How to Change the World
It seems counterintuitive that around the world, the fastest-growing part of society is the non-business entities, as millions of ordinary people–social entrepreneurs–are stepping in to solve problems that governments had failed to do. Many remarkable people all over the world are taking it into their own hands to change the world. Where one would expect governments and bureaucracies to solve their own countries problems it’s individual social entrepreneurs who are changing the world. Many different social entrepreneurs are mentioned one being Veronica Khosa, who created a home AIDS care that change government healthcare policies in South Africa. Another person, James Grant, is credited for saving over 20 million people by creating and funding an immunization campaign. Mostly this article shows that just one person can make a difference in our world, and we don’t have to rely on our governments to make a change.
Avoiding the Curse of the Oil-Rich Nations
It seems counterintuitive that nations are going on oil strikes even though it is going to make them worse off. Oil is a known valuable resource that can make nations very wealthy, so why would countries want to go on strike over oil? Oil is a hard resource to come by and that may be why it’s so valuable however the article goes over the negatives of oil for different countries. The article states that countries that rely on oil are the most conflict-ridden and economically troubled places in the world. It is also mentioned that oil destroys jobs across the economy and that it is one of the most capital-intensive industries that use a ton of recourses just to collect. Many countries that depend on oil don’t tax their citizens which sounds like a good thing but it’s not because they hold accountability. Oil seems like it would help a country grow in wealth however it does more harm than good in some places.
Should Coperations Bankroll National Parks?
It seems counterintuitive that big cooperation is bankrolling national parks. National parks are supposed to be free land for the public to visit and travel around. It doesn’t seem right for big companies to come to take over national parks just to gain profit from them. However, there are some good things that come from it like more funding and recourses. Coca-Cola was funding the Grand Canyon and they intervened in a plan to stop selling plastic water bottles which would help the park and the environment. It does seem like a bad thing for big cooperations to take over national parks rather than just leaving them to be free.
1. Does this sound as repetitive to you as it does to me?:
2. So much about this paragraph is confusing, SayCheese:
—I have no idea what you mean by an “oil strike,” but I think you may be misunderstanding a phrase like “a country strikes oil,” which means it drills until it discovers oil beneath its land mass. That’s an “oil strike.”
—It’s fine to report what an article says, but better if you can help the reader understand. Of course oil drilling and refining are expensive, but if they’re extremely profitable, that shouldn’t matter. If you CAN explain why getting filthy rich from oil is a bad thing, that’s REALLY counterintuitive.
—That might make sense, but not to me. I just don’t know what you mean by it.
3. What’s the point of the water bottle anecdote? Did Coca-Cola FAVOR selling non-returnable water bottles or OPPOSE it? It seems important to your overall point, but it’s unclear.
I hope these are helpful Notes, SayCheese, not merely annoying (I assume they are at least partly annoying. 🙂 ). Feel free to Revise for a Regrade if you like.
And always, please, Reply to Feedback, SayCheese. It’s the primary value of the course, and I love the conversations, but I tire of them when they become one-sided. Thanks!