Globalization Economy Nicaraguan

Globalization Economy Nicaraguan Globalization has had a great impact in the modern world, and has even come to affect the economy of several Latin American countries. However, has globalization affected the Nicaraguan Economical panorama? In order to answer this question, it is important to take Nicaraguas history into account, a history that has been smeared with endless corruption. Another idea that must be kept in mind is the term â€Å"globalization† has numerous amounts of definitions, so in order to identify the answer; a proper definition must be structured. Within the context of globalization, it is trivial to identify if the key treaties like the ALBA and the CAFTA have had any significant effect on the Nicaraguan economy. Through a careful evaluation, it will be noticed that Globalization has not had an impact in the Nicaraguan Economy yet; however the roots of globalization can already be traced to the economy. One of the limitations found in this research paper was the gathering of different sources from the rural sectors of the country, as the rural perspective of this essay is of much importance to define if globalization has affected Nicaragua or not. Introduction Globalization has started to influence the Nicaraguan economic scheme from the beginning of the 21st century. The Nicaraguan population should ask themselves if globalization would aid the economic stance they are in. Another question that must be asked is if the new trade agreements will benefit or harm the private sector of the rural Nicaraguan farmers. The last question to be answer is, â€Å"Globalization from what side?† as the American Hemisphere seems to be structured with a strong Capitalist giant on the top, The United States of America, and numerous amounts of underdeveloped Socialist countries, which can be said to be most of South America, consisting of Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Bolivia, Uruguay all have socio-democratic governments, that exercise populist tendencies. Another point that should be kept in mind is the choice between the ALBA and the CAFTA, as the socio-democratic alignment that Nicaragua currently has should be kept in mind. Both treaties should be considered in the â€Å"global† sense as there are currently four enlisted countries in the ALBA agreement, which are Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador; while the CAFTA is conformed of The United States, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Dominican Republic and Costa Rica. The main concern in regards to globalization may not even be of an economic impact, but rather on of an ideological degree. The Nicaraguan populations view on globalization is of a loss of national pride, as if the United States would take over the countrys economy; which to some extent is true. The ideological conflict, however, stands on whether to be a nationalist, a socialist or a capitalist. Nicaraguas preferences must be examined in order to determine if globalization will have an effect in the Nicaraguan economy. Nicaragua has a long history of corruption that can be traced back to the 1930s with the Somoza dynasty, and can then be followed along the list of Somoza family members onto the Sandinista Mandate and then into the 21st century with the newly elected â€Å"liberal parties†. It is important to recognize Nicaraguas background in order to determine if Globalization will benefit or harm the economy. In order to truly define the â€Å"sort† of globalization that suits Nicaragua best, a definitely structured definition must be established, as â€Å"globalization† is wide in the range of it meaning. Definition of Globalization The definition of globalization can be branched into three main concepts. The first of the concepts can be referred to as the â€Å"broad† point of view, in which globalization is interpreted without inclinations towards the foreign or domestic perspectives. In this notion, we call â€Å"globalization† when a company or multi-national industry invests capital in a usually underdeveloped economy such as Nicaragua. The other two perspectives stray apart when the question of â€Å"why would the companies invest in underdeveloped countries?† is asked. The â€Å"Imperialist† perspective bases itself on the moral principal of stimulating under developed countrys economies. In this lay out, a corporation such as Nike sets out a factory in the under developed country in order to provide jobs for the grand unemployed population. By providing such work, the corporation is thus permitted to pay low fees to its new employees. If a company does not wish to set up a factory in a new location, they can still enter the local markets through Commerce treaties. In Nicaragua there are two possible treaties, the CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) and the ALBA (Alternativa Bolivariana), the CAFTA being the most suitable, as it permits United States owned companies to compete in local markets. Taking the Imperialist point of view, the local population is given new choices in the market from which to buy from, choices that are sometimes less expensive and thus more economically feasible for a greater part of the population. The â€Å"Anti-imperialist† perspective, otherwise known as the down side to globalization, regards globalization as â€Å"Economic terrorism†. This point of view focuses on the injustices that these corporations bring upon the under developed countries. The first injustice is the claim that these companies pay a misery of a fee to the employees thus only keeping them busy instead of â€Å"feeding them†, reason for why this low pay condition is usually referred to as a â€Å"Sweat-Shops†. The most impacting injustice would be the fact that these corporations are allowed to compete in local markets. The reason for this claim is that the foreign companies offer products of a cheaper nature, and therefore encourage the local merchants to buy foreign products instead of local ones. Once the local products are not consumed, the national domestic companies thus run out of business placing people out of work. The only form of globalization encouraged in Nicaragua, is one through the ALBA agreement, as the conditions in this treaty are of Self-Growth concepts between allied Latin American countries Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. Nicaraguas Economic Background during the Somoza era and the Sandinistas. In the 1936, the Nicaraguan population elected Anastasio Somoza Garcia to power. At this moment, the Nicaraguan economy is on the rise. The main exports were cattle and coffee, settling Nicaragua as one of the richest countries of Central America in the first half of the 20th century. Somoza Garcia, however set Nicaraguas faith by providing the United States with raw materials during World War Two for the Allied war effort. This close association with the United States set the Nicaraguas economical and political dependence to the will of the United States. During his presidency; however, he did not increase the Nicaraguan Economy to a significant degree, instead hes main dedication was of a personal extent. Somoza Garcias tactics consisted of diverting government funds to his own accounts, and purchasing government lands at ridiculously low prices. While the Nicaraguan economy remained at a flat constant, Somoza Garcias personal Bank accounts were at an all time raise. During the wartime, he attained numerous facilities to which income was due, facilities such as a cement factory, the national railroad, a cement factory, most textile plants, several electric power companies, the national airlines, and an extensive control over the banks. His personal income, after World War Two, was estimated to have been of 60 million dollars. After Somoza Garcias death in 1956, his younger son Anastasio Somoza Debayle took control of the presidency and succeeds his father in power. A few years later, after a rigged election, Luis Somoza Debayle, Anastasio Somozas older son, took control of the Nicaraguan presidency. During Luis Somozas presidency, the Nicaraguan economy was hit with a drop in Coffee production, as now the competitions for their main product had been expanded onto other locations and were purchased at even lower prices, causing Nicaragua to drop prices as well. It wasnt the coffee drop, however, that caused many grievances to the Nicaraguan Economy, it was the 1972 Earthquake that caused $15 million in damages. Richard Nixon, however, aided the Nicaraguan government with a donation of $50 million. The Nicaraguan Treasury only reported $17 million of that donation, while the other $33 million was believed to be in Luis Somozas personal bank accounts abroad. It was until 1980 that the Somoza dynasty was replaced by another sort of mandate, a leftist government. In 1980, the United States lifted its â€Å"protective shield† over the Somoza family and allowed internal social conflicts to rise out of control. Luis Somoza was then pressured by the United States to leave Nicaragua with the threat of freezing bank accounts that were located in United States banks. The country was therefore left in the hands of the Revolutionary party F.S.L.N (Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional, which is translated to â€Å"Sandinista Front, for National Liberation†), which was commanded by Daniel Ortega. At the moment the F.S.L.N gained presidential authorities, the economic situation had an incredible deficit as major loans were issued from the World Bank. The F.S.L.N, or the Sandinista party for short, did not play a significant role for the Nicaraguan Economy, as their main intentions remained to â€Å"restore the social injustice†. Governmental and private lands were both confiscated and given to the Nicaraguan population as a sort of Land Reform. Not all the land was given to â€Å"the people†, most of it was kept by the high ranking officers such as Daniel Ortega, his brother Humberto Ortega, his right-hand man Tomas Borge and several other Sandinista generals. The countrys economic status dropped from being one of the richest countries in Central America, to being the poorest in the American Hemisphere, preceding only Haiti on the list. It is said by the Director of the Nicaraguan Economic Institute during the 1980s, father Xabier Golostiaga, that â€Å"the Sandinista government, when they took power, found a country with no financial resources†, and also stated that only 3.5 million dollars were found from the 19 banks that were nationalized; however, according Father Golostiaga, Nicaragua inherited a debt of $1.6 billion dollars, while more than half of that money was never used on the Nicaraguan grounds. Even though the Sandinista government is still regarded as a group of â€Å"bandits† in Nicaragua, they did relieve a great percentage of the external debt that Nicaragua had attained during the Somoza dynasty. At the beginning of the Sandinista mandate, influences shifted from the United States the Soviet Union. Nicaragua would engage in trade with the USSR instead of the United States, as the United States had placed Nicaragua in a sort of Financial Boycott. Once the Cold War was over, and ties with the USSR started to shed, the Sandinista government seemed to lose its grasp over the governmental panorama. In 1990, the Sandinista government accepted elections to go forth, losing to candidate Violeta Barrios de Chamarro of the U.N.O party (National Opposition Union). The Nicaraguan Economic panorama (between 1991 and 2007). In 1991, after the Nicaraguan Revolution and the decline of a communist dictatorship, finally, the first liberal government was established during the globalization era. The UNO mandate, cleared much of the economic rubble that the Sandinista dictatorship had left behind. During Violeta Barrioss presidency, she was denied compensation by the United States for damages during the â€Å"Contras† period. After this, donations from European countries were effected, as Nicaragua still remained the worlds second poorest country. It can be said that Nicaragua was institutionalized in a sort of rehabilitation for 7 years in order to get on its feet again. Seven years later, elections were carried out and the Nicaraguan , where people elected Arnoldo Aleman as president from the Liberal Constitutional Party (PLC). At this moment the economy was â€Å"up and running†; and was receiving donation from developed countries, receiving the most from Spain. Besides the flow of income, due to chronic corruption during his government, a 50 million dollar deficit was filed. Arnoldo Aleman had been diverting governmental funds to a private bank account in Switzerland and was arrested for corruption, and money laundry. Corruption had once again been in the hands of a single man. In 2001, Nicaragua saw yet another election, in which Arnoldos vice-president was elected president, president Enrique Bolanos. Nicaraguas economy suffered a stalemate, as president Bolanoss presidency served to â€Å"clean the corruption of the political panorama† and to pay off most of the debts that Nicaragua has inherited during the Sandinistas regime and the Somoza dynasty. The Economic effects of the ALBA and the CAFTA agreements. The CAFTA and the ALBA treaties share similarities within their texts; however, both treaties are approached from different perspectives. The ALBA treaty, is not just considered a treaty, according to Hugo Chavez, it is a bond between Latin American countries, and as Chavez stated: â€Å"Latin America will save itself alone†. So far, there are only 5 members to the ALBA treaty, which members are: Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela. The CAFTA on the other hand is seen as simply a â€Å"treaty† between the United States and Central America and the Dominican Republic. This approach by the United States has â€Å"scared off† most of the trust among the population, as it suits the symptoms of an economically manipulative doctrine. The points of the CAFTA are expressed as follows: President Hugo Chà ¡vez in his intervention in ALADI has summarized the principals ALBA as the following topics: 1. To promote the fight against the poverty 2. To preserve the autonomy and Latin American identity 3. The transference of technology, the technical assistance 4. The formation of human resources 5. To prioritize national companies us public beings suppliers 6. The agreements could not be obstacle to the diffusion of the scientific and technological progress 7. To face the abuse of the monopolies and oligopolies through effective mechanisms that assure fare competition 8. The foreign investors will not be able to demand the countries by the handling of state monopolies of public interest 9. Treatment special and differentiated to unequal economies to open opportunities to the weakest 10. Process of wide social participation, which can be characterized like democratic 11. Economic, social, cultural and civil rights should be interdependent, indivisible and can not be waived 12. The commercial interests of the investors will not be able to have supremacy over the human rights or over the sovereignty of the States 13. Creation of founds of structural convergence for the correction of asymmetries The different definitions of Globalization must be kept aside when comparing the ALBA and CAFTA, as the goal of a foreign agreement is to aid Nicaraguas economy regardless of ideological opinion. The CAFTA is regarded as the treaty that puts forth the â€Å"Americanization† of a country, as on the contrary, the ALBA encourages Nationalistic growth. The CAFTA agreement encourages United States corporations into investing their capital in underdeveloped countries in exchange for tax liberation, lower employee costs, and a guarantee in case of corporate loss due to a social instability. The preamble of such documents states: â€Å"The CAFTA is designed to eliminate tariffs and trade barriers and expand regional opportunities for the workers, manufacturers, consumers, farmers, ranchers and service providers of all the countries.† The CAFTA, however, interferes with the local market thus damaging the economy anyway, as the bankrupted domestic companies are fully taxed and pay proper salaries to their employees, when I the other hand the foreign corporations pay miserable fees and when in regard to domestic re-investment, the it is unclear of how much of the companys profits are to be invested. Nicaragua has approved the CAFTA; however it has not been publicly accepted, as in Nicaragua, the CAFTA can be understood in the context of a US strategy to divide opposition in negotiations for other larger trade agreements. Instead of aiding US companies, the objective of the ALBA agreement is to promote cooperation and collective development of the region with an emphasis on fighting poverty and social exclusion. The general feel of the can be appreciated in Venezuelan president Hugo Chavezs opening remark at the United Nations: ALBA is not an agreement of the elite. ALBA is born from down below, from the grassroots of the population, without the people no union would be possible and that is one of the criticisms that we have always made of other integration efforts. The objective is not necessarily to maintain high economic statistics or attract investment, but rather to benefit our populations, so that they have health care, education, jobs, and so they can get out of poverty. Another factor about the ALBA and the CAFTA that must be kept in mind is the alignment is the political alignment that Nicaragua maintains of a socio-democratic regime that owes alliances to Venezuela and Cuba, as the Sandinista party owed much of their existence to Cuba during the Cold War. Due to these populist tendencies, it could be said that, the ALBA is the more appropriate treaty to sign. Socio-Economic Perspective of Globalization It is of public knowledge in Nicaragua that most of the populations regard Globalization as â€Å"not welcome†. The socio-economic perspective of Globalization can be seen from two lights the rural and the industrial perspectives. The rural perspective of globalization can be expressed as the lower classs point of view, while the industrial would affect the middle and upper classes. In short, both of these perspectives contain the entire range of the Nicaraguan society. The people that constitute the rural perspective, also known as the Nicaraguan Farmers, do not welcome globalization because of the economic impact that it will cause society. For most farmers in the outskirts of Managua and on the borders of the country, the prices set by the CAFTA are below the prices they have been used to deal with, meaning that there will be an economic impact for that sector of society. The rural branch of society represents about 70% of the Nicaraguan population, meaning that to off-set an economic pendulum from this side will affect the countrys economy greatly. The industrial perspective of the socio-economic side to globalism might actually benefit from the â€Å"no tariff† agreements as machinery and foreign goods might be less expensive to ship in, and national products will be easier to export. The industrial sector of Nicaragua can be said to constitute by 30% of the population, however, even though it is a minority in regards to the rural sector, the industrial sector represents about 50% of the Gross domestic Product in Nicaragua. The choice between which treaty to chose seems to be the more difficult question as the ALBA benefits the rural sector with its standard wages, while the CAFTA would cause a significant impact in the economy. The industrial sector on the other hand would benefit from both the CAFTA and the ALBA, as the free commerce agreement of â€Å"no tariffs† would mean that the import export of Nicaragua will of a wider range. The issue in mind however, remains on the ideological alignment concern. The rural sector of the Nicaraguan population belongs to a new mix of ideologies, a mix of neo-socialistic liberalism, where a sense of national pride and populism makes the number one goal to push on the Nicaraguan economy. The CAFTA is not appreciated in this perspective as it is seen as an agreement that binds Nicaragua to the will of the United States prices and tariffs, therefore permitting the Unites States to have a sort of control over the Nicaraguan Economy. Nicaragua has already felt the United States economical grasp in the 1970s during the Sandinista government, where the United States employed a boycott on Nicaragua. The sense of resentment has not left the Nicaraguan panorama yet, which means it might take a long time for the CAFTA to be approved by the population. The ALBA in the other hand, is more widely accepted as it involves direct proposals by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. In current times, Nicaragua has approved both the CAFTA and the ALBA, the differences, however, are only visible in regards to the material â€Å"gifts† provided by Hugo Chavez. On the Economical perspective, both the ALBA and the CAFTA have not made and impact. Both treaties have rendered the Nicaraguan economy with the same Gros Domestic Product than the year before their signing. Conclusion Nicaragua has been a signatory of the CAFTA for over 3 years now and has also been a signatory of the ALBA treaty for over 1 year now; however both these treaties have not saved Nicaragua from the enormous deficit that it faces. In conclusion, it can be said that Globalization will have an impact in the Nicaraguan Economy in the long-run; however, in regards to Globalism of the Socio-democratic sphere, the Latin American countries should remain united and try to roll back influences from the United States in order to be financially dependent on its own. Nicaragua needs to be financially independent, however, in its current economical state; it cannot stand on its own two feet, which means it should have the temporary support of a greater power. The choices are obviously dived between the CAFTA and the ALBA, which are obviously a reflection of the United States and Venezuela. In the wider-picture, the choice between the ALBA and the CAFTA is the choice between Capitalist democracy and a socio-Populist democracy. The relationship between Nicaragua and the United States has not been as strong as the 1930s in the time of Anastasio Somoza Garcia. The constant intervention from the United States in Nicaragua has rendered a sense of mistrust. In actuality, the CAFTA seems like another brick to the wide and high wall that the United States has been building over Latin America, the first brick being the Monroe Doctrine, which guaranteed the United States right to intervene in any Central American nation if its freedom was being threatened. Even though Nicaragua is a signatory of both the ALBA and CAFTA treaties, so far the ALBA has aided the Nicaraguan economy more than the CAFTA, due to the multiple â€Å"gifts† given by Hugo Chavez to the Republic of Nicaragua, gifts such as Oil Plants. The bottom line, nevertheless, stays the same; Globalization will have an increasing effect on the Nicaraguan economy. Bibliography http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/CAFTADR_Final_Texts/Section_Index.html http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2360 Ministro de Estado de Venezuela para la Bancoex, Integracià ³n y Comercio Exterior http://www.globalization101.org/What_is_Globalization.html http://www.newdream.org/consumer/globalization.php http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9212.html

Hybrid Cars Essay -- Gasoline Electric Hybrid Automobiles

Field Experience Report Hybrid Cars The world population is increasing at a massive rate and with the increase in population growth more space is needed for building houses, roads, schools, hospitals, etc. â€Å"The world's population will rise from 6.5 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050, according to a United Nations survey released Thursday. Much of the growth will take place in the least-developed countries, where a high rate of mortality is outweighed by an even higher rate of fertility. Their current collective population of 800 million is projected to swell to 1.7 billion in 2050.† (Wald) Human population growth can be seen as having a major impact on the environment as human activities are increasing, pollution is increasing and habitats of various living organisms are being destroyed. The worlds natural resources are being used at a much faster rate and it won’t be long before they are diminished. There is growing concerns from various groups and organizations on the impact to the environment and the living organisms and the amount pollutants produced by human activities. Global warming is one of the current environmental problems facing us today. Global warming is increase in the earth’s average temperature caused by greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons. The greenhouse gasses trap the sun’s light within the earth’s atmosphere and causes an increase in the earth’s average temperature. Global warming causes the melting of glaciers and polar ice bergs leading to an increase in sea levels, severe floods and droughts Another current environmental problem is the depletion of the ozone layer. Ozone layer in the earth’s atmosphere has a high concen... ...trieved April 10, 2008, Web site: http://www.science.org.au/nova/004/004key.htm Fong, Lesley. Personal interview. 15 Mar 2008. Hybrid Cars Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved April 13, 2008, Web site: http://www.newcarpark.com/hybrid-cars/hybridcars-advantage-disadvantage.php Hybrid Electric and Fuel Cell vehicles. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from National Renewable Energy Laboratory Web site: http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/hev/ My Car. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from RACV Web site: http://www.racv.com.au /wps/wcm/connect/Internet/Primary/my+car/advice+%26+information/ motoring+%26+the+environment/impact+of+cars+on+the+environment Prius Toyota handbook Wald, Jonathan (2005, February 25). U.N.: Population to top 9 billion by 2050. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from CNN Web site: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/24/ un.population/index.html

Student Spirituality - Got Jesus? :: Philosophy Religion

Student Spirituality - Got Jesus? You may have an idea of what’s coming here. Yes, this is an essay about religion and spirituality. When you finish reading this essay, you might say, â€Å"It’s 2005; why in the world do you care about religious crap anymore?† Or maybe, â€Å"Get down off your crucifix, man.† Or, â€Å"You’re gay. Get a life.† That one’s my favorite. But before you bust out the Bible jokes, you could try to pinpoint the reason as to why you find religious people to be odd or ridiculous. Let’s see if this sounds familiar. Let’s start when you’re little. Your parents take you to a church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever their place of worship is, and you may not really want to go. You may not even know why they take you there. All you know is that it’s more fun to go home and play video games, watch television, or play with your friends. So already, this religion crap is a pain. Strike one. It also teaches you all this garbage; that you shouldn’t lie, steal, disobey your parents, or use those nasty four-letter words. And when you’re old enough, it tells you that you shouldn’t engage yourself in some activities. You know what they are. Well, where’s the fun in any of that? Strike two. Then, when you want acceptance from the â€Å"popular kids† in middle school, you learn that they all feel the same way. They hate going to church, and following those dumb little rules, and they don’t see the point either. So that makes it official. Religious crap is a waste of time. Strike three. Then you encounter people who follow that junk like it means something. They let those ideas influence or even completely control everything they do in their life. What better a target for ridicule? Those people are so funny, the way they actually follow that crap. It makes you want to laugh. Well, if you need something to seal the deal, that’s it because you can’t bear to be ridiculed by anybody. That would be sacrilegious to your self-esteem. No pun intended. Strike four. We’re not playing baseball. That may explain it, and it may not. If not, it probably comes pretty close. Take all of that, and put it on a college campus, where beer or sex is king in some circles, and career aspirations of financial success pop up. Hopefully. The idea of even making fun of those weirdos gets buried beneath all of that. Student Spirituality - Got Jesus? :: Philosophy Religion Student Spirituality - Got Jesus? You may have an idea of what’s coming here. Yes, this is an essay about religion and spirituality. When you finish reading this essay, you might say, â€Å"It’s 2005; why in the world do you care about religious crap anymore?† Or maybe, â€Å"Get down off your crucifix, man.† Or, â€Å"You’re gay. Get a life.† That one’s my favorite. But before you bust out the Bible jokes, you could try to pinpoint the reason as to why you find religious people to be odd or ridiculous. Let’s see if this sounds familiar. Let’s start when you’re little. Your parents take you to a church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever their place of worship is, and you may not really want to go. You may not even know why they take you there. All you know is that it’s more fun to go home and play video games, watch television, or play with your friends. So already, this religion crap is a pain. Strike one. It also teaches you all this garbage; that you shouldn’t lie, steal, disobey your parents, or use those nasty four-letter words. And when you’re old enough, it tells you that you shouldn’t engage yourself in some activities. You know what they are. Well, where’s the fun in any of that? Strike two. Then, when you want acceptance from the â€Å"popular kids† in middle school, you learn that they all feel the same way. They hate going to church, and following those dumb little rules, and they don’t see the point either. So that makes it official. Religious crap is a waste of time. Strike three. Then you encounter people who follow that junk like it means something. They let those ideas influence or even completely control everything they do in their life. What better a target for ridicule? Those people are so funny, the way they actually follow that crap. It makes you want to laugh. Well, if you need something to seal the deal, that’s it because you can’t bear to be ridiculed by anybody. That would be sacrilegious to your self-esteem. No pun intended. Strike four. We’re not playing baseball. That may explain it, and it may not. If not, it probably comes pretty close. Take all of that, and put it on a college campus, where beer or sex is king in some circles, and career aspirations of financial success pop up. Hopefully. The idea of even making fun of those weirdos gets buried beneath all of that.

English Literature Essay

â€Å"Yet I seek not a fellow feeling in my misery. No sympathy may I ever find. When I first sought it, it was the love of virtue, the feelings of happiness and affection with which my whole being overflowed, that I wished to be participated. But now that virtue has become to me a shadow, and that happiness and affection are turned into bitter and loathing despair, in what should I seek for sympathy? I am content to suffer alone while my sufferings shall endure; when I die, I am well satisfied that abhorrence and opprobrium should load my memory. Once my fancy was soothed with dreams of virtue, of fame, and of enjoyment. Once I falsely hoped to meet with beings who, pardoning my outward form, would love me for the excellent qualities which I was capable of unfolding. I was nourished with high thoughts of honour and devotion. But now crime has degraded me beneath the meanest animal. No guilt, no mischief, no malignity, no misery, can be found comparable to mine. When I run over the frightful catalogue of my sins, I cannot believe that I am the same creature whose thoughts were once filled with sublime and transcendent visions of the beauty and the majesty of goodness. But it is even so; the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil. Yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone.† [Text from Mary Shelley, Frankenstein 2nd Ed (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), pg. 159 -160.] In the above passage Mary Shelley uses the monster of Frankenstein view of himself to depict some of the major themes in the novel such as monstrosity and abandonment. The themes of monstrosity and abandonment both appear repeatedly throughout the novel and can also be seen in the above quote. Monstrosity is one of the more prevalent themes in Frankenstein as the central character of the novel is a monster. Frankenstein’s creation is rejected by society because his unnatural physical appearance leads people to characterize him as a monster. Victor’s first reaction when he sees the monster is telling: â€Å"I beheld the wretch — the miserable monster whom I had created† (Shelley, 36). This further compounds the established idea that Frankenstein created a monster and as such he is treated as one. Upon entering the cottage in search of a place to rest, the monster encounters the children of the cottage. The children’s reaction when they first see the monster further demonstrates that people categorize Frankenstein’s creation as a monster because of the creatures’ physical appearance. In the text, the monster describes the children’s  reaction saying: â€Å"(†¦) their horror and consternation on beholding me. Agatha fainted; and Safie, (†¦) rushed out of the cottage. Felix darted forward, and with supernatural force tore me from his father (†¦), he dashed me to the ground, and struck me violently with a stick.† (Shelley, 94). The monster refuses to harm Felix even though he was violently attacked by him. This is shown in the following passage: â€Å"I could have torn him limb for limb, (†¦). But my heart sunk within me as with bitter sickness, and I refrained.† (Shelley, 94-95). Therefore, one can see that the perception of Frankenstein’s creation as a monster is based solely on his appearance as the characterization of the creature as a monster in complete contrast to the monster’s response, when refuses to harm the person who attacked him though he could have easily done so. Monstrosity is also demonstrated by the following quote â€Å"crime has degraded me beneath the meanest animal. No guilt, no mischief, no malignity, no misery, can be found comparable to mine. When I run over the frightful catalogue of my sins (†¦) the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil† (Shelley, 160). The author uses the language of the fallen angel and the devil as a symbol. This particular symbolism is presented as a contrast between â€Å"good† and â€Å"evil.† The monster believed himself to be an angel because of his internal characteristics though his physical appearance causes people to see him as a monster and therefore treats him as a monster. He is deeply affected by this; he fells isolated and alone and this feeling is intensified when Frankenstein refuses to create a female companion for the monster. The monster was very hurt by this and therefore he starts killing. This explains the imagery created by the author who uses the monster’s words when he states that â€Å"the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil.† The monster sins and truly becomes a monster and a devil after he begins to kill. An act that the monster w as, arguably, forced to commit because of his isolation which deeply impacted him. The abandonment of Frankenstein monster is also a recurring theme throughout the novel. The monster is abandoned by his creator and when he tries to integrate himself into society, he is shunned by the people solely because of his physical attributes which are beyond his control. He is rejected only because of his physique, an aspect of his persona that overshadows his, at first, gentle and kind nature and prevents society from seeing the good in him. This is made clear when Victor says, â€Å"When I thought of him, I gnashed my teeth, my  eyes became inflamed, and I ardently wished to extinguish that life which I had so thoughtlessly bestowed.† (Shelley, 62). Frankenstein shares similar feelings; he does not believe that he is worthy and he also feels that he should be abandoned. This is shown when he states â€Å"I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on.† (Shelley, 160). This shows the protest against the monster’s existence as the monster does not feel he is worthy and even his creator wi shes that he had not created him. The theme of abandonment is also present in the novel through the following quote â€Å"the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil. Yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone† and â€Å"I am content to suffer alone while my sufferings shall endure† (Shelley, 160). This quote is significant because when the monster speaks his tone evokes a reaction of sympathy from the audience. The sadness and loneliness in the monster’s speech can be felt by the audience and becomes intensified when he states â€Å"even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone† (Shelley, 160) the monster is communicating how alone and abandoned he feels and when he states that even people who have committed worst acts than he has, the enemies of God, have friends and he does not the audience cannot help but feel a sense of sympathy and compassion for the monster based on the tone in his language despite his physical appearance. Society’s treatment of the monster also shaped his view of himself. The monster views himself as an angel who is made into a monster â€Å"I cannot believe that I am the same creature whose thoughts were once filled with sublime and transcendent visions of the beauty and the majesty of goo dness. But it is even so; the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil.† (Shelley, 160). Frankenstein once viewed himself as a beautiful creature who was inherently good, which is demonstrated when he helped the peasants and saved the girl from drowning (Shelley, 77). However, society continually shunned and rejected the monster and he was therefore forced into solitude and this is what caused him to start committing evil acts. This is demonstrated when Frankenstein murders Victor’s younger brother, Victor’s best friend, and Victor’s wife after Victor aborts the creation of a female monster which the monster demanded so that he would no longer be in solitude. The following quote also reflects some of the sentiments that the monster experiences throughout the novel: No sympathy may I ever find. When I first sought it, it was the love of virtue, the feelings of happiness and affection with which my whole being overflowed (†¦) But now that virtue has become to me a shadow, and that happiness and affection are turned into bitter and loathing despair, in what should I seek for sympathy? This quote summarizes the emotions that the monster feels throughout the novel. One can sense the despair in his voice and that he has lost all faith that he will ever be loved and accepted by others. He has accepted that he will always be abandoned and will forever remain alone. In conclusion, the chosen passage is representative of the entire text of Frankenstein as it demonstrates some of the most prevalent themes in the novel such as monstrosity and abandonment. The text demonstrates the monster’s loneliness and other people’s belief that he is a savage. These are recurring themes throughout the novel as the monster has to constantly deal with the consequences of people’s judgment of him. These themes are also important for the body of work in general as it drives the monster and has significant influence on his actions.

Cheating Quotes Essay

Evidence 1. â€Å"There is too much competition between students, which leads to increased pressure to do well. Cheating becomes a way to get the edge over the other students in the class. In addition, the penalties for getting caught are mild.† 2. â€Å"Today there is more pressure placed on students to do well. They are expected to receive good grades, play a sport, and volunteer if they are to be looked at by a good college. With a B tainting your transcript, a college might not look at you.† 3. â€Å"Students who would usually cheat get sucked into believing it is the only way to get ahead in school: If the cheaters are doing better then they are and not getting caught, then they had better try it.† 4. â€Å"Schools are drifting away from emphasizing learning and are emphasizing the grade instead. When the thirst for knowledge is replenished in the students mind, the desire for the grade without the work will dissolve. Only then will cheating decline.† Commentary 1. Wenke is indicating that the competition to get better grades has increased, and the only way for the students to stay in the competition is to cheat. She also says that because of the competition the pressure increased which causes the students stress, which then pushes them towards cheating. The students have no fear of cheating because the penalties will not affect them or there grades in a major way. 2. Wenke is trying to show us that now education is based around getting good grades and doing well and not about getting a good education and learning. She also is saying that colleges are looking for students with better grades and people with more extracurricular activities and with out A grades colleges may not even look at your transcript. 3. Wenke is telling us that cheating is the only way students can achieve success in school. Some students try their hardest to get the best grade they can achieve, but then see that the cheaters that put in less effort and get better grades. This makes more students want to cheat because that way you could focus on other things and not only schoolwork. So Wenke is saying what is stopping the good students from trying to cheat if the cheaters are prospering while they are not. 4. Wenke is indicating that cheating will only decline if knowledge is a greater quality for students rather than getting a better grade. If all the students want only knowledge and the grades do not affect their education then there will not be as much cheating as there is now. So the end of cheating will only occur if students care more about knowledge instead of grades.

Qualites of an Effective Helper

QUALITES OF AN EFFECTIVE HELPER I believe that ill be an effective helper because I am caring trustful honest and open minded. I also know What its like self , family problems I also know the feelings of being unwanted and unloved is so Powerful that its hard to over come. I am motivated by desire to help all types of people work thought their problems no matter how big or little they are. The qualities that I have that will make me an effective helper are that I am a good listener, I am open- minded about all most everything even if I don’t really understand.I am honest and I don’t mind telling the truth to someone even if it hurts their feelings sometimes people need to hear the truth it helps them see it through someone’s else’s eyes, but I also know when to be respectful to other people needs, beliefs and values. I have had some personal problems that I think other people may have, I don’t mind sharing them with a client to show them that I have been down that road in life and with sharing I would hope that it will help our relationship.I don’t like to judge people because at some point in life everyone has had some kinds of problems and I have no right to judge we are all human we all live and learn. I have an happy go lucky presonallalliti so smiling and showing that I care comes easy for me, I have no problem putting myself on the spot to break the ice with a client. I am a patience person, I know that time is the key to help out with the relationship,, I know that it is hard to open up to someone that you think will judge you. I believe that helping a client find forgiveness it the key to most problems and that forgiving ourselves is one of the hardest things to do.I believe that everyone should have respect for all and be understanding, I try to understand everyone’s views, values and beliefs but when it comes to someone that has sexual abuse or killed a child would be really hard for me because I see ch ildren as the best gift in life, I don’t understand how any one would want to hurt them in any way. I know that they may have had it done to them . If I had to work with that has done one of those thing I would try really hard to put my feelings aside as best as I could. Nicki Prudhomme

Why Agriculture Spread During the Neolithic Revolution

Around 10,000 years ago, a dramatic transformation occurred in parts of the Near East that forever affected the human experience. These were the economic and social changes from hunting and gathering subsistence strategies, which characterised over 99 per cent of our long tenure on Earth, to ones emphasising food production and settling down in small villages. This was not an easy transition, nor was it a universal one. Once it occurred, though, it changed the course of human history. Usually known as the â€Å"Neolithic Revolution†. (Simmons 2007: 1)There has been much speculation by academics in many disciplines as to the reasons why agriculture was developed and employed throughout the Neolithic revolution; and how the agricultural developments dispersed across the globe. However, I believe that there are unanimous definitions on both the Neolithic Revolution and agriculture. Both key to the answer of this essay. I believe the Neolithic Revolution to be the first agricultur al revolution to take place globally, which led to people becoming sedentary, resorting to agriculture instead of hunter gathering and mobile communities. Gupta 2010) Cohen (1977: 1) has a similar attitude towards the definition of the Neolithic revolution as he believes it to be, â€Å"the economic and social change [] which witnessed the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture as man’s major mode of subsistence. † Agriculture, as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1973), is â€Å"the science and art of cultivating the soil, including the gathering n of the crops and the rearing of livestock†. However, I believe that agriculture includes other aspects, which link in with it to create a fully operating agricultural system.These include, ‘farming’ and ‘domestication’, both pivotal for agricultural success. Farming is described as, â€Å"the business of cultivating land and raising ‘stock’† whilst domestication is â€Å"described as the action of ‘farming or bringing under control’. (More specifically, domestication can be defined as ‘the evolutionary process whereby humans modify, either intentionally or unintentionally, the genetic makeup of a population of plants or animals to the extent that individuals within that population lose their ability to survive and produce offspring in the wild’: Blumler and Byrne 1991: 24). (Barker 2006: 2) Simmons (2007) concurs that the Neolithic revolution was a transformation of the economic system at the time, but it was also a social change in how food was used and viewed in differing ways. To fully understand the impact of agriculture to Neolithic societies, I will use case studies to highlight my points. These will include the Fertile Crescent of the Near East, believed to be the first place where the use of agriculture has been found as Barker (ibid: 11) suggests ‘that the first farming would ha ve started in the ‘Near East’.However, I will also be using case studies from Africa, specifically the Ethiopian Highlands and the Kuk Swamp in Papua New Guinea. As Cohen mentions that â€Å"the most striking fact about early agriculture, however, is precisely that it is such a universal event† (1977: 5) therefore, it will be interesting to discuss the reasons why such rapid dispersion of agricultural development occurred across the Neolithic world. Why did the people around 10,000 years ago resort to a new way of life and with new ways of feeding?A way of life that was completely different from the people before them who had undertook hunting and gathering to feed themselves; a way of life that led to the beginning of agriculture and turning from mobile to non-mobile communities; forager societies that had been, â€Å"relatively unchanged since the depths of the Ice Age†. (Bogucki 1999: 191) There are many reasons that archaeologists have discussed about why this transition occurred in what has been coined as ‘The Neolithic Revolution’. There are many reasons why this transition occurred and I will explore many of these reasons.I will be looking at the reasons that are incorporated in Barbara Stark’s (1986) three main model types, which show the transition of foraging to the production of food in an agricultural sense. â€Å"Push†, â€Å"Pull† and â€Å"social’ models are used by Stark which create an ‘umbrella’ effect on the main underlying reasons which can be incorporated to fully explore the reasons why agriculture began and how it spread across the globe. When there is stress on a population, it can lead to the population being pushed to protect themselves to ensure that the stress does not damage them.These stresses, in the cause of agricultural causation include population pressure and/or climate change. The stress imposed on the population could have led to the beginning of agriculture being used. (Stark 1986) Many archaeologists have discussed reasons why agriculture began under this umbrella of a ‘push’ model. Childe (1936) began much of the work on the origins of agriculture by developing the Oasis-Propinquity theory; a theory that incorporated a significant climatic change at the end of the Pleistocene, which had a major effect on how animals, plants and humans operated to feed.Childe created the Oasis-Propinquity theory because he believed that this climatic change caused the areas, beginning in the Near East, especially the Fertile Crescent, to become arid and dry, thus becoming deserts. Simmons (2007: 11-12) thought that the new desert conditions of the Near East was causing â€Å"plants and animals [to die] or [they were] becoming scarce. † Without the presence of water nearby to most of the humans, plants and animals in the Near East and North Africa, it led to the congregation of these creatures to areas where water wa s available, such as the desert oases in the Near East.The close proximity that the plants, animals and humans had to undertake daily, it eventually led to the domestication of plants and animals. (Simmons 2007; Bogucki 1999; Pluciennik and Zvelebil 2009) Childe (1936: 77) considers that humans, plants and animals all became â€Å"united in an effort to circumvent the dreadful power of the drought†. The Oasis-Propinquity theory by Childe is only half of the story as to why agriculture began in the Near East. With this theory in mind, the domestication of plants would have been tending to and re-planting year after year.This would have led to the creation of some form of agricultural ideas and system that would have to be used to ensure that the domesticated crops can be utilised to their optimum. This early system of agricultural development would have had to be moulded into the systems that provided significantly greater quantities of food that would be able to sustain a pop ulation that would have been growing because of the change into a sedentary lifestyle. When Childe produced the theory in 1936, his investigations would have been one of the key reasons as to why agriculture developed.Despite still being a key argument in the origin of agriculture, other academics and evidence that has come to light since Childe’s Man makes Himself. Bogucki (1999: 186-187) mentions, â€Å"The difficulty is there is no evidence of widespread desiccation during the period in question between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago. † Paleoclimatic and geomorphological evidence of Braidwood’s Iraq-Jarmo project came to the conclusion supporting Bogucki’s (1999) claim that of no evidence of widespread desiccation. (Watson 1995) As Simmons (2007: 13) suggests that â€Å"these projects [] found no support for Childe’s claim of desiccation. This lack of evidence produces a significant amount of doubt to the Oasis-Propinquity. If there wasn’t a global change in climatic behaviour, it cannot be assumed that dry conditions occurred which resulted in the congregations at oases. Also, Childe’s work puts emphasis on the domestication of primarily animals at the oases and does not hold the beginnings of plant domestication, which inevitably lead to agriculture, in high regard and it was not accredited in his work. (Watson 1995; Bogucki 1999)Despite Simmons (2007: 12) mentioning that â€Å"Childe’s model is frequently acted as one of the origins of agriculture†, I believe that due to the climatic evidence of the time disagreeing with the theory of major climatic change resulting in dry and arid conditions, the Oasis-Propinquity theory does not hold as much regard with the origins of agriculture. I feel that other reasons incorporated in the push model have a much greater impact than Childe’s theory. I believe that the evidence found throughout the Fertile Crescent proves a lacking of substance for th e Oasis-Propinquity Theory and could provide evidence against it.Through the Fertile Crescent, establishments and the societies built up within have no been on major waterways (apart from Jericho), which diminishes the theory. This is because the domestication of all the wild resources occurred without the need for a congregation of plants, animals and humans in a small area surrounding oases’. The speed of domestication of Einkorn for example, showed that this congregation did not need to occur. Einkorn could be domesticated easily due to a number of genetic loci that it was able.Wild cereals and Einkorn had very similar ancestors, which allowed domestication to occur quite easily in the Crescents. (Zohary and Hopf 1993) This shows how significant other theories were in understanding the origins of agriculture. The Hilly Flanks Theory was produced to directly contest Childe’s theory. Braidwood was not enthused with the Oasis-Propinquity theory and did not hold it in h igh regard despite it being one of the significant and key models for the origins of agriculture, and pursued answers for the agricultural origin elsewhere. Braidwood 1960; Braidwood and Howe 1960) The Hilly Flanks Theory was created because â€Å"Braidwood thought that the best place to look for early domestication was where the habitats of the wild precursors of wheat, barley, sheep and goats overlapped. [] With desiccation and other widespread climatic changes discounted as a proximal cause of agriculture, Braidwood sought an explanation in human behaviour. He suggested that food production in the Old World emerged in certain â€Å"nuclear zones† in the arc of the Taurus and Zagros mountains of the Near East known as the Fertile Crescent†. Bogucki 1999: 187) I believe that his view on agricultural origins held a decent basis, as it feels natural for first cultivations by farmers on cereals within their natural habitat. (Miller 1992: 49) Braidwood’s theory was based, quite simply, on that the habitats of the Hilly Flank became so familiar to the people who lived there, that they started to domesticate the plants and animals that lived there in their natural habitats. Archaeological sites in Papa New Guinea, especially in the Upper Wahgi Valley, hold evidence for this theory.The importance of the sites in this region cannot be understated because the evidence that has been found as it showed agricultural developments without any significant evidence to suggest social transformations. Therefore, it can be assumed that people relocated to areas of natural wild resources to undergo â€Å"animal and plant exploitation† (Denham 2011). Without evidence for climatic change, this highlights significant headway in the Hilly Flanks theory. As Simmons (2007: 14) suggests that the people on the Hilly Flank had to become â€Å" [settled] in by groups who came to understand and manipulate plants and animals around them. From Braidwood’s work on the Hilly Flank Theory, there are many assumptions to be made about the origins of the first agricultural systems and I believe that the Hilly Flank Theory holds significant worth to the argument. I believe that it would be sensible for the first farmers to begin cultivating land that they foraged on and/ or lived on as mobile communities. I think this because the ‘raw materials’ were already en situ and the farmers did not have to relocate anywhere else. However, with this idealist notion of ‘being sensible’ views can only be mentioned due to indsight and the difference in culture that we see in our western cultures today. It must be noted that with over two millennia of the populations on earth being hunter-gatherers and foragers, the idea of becoming a sedentary farmer would have been very alien to them. Braidwood’s work on the Hilly Flanks Theory and the subsequent dismissal of Childe’s Oasis-Propinquity theory resulted in a signif icant change in the way agricultural origins were looked at and discussed. However, I believe that the push model had a significant result on why the origins of agriculture were continually discussed.I also must consider population pressure as an important argument for the origins of agriculture. In the early transitional period that occurred during the Neolithic Revolution could have been that many of the populations that existed changed from being mobile communities to becoming sedentary; non-mobile communities. The population that the mobile communities had was in relation to the â€Å"mobility and flexibility of hunter-gatherer organisation† (Green 1980; Lee 1972). Green (1980) discusses that population pressure is because of the decrease (or lack of) logistical mobility.When the population causes an effect on the mobility and flexibility, it can be assumed that the sedentary lifestyle was adopted. It could be argued that with a sedentary lifestyle, the population of the community could increase exponentially as Bellwood (2005: 23) says, â€Å"any major increase in the degree of sedentism [] would have encouraged a growing population, via shorter birth intervals, and would also have placed a greater strain on food supplies and other resources in the immediate vicinity of the campsite or village†.This resulted in the development of Binford’s (1968) Population Pressure model, which; Argued that once people (the early Vatutian in the Levant) became sedentary, populations inevitably increased, leading to an increasing use of locally available plant foods, such as cereals, that had previously been considered marginal. From this intensive use of cereals, and the technology ass65ociated with this processing, a regular cycle of plants and harvesting occurred, ultimately resulting in domestication. (Simmons 2007: 15)This increase in the population could have been down to a number of reasons including; an improved and more regularity in diets, i ncreased life expectancy and fertility, greater protection from diseases and â€Å"the need for more people to assist in seasonal harvests of wild plants† (Simmons 2007: 14-15; Bellwood 2005). Flannery (1969) elaborated further on Binford’s Population Pressure model, as Miller (1992: 49) mentions that Flannery â€Å"suggested that subsistence changes that took place prior to agriculture – during the â€Å"broad spectrum revolution†, could have been a response to population growth in the marginal zone†.A significant population increase can cause dramatic effects on the resources of the surrounding area. It would have come to the point that a foraging and hunter-gathering society no longer has the ability to provide resources for the whole population and leads people to try and find other sources for the resources. These resources, which provide the basis for sustaining life, could be pushed into competitions for the resources. With such competition, I believe that with the knowledge that resources would eventually run out, the population would have resorted to basic domestication of plants and animals for more reliable sources of resources. Neilson 2006) In times where pressures on the population seem great, the adoption of agriculture can lead to too much stress being inflicted on the availability of resources on the population. Stark (1986) emphases that this could create a pushing factor onto the population into agriculture. Without the push into agriculture, the population would have ceased to exist. Despite population pressure having a obvious impact on the ability for sufficient resources to be gained from hunter-gathering, it could have lead to the adoption of agriculture.However, some do not value the Population Pressure theory and believe it â€Å"inadequate as an explanation [because] for it necessary the increased population must be a purely local phenomenon which cannot exist without [locational] factors [or const raints]† â€Å"(Bronson 1975: 74). Sauer (1952) also believes with Bronson that a resource crisis due to pressures on the population due to a significant increase was not a highlighted reason for the genesis of agriculture. Sauer makes it known that the transition that occurred in the Neolithic was due to an altering relationship and the interaction between culture and the environment.This could lead to assumptions that Sauer did not believe that the transition developed out of a lack of food and resources to the ever-growing population. Green (1980) also argues â€Å"that population growth does not necessarily precondition either innovation or increased economic productivity†. As innovation would have to be the precondition to agricultural development, Green’s argument provides significantly altering evidence, which could lead to a different viewpoint on the origins of agriculture.This change in the relationship with culture and environment led to Stark’ s pull model. This cultural change that Sauer discussed had the ability to pull people into adopting the agricultural way of life, discarding the old hunter-gathering way of life. The pull model was based on a shift towards an unprecedented reliance on specific resources, which led to an alteration in the relationship between humans, animals and plants. This reliance ensured that the population was pulled into agriculture (Stark 1986).The pull model also put emphasis on the technological innovation that was developed pre-agriculture and such technology ‘pulled’ the population into the uses of agriculture and to benefit from such implementation of agriculture. The pull model â€Å"prevents a group from reverting to its earlier pattern of resource use† and this can be why, in the eyes of those who believe the pull model was the reason for agricultural development, that the pull model was so successful, effectively pulling those in further along in advancement. Dona ld Henry (1989) proposed a â€Å"pull† model for agricultural arising in the Near East.In his view, there were two key moments in the process of agricultural origins in the Levant. The first occurred around 10,500 BC when a global temperature increase promoted long-term settlement and necessitated a shift from what Henry calls â€Å"simple† foraging to â€Å"complex† foraging. A variety of high-yield resources, including wild cereals, were exploited, and restraints on population growth were relaxed. About 2000 years later, this complex foraging system collapsed possibly as the result of a second climatic change, and the foragers had two options, depending on where they lived.In the highly productive areas of the Levant, where the highest populations were, they began to cultivate cereals. In the marginal areas, people reverted to a simple foraging system. (Bogucki 1999: 190) Henry’s continuation on Stark’s pull model shows that he believes that envi ronmental pull factors resulted in the origins of agriculture. This is especially clear in the Levant where location dominated the resource development, for example: either hunter gathering and foraging or cultivation and domestication – resulting in agriculture.It can be assumed that the majority of highly populated areas of the Levant went to cultivation and that led to the growth of domestic dwellings. Those in marginal areas would have shifted towards domestic dwellings instead of staying as a mobile community. I also believe that technological advancement had a significant impact on the origins of agriculture and the further development of agricultural ways of life. Diamond (1997a) hold technological advancement as one of three linked developments which can be included within Stark’s pull model to try and develop a reason for the agricultural genesis.Technological development allowed people greater ways to â€Å"collect, process and store foods† (Simmons 20 07: 21), which is crucial when harvesting and cultivating is used to process foods and store the years amount of food. Without this development ensuring significantly greater storage capabilities, it causes hunting and gathering daily obsolete. Technological advances created developments, which could be used to â€Å"kill or displace hunter/gatherers† (ibid: 21-22). With violence being a consequence of technology, it would have force those hunter-gatherers into some form of agricultural developments just to survive.Technological advances started to produce greater items for warfare that were superior to what hunter-gatherers were using, mainly for the collection of resources, not fighting. Also, the other variables within Diamonds reasons for the origins were that there was a significant drop in species that used to be wild and resulted in the â€Å"human occupation of available habitats in order to decrease the risk of unpredictability† (ibid: 21). With the decline of wild species, the only option for the population would be to occupy their habitats to ensure that food could be hunted.However, by moving into the habitats were wild species were growing and living, it would have led to significant domestication of the species to ensure that the food is always present. However, there is some opposition to pull models, as Green (1980) says that â€Å"invention-pull models, which attributed agricultural change to technological innovation [which resulted in] considerations of agricultural change being dependent on technological innovation were considered non explanatory because they did not deal with the causes of innovation†.By being pulled into a change, populations would not be able to revert back to their earlier systems of gathering and hunting for food. However, others believe that social changes had a significant impact on the agricultural origins and were developed as one of Stark’s models for agricultural origins – the so cial model. Within the social model, there are numerous theories as to the origin of agriculture, however, all the theories, as Bender (1978) emphasised and â€Å"found that social changes acted independent of technology and economy to create pressures in production† (Simmons 2007: 18).Similar to Bender, Tilley (1996) also believes that greater social and ideological beliefs and their significance played an overwhelming part in the domestication of food rather than economic reasons. The theories that are under the umbrella of the social model are based on social development and competition. Competition feasting was a key theory set forward for the social model.It represents food as power and has been categorised as the â€Å"â€Å"food fight† model† (Simmons 2007: 18) by both proponents and critics (Hayden 1995: 282; Smith 2001: 218-221) With certain individuals accumulating surpluses of food, these could be transformed into items with value. With the accumulati on of surplus food, it would allow people to create feasts for the population. The individuals creating the feast would be held in higher regard in the community because it shows people who were generating the most food for the population.Feasting is a key part of the social model â€Å"given that the Neolithic revolved around food in one way or another; it seems somehow appropriate that feasting be considered as a reasons for its origin† (Simmons 2007: 18-19). By feasting, it was the first aspect of competition within communities. Competitive feasting would have been used as a method for the development and consolidation of power. Competition is a very important aspect of human society as it leads to the best being in positions of power. Within the Neolithic, extra resources must be utilised to ensure that power, influence and status is promoted and competed for. Feasting, gift exchange, trade, and other forms of codified, often ritualised contact† (Pluciennik and Zvel ebil 2009: 469) are the main ways for people to promote their own standings. This promotion of people’s own standards resulted in the need for extra resources beyond their dietary needs in the immediate timescale. This would result in overproduction. Overproduction by hunting and gathering would have got significantly harder with the climatic ever so slightly changing during the early Neolithic.Therefore, agriculture, a â€Å"more intensive system of exploitation† (ibid: 469) must be adopted to ensure overproduction can occur. Hayden (1995) believes that the need for competitive feasting lead to the first domestication of both plants and animals for the production of extra foodstuffs. With the use of food designated as prestige items, the accumulators could exceed their rivals in the consolidation of power (ibid). Runnels and van Andel (1988) have suggested that social customs, such as trade and competitive feasting would have led to motives for food production.Cowgill (1975) mentions that the more food an individual produces, the greater social and political power they possess. This analogy perfectly shows how important food was within a competitive environment and was used significantly to gain the upper hand. Without the implementation of agriculture, the excess food would not have been able to be produced and the ability to gain competitive edge over other individuals would have been diminished. As Miller (1992: 51) says, â€Å"[cultivation was] to ensure a reliable food supply or to increase their food supply to satisfy growing social or dietary needs†.However, Hayden has also put an argument across that does not believe the social model to be a significant reason for agriculture to begin. Hayden (1990: 57-62, 1992: 13) mentions that the social model could not have resulted in a Neolithic revolution to occur immediately as a lot of arguments believe happened. Hayden comments include the fact that a new culture of sharing food would ha ve taken a large amount of time to implement and the fist domesticated plants and animals would not have been appropriate for daily consumption due to his belief that they would have been delicacies.Despite this, I find this argument extremely thin and in my opinion, find it difficult to dismiss such a inquisitive social model, which, due to the change in social behaviour in the Neolithic, could have been very likely to occur, especially when the Neolithic â€Å"was an ideological phenomenon, a new way of thinking† (Simmons 2007: 20). I find that the Neolithic was an era where new ideologies and cultures were being developed and implemented globally throughout the Neolithic on an unprecedented scale.The arguments about how and why agriculture was developed and adopted throughout the globe in the Neolithic have produced very different and sometimes contradictory reasons why the origins of agriculture occurred. However, no one can deny the importance that agriculture had on the world as a whole and the impacts that it had to society as a whole. The impact that agriculture had, in my opinion, is unprecedented and extremely important to how we live in the society today. I can assume that most academics on the topic of agriculture believe that the impact of its adoption during the Neolithic was massively important to the world.Cole (1967: ix) made this quite clear by saying, â€Å"the development of full food production was an evolution rather than a sudden revolution; yet there is no doubt that the consequences of this change were revolutionary in the fullest sense of the world† and as Pluciennik and Zvelebil (2009: 467) also put forward the idea that the adoption of agriculture was one of revolutionary proportions, a â€Å"quantum leap in human history, and the basis for the development of widespread societal characteristics, both good and bad. †There are many main impacts that can be connected to the implementation of agriculture as the main characteristic of subsistence. By domesticating both plants and animals, it led to â€Å"increased sedentism, smaller social units, individual domiciles, investment in burial ritual and trade† (Bogucki 1999: 191), â€Å"specialisation in diet [was] also encouraged by the localisation of agricultural production† (Rindos 1984: 270) and â€Å"populations practicing agriculture come to be more successful relative to both domesticating and on-domesticatory. These populations not only will be generally larger but will also be dispersing at far greater rates [than populations that are not practicing agriculture]† (ibid: 267). Pluciennik and Zvelebil (2009: 467) mention that the impacts include â€Å"sedentism, population growth, certain endemic diseases, social and political hierarchies, literacy, cities, specialised arts and crafts, widespread environmental degradation, extensive trade, property, laws, morality, and more generally civilisation. It could be very easy to use these and suggest the impacts that agriculture had on today’s society, without thinking about the immediate impacts that occurred to the Neolithic society when agriculture was implemented. When agriculture was implemented in the early Neolithic, it can be assumed this would have led to a population increase due to the majority of early farmers becoming settled and becoming sedentary, resulting in a decrease in mortality rates due to better diets and better immune systems.With improved sedentary conditions, population numbers would begin to increase at a much quicker rate, putting significant pressure on food stores, resulting with the need for improved agricultural efficiency and crop numbers. This continues the cycle of population increase, greater sedentary conditions and thus, more agriculture. However, in the background of this cycle, an evolution of social, economic and religious (Bogucki 1999) norms would have occurred changing the culture of the Neolithic signi ficantly.With the culture changing constantly to include agriculture, it would have led to the societies having a greater involvement with agriculture especially when it became the main and/or only way for food to be acquired. The agricultural revolution led to the societies throughout the globe being hit by these impacts and resulting in a totally different world, and in the grand scheme, the beginnings of agriculture and the beginning of the Neolithic revolution could be argued to be the beginnings of civilisation, as we know it today.The impacts that agriculture had on societies throughout the last 10,000 years are unprecedented and the effects of which are still seen today – with some arguing that without agriculture, the world, as we know it in the modern time would not be the same. â€Å"Social, economic, and political complexity [] would not have emerged without the existence of agriculture† (ibid: 203)To conclude, â€Å"in the last 30 years, archaeologists hav e made considerable progress towards understanding the origins of agriculture, but the question of why prehistoric people made the transition from foraging to farming is still elusive† (ibid: 191) pinpointing one reason for why agriculture was adopted would be impossible. However, in my opinion, I believe that understanding why agriculture was developed, a number of reasons must be acknowledged and inter-link to fully determine the true reasons why agriculture was developed during the Neolithic revolution.The â€Å"push†, â€Å"pull† and social models that were established by Stark (1986) provided the most efficient way of trying to understand why agriculture was developed and it led to a significant advance in the way of thinking for its origins. However, â€Å"in the 1990s, social factors [had] begun to assume prominence in attempts to explain the origins of agriculture, although â€Å"push† and â€Å"pull† models still have considerable importan ce† (Bogucki 1999: 190).I believe that the social model provides more all-round reasons for agricultural origins, especially competitive feasting which provided an activity for the whole society to undertake together, thus, producing the beginnings of a society, and trade. This would increase in importance with the development and the increase of more sedentary populations. Despite this, I also feel that the push and pull models are very important. Without population pressures and some climatic change, agriculture would never have been produced.In my opinion, agriculture created the easiest and most efficient way for agriculture to spread and disperse across the globe through trade. Socially, trade was very important within a society, but in the greater picture, it played a much more important role in its dispersal. With the increase in trade, societies would have improved in prosperity and developed. Without agriculture, this would not have been possible. This leads to how mu ch of an impact agricultural development and its adoption had on societies across the globe.Without food production from agriculture, cultural advancements leading to the growth of urban areas, including technological, economic and political developments, which eventually led to the modern societies, we know today (Simmons 2007; Diamond 1997a). The impact that agriculture had on societies cannot be measured electronically, scientifically or any other way because the impacts are on an unprecedented scale; impacts spanning from one corner of the globe to the other and affecting everything.With the beginning of agriculture came the beginning of the New World, a world of new culture, beliefs and ways of life, economic, political and technological change and developments, resulting in the way we are today. Food production triggered the emergence of kings, bureaucrats, scribes, professional soldiers, and metal workers and other full time craftsmen. Literacy, metallurgy, stratified societi es, advanced weapons, and empires rested on food production. (Diamond 1997b) Word Count: 5298 Bibliography: Barker, G. (2006) The agricultural revolution in prehistory: why did foragers become farmers?UK: Oxford University Press Bellwood, P. (2005) First farmers: the origins of agricultural societies. UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Bender, B. (1978) ‘Gatherer-Hunter to farmer: a social perspective’ in: World Archaeology 10: 204-222 Binford, L. (1968) ‘post-Pleistocene Adaptations’ in: New Perspectives in archaeology. Eds: Binford, S. and Binford, L. USA: Aldine Publishing Company Blumler, M. A. and Byrne, R. (1991) ‘The ecological genetics of domestication and the origins of agriculture’ in: Current Anthropology 32: 23-54 Bogucki, P, (1999) The origins of human society.UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Braidwood, R. (1960) ‘The agricultural revolution’ in: Scientific American 203: 130-141 Braidwood, R. and Howe, B. (1960) Prehistoric inve stigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. USA: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Bronson, B. (1975) ‘the earliest farming: demography as cause and consequence’ in: Population, ecology and social evolution. Eds: Polgar, S. Netherlands: de Gruyter Mouton Childe, G. (1936) Man makes himself. UK: Oxford University Press Cohen, M. N. (1977) The food crisis in prehistory: overpopulation and the origins of agriculture.USA: Yale University Press Cole, S. (1967) The Neolithic Revolution. UK: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) Cowgill, G. L. (1975) ‘On causes of ancient and modern population changes’ in: American Anthropologist 77: 505-525 Denham, T. (2011) ‘Early agriculture and plant domestication in New Guinea and island southeast Asia’ in: Current Anthropology Vol 52, No 4: 379-395 Diamond, J. (1997a) Guns, gems and steel: the fates of human societies. USA: Norton Diamond, J. (1997b) ‘location, location, location: the first far mers’ in: Science Vol 278, No 5341Flannery, K. (1969) ‘origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near East’ in: The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals. Eds: Ucko, P. J. and Dimbleby, G. W. USA: Aldine Publishing Company Green, S. W. (1980) ‘towards a general model agricultural systems’ in: Advances in archaeological method and theory. Eds: Schiffer, M. B. USA: Academic Press Gupta, A. K. (2010) ‘origins of agriculture and domestication of plants and animals linked to early Holocene climate amelioration’ in: Current Science Vol 87, No 1: 19 Hayden, B. 1990) ‘Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: The emergence of food production’ in: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 31-69 Hayden, B. (1995) ‘an overview of domestication’ in: Last hunters, first farmers: New perspectives on the prehistoric transitions to agriculture. Eds: Price, T. D. and Gebauer, A. USA: School of American Research Press Henry, D. O. (1989) From foraging to agriculture: the Levant at the end of the Ice Age. USA: University of Philadelphia Press Lee, R. (1972) ‘the intensification of social life among the ! Kung Bushmen’ in: Population growth: anthropological implications. Eds: Spooner, B.USA: MIT Press Little, N; Onions, C. T; Friedrichsen, G. W. S; Fowler, H. N; Coulson, J. (1973) Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. UK: Oxford University Press Miller, N. (1992) ‘the origins of plant cultivation in the Near East’ in: the origins of agriculture: an international perspective. Eds: Cowan, C. W. and Watson, P. J. USA: Smithsonian Institution Press Neilson, R. (2006) The little green handbook: seven trends shaping the future of our planet. USA: Picadore Pluciennik, M. and Zvelebil, M. (2009) ‘The origins and spread of agriculture’ in: Handbook of archaeological theories. Eds: Bentley R. A. and Maschener, H. nd Chippindale, C. UK: Alt amira Press Rindos, D. (1984) the origins of agriculture: an evolutionary perspective. UK: Academic Press Ltd Runnels, C. and van Andel, T. H. (1988) ‘trade and the origins of agriculture in the Eastern Mediterranean in: Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1: 83-109 Sauer, C. (1952) agricultural origins and dispersals. USA: American Geographical Society Simmons, A. H. (2007) The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: transforming the human landscape. USA: The University of Arizona Press Smith, B. (2001) ‘the transition to food production’ in: Archaeology at the Millennium: A sourcebook.Eds: Feinman, G. and Price, T. D. USA: Plenum Publishing Company Stark, B. (1986) Origins of food production in the New World. USA: Smithsonian Institution Press Tilley, C. (1996) An ethnography of the Neolithic: Early prehistoric societies in Southern Scandinavia. UK: Cambridge University Press Watson, P. J. (1995) ‘Explaining the transition to agriculture’ in: Last h unters: first farmers; New perspectives on the prehistoric transition to agriculture. Eds: Price, T. D. and Gebauer, A. USA: School of American Research Press Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. (1993) Domestication of plants in the old world. UK: Oxford University Press