Is Mt.Everest a risk worth taking?
Is scaling Mt. Everest really a risk worth taking? I mean all you really get is bragging rights. All for something that one in twenty five die trying to do? To go through all that pain and agony just to be on the summit for ten minutes? To spend the amount of money it takes to buy new car? About 4000 people have thought so. My first question for you is so you think it is worth it? My second question is would you climb it? If you said no to either of these questions then your answer for both questions is no. Me personally? I've gone on a so called moderate hike and towards the end it was one of the most difficult things I've ever done. Apparently, Everest is, like, a hundred times harder than that. With the extremely low air pressure, the high altitude and low temperature, these conditions make it one of the mountains to climb.
I'm now going to list the five most useful things you can do with 25,000 dollars.
Buy a new car
Rent an apartment
Put it in your college fund
Set it aside for retirement
Go on a very nice vacation that doesn't include a high death rate almost unbearable agony, and possible paralysis.
A good citizen is a person who does their responsibilities and follows the legal and social laws such as staying informed or paying taxes. This is important because without these restraints it would just be anarchy and the government wouldn't run well. A good citizen also exercises his/her personal and political rights such as freedom of speech and free religion. These rights are important because it’s what makes a democracy a democracy. In conclusion, a good citizen respects others rights and takes care of their responsibilities as well.
What do you think is the most effective style of government and why? Representative democracy is the best type of government. Representative democracy is a form of government in which citizens vote on leaders and representatives to vote on people's rights and responsibilities. Also representative democracy is a form of limited government which gives citizens say in the government. Limits on government include separation of power this means no one person/group can get all the power and potentially change the government. What makes representative democracy so good is the limits on the government and that it is effective for larger populations.
One thing that brings EU countries together is the Schengen act. It drops borders of countries and makes for more of a regional feel, rather than separate countries. Another thing that brings them together is a trade bloc. A trade bloc means that countries promote each other's economies. This support makes countries feel closeor.There are also forces that work to tear the EU apart. The fact that there are over 20 languages spoken throughout the EU is one of them. The many languages makes communication within the EU a challenge. Another thing that pulls the EU apart is that Western Europe is much wealthier than Eastern Europe. They give more money to the EU and feel that not as much money should go to poorer countries. As you see, different forces bring together and tear apart supranational cooperation. Countries in the EU support each other's economy and feels like a region but has a lot of communication problems and different wealth distribution.
Which would be easier way to live in the Sahara or the Sahel?
It would be easier to live in the Sahara because the location and weather. It would be easier to live in the Sahara because of oasis. In the Sahara oasis have water, and vegetation such as date palms. That provide nourishment whereas in the Sahel they need to take more complex measures such as shifting agriculture. The Sahel has less predictable weather like they will suddenly experience drought. The consistent weather isn't the Sahara helps the farmers know what to plant and what clothes to wear and things like that but the Sahel may have to change what crops they plant and what clothes they wear. They also have to be nomads to find food for their animals. The Sahara would be easier to live on because of the consist antsy in the weather and the oasis.
ow might having a valuable resource affect a region?
Having a valuable resource would affect a region positively and negatively.
Having a valuable resource would affect people in a positive way by earning a lot of people money and jobs. Having a valuable resource (in this case crude oil) would bring people working jobs in the field or wherever the big recourse may be. It would also give the people the own the mills a ton of money. It would also give the government more GDP.
Having a valuable resource would also affect the region in a negative way because distribution of the money earned from oil would not be fair. This would happen because the many people that work on the oil mills would not earn that much money. But the few people that own the mills would earn a lot of money.
As you can see, having a valuable resource would affect a region’s economy positively and negatively. This is because of the uneven pay people get when there job has to do with it.