Section 1) ANW:
'Making space for population control' (draft!)
Whether you like it or not, we have been welcoming 1 billion people to this earth, every 15 years. From already two years ago you can remember the hot topic of the world reaching 7 billion people. A big shock to some or a terrifying thought to others of having to live together with such an incomprehensible amount of – humans! Even then, you can just imagine people yelling “Who cares?” and that is precisely what I am intending to address. The global population can only survive if we do care about each other, and that is not what seems to be happening. Just look at the food distribution for instance. Though on second glance, that third group of people might be on a better track than those worried. Our beloved planet has many problems to deal with, of which population growth is promoted as being one, or is it?
The world has experienced a drastic increase in population over the past millennia, particularly in the last century, compared to the years before. Natural disasters and massacres have wiped out thousands, more like millions, yet the human race never seems to stop reproducing. With the rate that we’ve been going at, we should be ‘preparing’ ourselves for a population of about 9.3 billion people in the year 2050. That increase in people would be the same amount of people as were alive one hundred years earlier, in 1950. With this exponential graph in mind, it is logical to picture a future where the food, oxygen and fresh water supply are decreasing at a, more linear rate, along with the population increase. The related concept is, that we are able to blame the increasing amount of people for the now bigger amount of CO2. All this is possible because of the ‘climate change’ theory, meaning that there’s carbon dioxide getting trapped under a layer of atmosphere, which is constantly getting bigger due to the world’s pollution, and therefore causing an increase in global temperature. According to speeches of Americans like Bill Gates, and Al Gore in his famous movie ‘The inconvenient truth’, this temperature change is bound to have negative effects. “And there’s certainly uncertainty about how bad those effects will be, but they will be extremely bad.” quoted from Bill Gates’ Ted Talk; ‘Innovating to zero’. How can we indeed be certain that there will be any of those described effects, caused by pollution? The problem we’re facing seems to have been blown up a lot, directing our minds to a green, electricity dependent society. The media promoting that catastrophic idea causes fear but also guilt to take care of the planet, which is great, but for the wrong reasons. It is important to acknowledge a changing climate, but there’s no reason to change our behavior towards maintaining a smaller population level. ‘Surviving’ or the not declining of our living standard is not a matter of population, but of worldwide cooperation.
Let’s try not to look at the population growth as a problem, but embrace the newcomers as our fellow humans did with us. No single valuable human being who should want to be killed for the benefit of the rich, the 1%. That’s why population control shouldn’t be an option the global elite is looking at to combat the amount of lives on the planet. If the goal is to decrease our pollution so that temperatures don’t rise (which they will anyway), so that we as human beings don’t die off due to ‘climate change’, how would population control help us? Decreasing the population through birth control, healthcare, (compulsory abortion, sterilizing capsules, etc.) and vaccines is also heading us on a path towards extinction.
It is because global councils and organizations want to reduce the population, in order to have control. The lure of climate change and global catastrophe motivates people to go for green, become electricity dependent and to tolerate population control. People have felt the need to have control and ruling power as far as we know. Adam and Eve, humans, were asked to rule over all the animals and to give them names. If you think about it, kind of like today except we, just like products, are identified by numbers, within nationalities, names and more. A society can operate and function like a well-oiled machine if there’s control and organization, not chaos and rebellion. One of these examples of population control in an over-populated country called India goes back to at least the 1950’s. With numerous interactions with organizations like the UN, the Population Council and the World Health Organization, India was dominated by western healthcare implementations. Up to recent this has caused the majority of India’s female population to be sterilized, for example in return for free cars or TV sets. Outside influence like these, have therefore caused India’s fertility to plummet, with in mind that for instance the Rockefeller Foundation clearly states to want to ‘maintain’ the worldwide population. All this is saying that the need to control our world is evident all around us. The idea to ‘stabilize’ and reduce a growing population only benefits the elite who can operate independent. The rest of the world however, needs to understand what is and isn’t necessary. And in this case we don’t need to reduce the amount of people.
There are a lot of reasons why one should choose not to go for population control. The first being the most obvious: space. Our planet is clearly still capable for hundreds of years to house inhabitants, if you look at the land mass. By that time, we will be so technologically advanced that housing possibilities wouldn’t be a problem at all. People would live on other planets, live in air domes or in towers built deep under the ground like Chicago is planning to. So the question for many is not whether we’ll have enough space. For the most people, the fuss is about global resources. The media tells us that we are losing our recourses very rapidly, and in such a way that it could cause us to die if we use it too much. We already consume too much of our oils and such, but how is it in reality? Actually, there is more evidence pointing towards the facts that natural resources and energy are rather becoming less scarce, and that the world’s food supply is also improving. All this is saying that we have no need to worry and think about new ways to recycle. Our natural resources are plentiful, should be used until our techniques for unlimited energy are widely used. A long time ago a man name Nikola Tesla lived. He found a way to have clean, unending energy and all kinds of other inventions. Sadly, the banking and oil industry chose to hold back Tesla from having his free energy ideas published, in order to make money off of the industrial revolution. The world is being pushed in the trap of ‘climate change’, where our CO2 production is to blame. All this Eco friendliness and care for the world is very appealing, but it has its way of slowly getting everyone hooked on electricity, opposed to sticking with our good-old natural resources.
The demand for new resources because of the ‘lack’ of our old ones, sparks an innovation in the field of finding new, better resources. So finally I wonder; “If there’s enough electric resources, why the need for less people?” Our population does not need to decrease in order for us to fit on this planet. The richest 1% might have a luxury decrease by a little, but other than that we could all get along just fine. Once we’ve all been trapped into doing everything ‘green’ and switching over to hybrids, suddenly our whole lives will be tracked and monitored digitally. Don’t worry about the human race going extinct due to car emissions, just reason.
an assignment/draft paper by John Ashworth
The world has experienced a drastic increase in population over the past millennia, particularly in the last century, compared to the years before. Natural disasters and massacres have wiped out thousands, more like millions, yet the human race never seems to stop reproducing. With the rate that we’ve been going at, we should be ‘preparing’ ourselves for a population of about 9.3 billion people in the year 2050. That increase in people would be the same amount of people as were alive one hundred years earlier, in 1950. With this exponential graph in mind, it is logical to picture a future where the food, oxygen and fresh water supply are decreasing at a, more linear rate, along with the population increase. The related concept is, that we are able to blame the increasing amount of people for the now bigger amount of CO2. All this is possible because of the ‘climate change’ theory, meaning that there’s carbon dioxide getting trapped under a layer of atmosphere, which is constantly getting bigger due to the world’s pollution, and therefore causing an increase in global temperature. According to speeches of Americans like Bill Gates, and Al Gore in his famous movie ‘The inconvenient truth’, this temperature change is bound to have negative effects. “And there’s certainly uncertainty about how bad those effects will be, but they will be extremely bad.” quoted from Bill Gates’ Ted Talk; ‘Innovating to zero’. How can we indeed be certain that there will be any of those described effects, caused by pollution? The problem we’re facing seems to have been blown up a lot, directing our minds to a green, electricity dependent society. The media promoting that catastrophic idea causes fear but also guilt to take care of the planet, which is great, but for the wrong reasons. It is important to acknowledge a changing climate, but there’s no reason to change our behavior towards maintaining a smaller population level. ‘Surviving’ or the not declining of our living standard is not a matter of population, but of worldwide cooperation.
Let’s try not to look at the population growth as a problem, but embrace the newcomers as our fellow humans did with us. No single valuable human being who should want to be killed for the benefit of the rich, the 1%. That’s why population control shouldn’t be an option the global elite is looking at to combat the amount of lives on the planet. If the goal is to decrease our pollution so that temperatures don’t rise (which they will anyway), so that we as human beings don’t die off due to ‘climate change’, how would population control help us? Decreasing the population through birth control, healthcare, (compulsory abortion, sterilizing capsules, etc.) and vaccines is also heading us on a path towards extinction.
It is because global councils and organizations want to reduce the population, in order to have control. The lure of climate change and global catastrophe motivates people to go for green, become electricity dependent and to tolerate population control. People have felt the need to have control and ruling power as far as we know. Adam and Eve, humans, were asked to rule over all the animals and to give them names. If you think about it, kind of like today except we, just like products, are identified by numbers, within nationalities, names and more. A society can operate and function like a well-oiled machine if there’s control and organization, not chaos and rebellion. One of these examples of population control in an over-populated country called India goes back to at least the 1950’s. With numerous interactions with organizations like the UN, the Population Council and the World Health Organization, India was dominated by western healthcare implementations. Up to recent this has caused the majority of India’s female population to be sterilized, for example in return for free cars or TV sets. Outside influence like these, have therefore caused India’s fertility to plummet, with in mind that for instance the Rockefeller Foundation clearly states to want to ‘maintain’ the worldwide population. All this is saying that the need to control our world is evident all around us. The idea to ‘stabilize’ and reduce a growing population only benefits the elite who can operate independent. The rest of the world however, needs to understand what is and isn’t necessary. And in this case we don’t need to reduce the amount of people.
There are a lot of reasons why one should choose not to go for population control. The first being the most obvious: space. Our planet is clearly still capable for hundreds of years to house inhabitants, if you look at the land mass. By that time, we will be so technologically advanced that housing possibilities wouldn’t be a problem at all. People would live on other planets, live in air domes or in towers built deep under the ground like Chicago is planning to. So the question for many is not whether we’ll have enough space. For the most people, the fuss is about global resources. The media tells us that we are losing our recourses very rapidly, and in such a way that it could cause us to die if we use it too much. We already consume too much of our oils and such, but how is it in reality? Actually, there is more evidence pointing towards the facts that natural resources and energy are rather becoming less scarce, and that the world’s food supply is also improving. All this is saying that we have no need to worry and think about new ways to recycle. Our natural resources are plentiful, should be used until our techniques for unlimited energy are widely used. A long time ago a man name Nikola Tesla lived. He found a way to have clean, unending energy and all kinds of other inventions. Sadly, the banking and oil industry chose to hold back Tesla from having his free energy ideas published, in order to make money off of the industrial revolution. The world is being pushed in the trap of ‘climate change’, where our CO2 production is to blame. All this Eco friendliness and care for the world is very appealing, but it has its way of slowly getting everyone hooked on electricity, opposed to sticking with our good-old natural resources.
The demand for new resources because of the ‘lack’ of our old ones, sparks an innovation in the field of finding new, better resources. So finally I wonder; “If there’s enough electric resources, why the need for less people?” Our population does not need to decrease in order for us to fit on this planet. The richest 1% might have a luxury decrease by a little, but other than that we could all get along just fine. Once we’ve all been trapped into doing everything ‘green’ and switching over to hybrids, suddenly our whole lives will be tracked and monitored digitally. Don’t worry about the human race going extinct due to car emissions, just reason.
an assignment/draft paper by John Ashworth
Section 2) Chemistry:
For our Chemistry class at school, we were told to make groups of two, write an article relevant to the topic (in English) and possibly publish it.
This, is our Methyl Orange, online synthesis in a micro reactor experiment.
This assignment has been made possible for the Department of Research and Theory in Education.
In cooperation, and made possible by the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2012.
Right below this line you'll see the download link to our (Word format) article!
This, is our Methyl Orange, online synthesis in a micro reactor experiment.
This assignment has been made possible for the Department of Research and Theory in Education.
In cooperation, and made possible by the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2012.
Right below this line you'll see the download link to our (Word format) article!
methyl_orange_web_experiment.docx | |
File Size: | 671 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Orange Methyl Web Experiment, Chemistry 4th period
J. Ashworth, S. Zeinstra, Cygnus Gymnasium Amsterdam
11 – 06 – 2013
Methyl Orange: Acidic value in between 3,1 – 4,4
J. Ashworth, S. Zeinstra, Cygnus Gymnasium Amsterdam
11 – 06 – 2013
Methyl Orange: Acidic value in between 3,1 – 4,4
Summary
In order to find the best temperature from which the biggest concentration Methyl Orange was to be found, we had to conduct multiple experiments. After three different reservations, we got the hang of the process and ended up with measurements at six different temperatures. Contradictory to our expectation, the highest temperature didn’t show the most Methyl Orange production. This being said, our results don’t take away that heat does indeed increase the amounts. While using an ideal found flow rate ratio, we found that no decent experiment can go without flaw, for example in racing with the time. Introduction Methyl Orange is a chemical product used for measuring changes in pH. Although very useful, it’s not known how to make Methyl Orange in its most efficient way. This article isn’t the first and definitely not the last, discussing this substance. For now, this inquiry merely plays a small part in a much larger development process. Last year, Heanen, Harmelen and Oortwijn published an article about the ideal rate used in the production of Methyl Orange. They found that 100:100:50 gave the highest concentration. However, their group kept the temperature constant. We used the rate they found to find the ideal temperature for this particular rate (taking it even further). Experimental procedure This experiment was performed via a remote controlled micro-reactor. It dispenses a maximum of 1 ml to each of the three components and used in the production of Methyl Orange. A lot of data was already provided; each time we filled the dispense units with three different solutions: |
Solution A;
- 16.7 mmol of sulfanic acid - 16.7 mmol sodium carbonate - 16.7 mmol sodium nitrate - 166.7 mL water - 83.4 mL ethanol, set to a flow rate of 100 ml/min. Solution B; - 3.16 mL N,N-dimethylaniline - 6.3 mL 12 M HCl - 238.7 mL water, also set to a flow rate of 100 ml/min. Solution C; - 18.8 mmol NaOH - 62.5 mL water - 187.5 mL ethanol, set to a flow rate of 100 ml/min. To clean, we filled the dispense units with alcohol and used a flow rate of 1500 to save time. We cleaned after every measurement was done and raised the temperature. Measurements were done at 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 degrees Celsius within two hours. The collected data was copied in an Excel file. Time was a minor problem; we could only reserve the micro reactor for 50 minutes. The 30 degrees measurement had to be run twice because we ran out of time the first time around, and didn’t get to save it. |
Results
In doing this web experiment; it was all about the results of course. Without these there would be neither an actual experiment nor any conclusion to be drawn from this. That’s why we felt we had to put the most focus on our results, in order to draw worthy yet appealing conclusions. In figure 1 below we can find the measurement number along the horizontal axis, and the concentration (M) along the ‘y’ axis. As seen in the legend, each colored line represents a different measurement temperature, with the total average shown in the grey line. Table 1 was necessary in order to achieve a more real representation; there you see the average of the concentration measurements listed. Inquiry question What is the ideal temperature to produce methyl orange? |
Hypothesis
We assume that the higher the temperature, the higher the concentration of methyl orange will be. Based on which theory The higher the temperature, the faster and more often particles collide which causes an increase of the likelihood of a chemical reaction. Discussion The results of this experiment aren’t absolute, though the results themselves are very accurate. The micro-reactor is extremely precise and since we worked with the average concentration, we were able to reduce the impact of the fault in the measurements, to a non-significant number. We have only measured between 20 and 45 degrees Celsius, with 5 degree intervals. So there may be another, more ideal, temperature outside of our measured range, which is very likely. Conclusion Based on the results, we assume the ideal temperature isn’t its highest. Somewhere around 40 degrees Celsius should be a reasonably good estimate of where it’s at. |
An article posted, edited and written by John Ashworth & Senne Zeinstra, thanks for reading!