0
What else can I help you with?
Has a Human impacted on the Great Barrier Reef?
Yes, but mostly in negative ways. We pollute, cause gloabl warming, and over fish.
Is gloabl warming real?
# global warmin is a big hoax created by scientists and the gouvernment. and if littering is a big deal then littler pickers should tudy up, that is what they get payed for.
Is a gloabl effort in which bioengineers are creating realistic computer simulations of all systems and features of the human anatomy?
The Human Physiome Program is a global effort in which bioengineers are creating realistic computer simulations of all systems and features of the human anatomy.
What is the difference between multi domestic companies and a global company?
A multi domestic company adapt is offer worlwide to every different market it s targeted whereas a gloabl company have the same standardized offer everywhere, it means that wherever u are in the world, the product u find from a specific brand will have the same packaging, taste, colour etc.... like I-Pod is a product of a global company but Coca Cola is from a multi domestic , (example . in Mexico the coca cola is much more sweet than in Europe, this is the result of market studies that said that Mexican people were fond of sweet meals)
What is the destructive power of an atomic bomb?
Answer:The total global nuclear arsenal is about 30,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive capacity of 5,000 megatons (5,000 million tons of TNT). An air burst (detonating a bomb above the surface) would produce far more damage and death via radioactive fallout than one detonating at ground level.A single 100 megaton air burst would be enough to cause a nuclear winter and pollute the Earth for many many years. Theoretically, a 100 megaton bomb detonated below ground could produce a massive earthquake and the constant explosions of a full blown nuclear war may also cause numerous earthquakes around the globe. But this would not destroy the world nor all human life.Globally there are not enough nuclear bombs to completely kill every human. The Tsar Bomb (largest bomb ever detonated) had a fallout of 1000 square kilometres, and was 50 MT. The world is close to 150 million square kilometres, and the human population covers close to 18 million square kilometres.Therefore to get a rough idea we can say hypothetically that the 5000 megatones of nuclear warheads was 100 Tsar Bombs (the same value in megatons). If these bombs were detonated their total radioactive fallout would cover 100,000 square kilometres.It may be surprising to hear that this covers less than 1% of the area that the human population covers, which should give a general idea of the miniscule size of impact this would have on the total world's surface. Therefore it can be shown that we do not have the capacity at the moment to destory the world with nuclear warheads.However, there are factors we have overlooked, which include:- Tsar Bomb has a very small radioactive fallout in comparison with its megatone value- Nuclear wardheads can be assumed to target densly populated locations, and- Nuclear winter which would result in the radioactive falloutTo put curiousty to rest, even if we replaced our Tsar Bomb equation with nuclear warheads that had a higher radioactive yield to fulfill the 5000 megatons gloabl nuclear arsenal we would still not come close to the amount of radioactive fallout required to cover the area the human population covers, let alone destroy the world.If nuclear warheads were targeted at densly populated locations it would increase the fatalities of a nuclear war, however this would still not wipe out humanity, let alone destory the world.Nuclear winter can in lamer terms be contrasted with the ice age. The ice age did not destory the world, and did not wipe out all life, therefore neither would nuclear winter. Humanity is extremley resilient, and although many of the world's population die due to starvation if they did not die from the initial nuclear war or radiation, life will find a way.-----------------------------You forgot to take into account the amount of radiation there would be if more than one detonated at a single time.My U.S. History teacher told us that if 8 nuclear bombs went off at roughly the same time, it would kill 95% of life in planet Earth.
Should tribes be left alone?
This is an ethical question without an objective, neutral answer; you will need to come up with your own answer depending on what you believe to be morally right. However, here are some things that should be considered: 1. "Tribe" is a tricky word to define. It can connote something literal about the political structure, like the number of people in a group and how they are organized. In traditional ethnography, it refers to a group of a few hundreds to a few thousands, led by a chief or headman whose authority is tied to his or her personal prestige, and whose position is not inheritable by their children. "Tribe" can also refer to one's identity and lineage; for instance, in many modern societies, people know that they belong to a certain tribe because their family is descended from it, regardless of their current political situation. For someone who idenitifies themselves as belonging to a tribe, this is most often what they mean. They come from this tribe and are the carriers of its beliefs and traditions. In law, it can refer to membership in a group recognized by a government as having some kind of right to autonomy due to their status as indigenous occupants of the land; this is what "federally recognized tribe" means in US law. It can also be a somewhat pejorative term used to refer to any group following a traditional indigenous lifestyle, and because of this, many people consider the term offensive. 2. Everyone who lives in a "tribe" also lives in the same world as you, facing many of the same realities and opportunities. Even in the ancient world, we were all connected to each other by chains of political relaitionships and shared traditions. Nowadays, gloablaization and the expansion of historical, political, and economic empires have made the planet even more interconnected. Anywhere you go in the world, mastery of dominant political discourses and the accumulation of wealth in the form of currency are critical to one's success and happiness. It is probably impossible for any group to be fully "left alone", since everyone is affected strongly by global political and ecological realities. On the other hand, the weight of responsibility of carrying on traditions and beliefs is not an unimportant consideration. To the extent that a tribe integrates into wider gloabl societies, there is a risk of losing the knowledge and unique perspective gained by living in a place for generation after generation. There are also economic and political costs to participating in global economy and politics, when one is starting from a disadvantaged position, as most tribal nations have. The realities of your life are strongly determined by your placement in the "First", "Second", or "Third Worlds". As occupants of disadvantaged regions within First World nations, many indigenous peoples say that they constitute a "Fourth World", one adjacent to the prosperous capitalist powerhouses but never quite allowed (or necessarily willing) to participate in them the same way a citizen of those countries would do. 3. The language this question uses is actually somewhat troubling, because it suggests that tribal societies are something to be "decided about" by elites in state socieites, rather than groups who have the ability to determine their own role in the world. If indeed you feel that "tribes" are groups who ought to have certain autonomous rights, (it seems to this editor that) one of the natural rights they ought to have is to decide for themselves the degree to which they will or will not participate in the political and economic life of their nation and planet.
