic hockey stick driven by post-war medicine, green-revolution calories and cultural lag in fertility decline. Hello, Anthropocene crowding.🥵
Over the last few centuries, several things have changed in the way human societies depend on and impact ecosystems. Such change consists of:
1
| done |
It was argued that human development relies on different forms of capital:
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 354
צאט:
פיתוח אנושי מאוזן לא יכול להישען רק על כסף או תשתיות. אם אין אנשים בריאים ומשכילים – אין מי שיפעיל את הכלכלה. אם אין טבע בריא – לא יהיו משאבים לקיום בסיסי. ואם אין תשתיות – אי אפשר לנצל את ההון האנושי או הטבעי.
כל אחד משלושת ההונים תורם בזווית אחרת:
ההון האנושי = ה"מי"
ההון מעשה ידי אדם = ה"איך"
ההון הטבעי = ה"עם מה"
מוניטין: 0
‘Urban Sustainability Multiplier’
Think of it as an accountant’s legerdemain for cities: cram infrastructure and people into a smaller footprint and—voilà—resource use per capita tends to fall. The multiplier therefore points, not to sheer city size, but to the density-driven efficiency that lets one sewer pipe, power line, or bus move many more bodies. In practice, this means the concentration of urban hardware can depress per-capita ecological drag. Bigger can be greener, provided it is also tighter. 😶🌫️
The American ecological economist Herman Daily coined the terms 'empty world' and 'full world'. What was his main argument?
1
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 30
4. The American ecological economist Herman Daily coined the terms 'empty world' and 'full world'. What was his main argument?
The 21st century world is filled by too many people vs. the empty world of the past .1
2. We are entering the “full world” era, in which human capital has already allowed us to utilize every possible form of natural capital. The limiting factor of continues development may be declining natural capital
3. In an 'empty world' there are very little natural resources available
4. We are entering the 'empty world' era, in which the world is almost empty from natural resources. The limiting factor of continues development is human capital
זו השאלה כמו שהיא מופיה בEDX והתשובה הנכונה היא האפשרות השנייה
מוניטין: 354
הרמן דיילי הציג את הרעיון שבמהלך ההיסטוריה, העולם היה "ריק" — כלומר, מעט אנשים והרבה משאבים טבעיים. במצב הזה, הגורם המגביל היה ההון האנושי (ידע, טכנולוגיה, כוח עבודה).
אבל כיום אנחנו חיים ב"עולם מלא" — הרבה אנשים, הרבה תעשייה, הרבה צריכה — וההון האנושי כבר מאפשר לנו לנצל כמעט את כל המשאבים. לכן, הגורם המגביל כיום הוא דווקא ההון הטבעי — מקורות כמו מים, אוויר נקי, שטחים פתוחים, דגה, יערות וכד'.
מוניטין: 0
1 — Herman Daly’s “empty/full-world” one-liner, delivered with a straight face
We are already living in the “full world”: clever primates have picked the biophysical cupboard clean, so the only scarce commodity left is un-wrecked nature.
• 1960s Daly: “Population and throughput still fit inside the planetary box.”
• 2020s Daly (if he’d had Twitter): “Nice GDP you’ve got there; pity about the degenerating soils, tanking fisheries and CO₂ at 420 ppm 🚬.”
• Translation: in the empty world the limiting factor on development was people + tools; in the full world the choke-point is biophysical headroom.
• Sub-text: no amount of coding boot-camps, MBA programs or “up-skilling” webinars will manufacture phosphorus, old-growth forest structure or a second ice sheet.
• Executive summary for the inattentive: the planetary credit card is maxed; the next purchase will decline — with interest.
What kind of indirect drivers are shaping human dependence and impact on the natural systems?
1
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 354
גורמים עקיפים כמו דמוגרפיה, כלכלה, פוליטיקה, תרבות, דת וטכנולוגיה משפיעים על ההתנהגות האנושית, וכך קובעים כמה אנחנו תלויים בטבע וכמה אנחנו פוגעים בו. למשל, גידול אוכלוסין מגביר צריכת משאבים, מדיניות ממשלתית יכולה להגן או להזיק לטבע, וטכנולוגיה מתקדמת עשויה לצמצם נזקים סביבתיים.
The demographic transition model divides demographic trends into the following stages:
1
| done | ||
What was Thomas Malthus main argument?
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 265
השנה (נכון לפברואר 2020) השאלה בבוחן המסכם הייתה קצת שונה:
סעיף ב-
He argued that continuous population exponential growth will bring human society to a point of collapse as the growth of available natural resources is slower
סעיף ד -
He argued that humans will develop new technologies, which will allow the production of sufficient amounts of food to supply the growing demand
מוניטין: 0
Thomas Malthus’s Grand Gloom:
Ah yes, Mr. Malthus—the original doomsayer who looked at humanity and said, “You see all those people? They’ll eat the planet bare.” 😈 His punchy thesis in An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) boiled down to:
• Geometry vs. Arithmetic: Human numbers grow geometrically (1, 2, 4, 8, 16…), while food production creeps along arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5…).
• The Inevitable Check: Sooner or later, there simply isn’t enough grain to feed the hordes—cue famine, disease, war, and a hearty cull of the species.
• Collapse over Conquest: Unlike the techno-optimists who think we’ll magic up endless hydroponics, Malthus bet his quill on limits—unchecked growth = societal meltdown.
Correct Choice: “He argued that continuous population growth will bring human society to a point of collapse.” 🤡💀
What is the meaning of the term 'the tragedy of the commons'?
1
| done | ||
Our behavior and its environmental implications is shaped by:
1
| done |
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Determinants of environmentally relevant behaviour
Empirical research in environmental psychology and ecological economics converges on a multi-layered causal model: individual norms and values (shaped by education, awareness campaigns, cultural narratives and religious world-views) set a cognitive framework; the built environment and its infrastructures (availability and quality of public transport, waste systems, renewable-energy options) supply or constrain behavioural affordances; and price signals plus regulatory architectures translate externalities into tangible costs or incentives. These domains interact dynamically, so any comprehensive account of why people act sustainably—or fail to—must invoke all three. In short, environmental behaviour is co-produced by socio-cultural cognition, material context and economic-institutional drivers; isolating one factor grossly oversimplifies the behavioural ecology of modern societies.
Sustainable Development has been defined as:
1
| done |
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
The Brundtland touchstone of sustainable development
The now-canonical wording from the 1987 Brundtland Report—“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”—was deliberately crafted to reconcile intra-generational equity (poverty alleviation today) with inter-generational equity (ecological integrity tomorrow). It embeds a dual obligation: economic and social progress must be pursued, yet only within ecological limits that preserve natural capital, option value and life-support services for posterity. This formulation therefore transcends narrower growth-centric, present-centric or purely conservationist definitions by insisting on a cross-temporal, three-pillar balance (economic, social, environmental).