Student Learning Objectives 3

This article on Scientific American briefly talks about how China is looking for a
greater leap in the economy for globalization. However, the process is harsh and
especially the Greenhouse Emissions to the world. As the world knows, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions contributes to global warming, which can cause serious nature disruptures,
breaking the ecosystems and as well as causing severe species to be endangered. As the
article was released in 2009. However, this problem does not stop, and it is currently
ongoing. With the world on a heavy demand, China is mass producing the consumer
goods to the world every day with increasing numbers. Since the activity for
globalization happens in China back in the late 1990s, the action took China with the
leading GDPs in the world today. As a result, the economy went up rapidly and as well as
a rapid decay of the environment. Several environmental issues happen every day, and all
of them can contribute to a worldwide issue. For example, just the Greenhouse Gas
emissions can cause Global Warming; it could happen as quick as a decade of years.
Ecosystems will be broken, and the spices will be endangered. With that, globalization
between China and the rest of the world today will face difficulties fixing or protecting
the environment. Due to the different policies and different law fields, no one can do
anything to protect the environment. Mainly, other people in the world today believe it is
not a serious problem or not related. Once again, globalization brought all of us to one
net but we also need to work as one when we see difficulties coming up.

Discussion Post from Candice S.

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/ (Links
to an external site.)
The recent problem that the modern fishing industry is facing today is depletion and
extinction of fish in our oceans. If this trend of overfishing continues then by the year
2048 ALL edible fish will be fully depleted. This includes tuna, yellowtail, halibut...you
get the picture. A good example is the codfish depletion that happened in Canada in 1992.
For decades the fish population seemed plenty, but after years of over fishing it led to a
total depletion of cod and many fishermen lost their jobs and the economy suffered in
Canada as a result. Today the problem is mainly caused by pirate fishermen, subsidies to
foreigners in developing countrie, and massive catching of juvenile species. .This is a
problem for globalization because all countries will be affected by it and even if it starts

in one location it will spread because all species in the ocean are interdependent on each
other for food.
My reply to her:
Hi C.Marie,
First of all, a very interesting question and also a very interesting topic that people every
day faces. Most people today dont even have an idea about this on-going issue. As you
mentioned, all of the edible fish will be fully depleted by 2048. People still consume a big
chunk of them. Ultimately, we are breaking the oceans ecosystem.
As I would suggest to fix or solve this issue. A better management or agency will be
formed in this case. Even different countries have different laws, beliefs, religions, and
cultures; we will need one universal organization to manage this issue. I would propose
that all of the countries who have or currently in the participation of fishing industry will
have someone to step up to meet in a world level meeting. Then, they will discuss the
benefits and the horrible results of fishing. Even private Fisher pitches will be included
for the meeting. There will be a law going to be passed to prevent depletion. Also, the
ecosystem of the ocean should also be protected. After all of the countries representatives
gathered for the meeting, we will decide a bottom line of the percentage of fishing can
have a yearly basis. Every year, the meeting will be held in place, and the countries must
report the exact number. At the end of the line, socially, the countries will be having
regulations to the finishing industry. Economically speaking, the countries that relied on
fishing for the economy, they will have the options to protect the ecosystems in the
ocean. They will have learning sites instead of fish production sites. People all over the
world can travel there, and that will ultimately boost the economy. Culturally, those
countries with the backgrounds of consuming fish can also keep consuming, just as long
as there is a limit that every country can have in the law that is passing. Most importantly,
all of the agreements between Fisher places and production companies will be regulated
by the new organization. Each country will handle not regulating. Penalties such as force
shutting down a production, a market, and even a fishermans port is on duty after the
law.

My research questions for you:

1. Why would there be possible unfair agreements between the fishing companies?
Are there any governmental regulations or political issues that could cause that to
happen?
2. How would people from all over the world learn the ecosystem of the ocean? Most
importantly, how would they understand the effects could have if an ecosystem is going
to be broken/ have already been broken?

Discussion Post form Kimberly H.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-syria-refugee-toddler-drowned-20150903story.html (Links to an external site.)

The news article that I read is about a Syrian little boy, Aylan, who was found dead
washed up on a Turkish beach. He and his family members but the father also parished in
the sea due to European smugglers forcing them and other migrants to float around on
inflatable life rafts. The father hopes that the world would show attention to the growing
crisis of prominent European smugglers. The family along with more than 2,5000
migrants were escaping Syria to refugee camps due to the civil war that started in 2011.
Children involved in a war crisis should not have to suffer and face the chance of death
not knowing what the world is like.

My reply to her:
Hi Kimberly,
First of all, great topic. I also read this about a few weeks ago, and I feel bad for the boy.
Yes, globalization brought all of the nations who are willing to participate to the net;
however, religious issues and other cultural backgrounds still is an unsolvable problem
nowadays. Just like this instant, people who seek for safer places are not having the rights
to do so and most refugees are not welcomed. Kurdis family is one of the tragic ones.
The question now is which country is willing to take the refugees and migrants? The
article also stated that people are not having hopes to this kind of events because they
simply are the victims of the civil war.
However, there should be a possible proposal to this. I would suggest that people,
especially around the area, start to accept the refugees. In fact, all of the surrounding
countries should offer something for them. It is sad to see It is unacceptable that we have
children dying like this in the 21st century, and I think nowadays we can solve this. My
proposal would be letting the countries around the Middle East group up. I think the
United Nations and the Security Council tried enough to do something to prevent,
however, due to cultural or religious reasons, they arent enough. So, based on the theory
of culture realm, (culture realm is a region in which most of the population shares a
similar culture). Middle East Countries are shared the same culture, and some of the
countries are much peace and well-developed than the others. Have these countries step

out and form an organization. Socially, the governments can all contribute to providing
shelters for the people. Religiously and culturally, have the peaceful countries to spread
the peace concept. The people will understand each others because they shared the
similar interests. Economically, have the organization fund the individual refugees and
provide opportunities for them. In the long term, the economy will boost up by having the
refugees in the country. Even further, there mighty be particular scholars as well! If Syria
against these methods, well just wait the refugees to escape to the border and the
organization is ready to help.

My research questions for this topic:

1. How can the refugees gain possible better survival rates in the new country if they
successfully escaped?
2. Why should the neighbor countries help the refugees in the first place? Any moral
or special considerations?