Artifact 13
Sulfur emissions per person (kg) and CO2 emissions (tones per person)
This graph started by the mid 1855. At this time Great Britain was already on a steady increase of CO2 and sulfur emissions, though it really took off around 1863. Then by the 1890s, the US exploded in population as well as emissions from both sides. In 1855, Great Britain was at 19 kilograms of sulfur per person and CO2 was at 5.5 tonnes per person (all annual). America was 5.1 kg of sulfur emission per person and 0.84 tonnes of CO2 per person. Sulfur emission in Ireland was 0.022 with 0.81 CO2 emissions. By 1880, America had become around the stats of Great Britain 25 years ago and Britain is still ahead, but not as dynamic. America had more people than Britain now. Ireland increased in the production of sulfure but CO2 emissions remained the same. By the end of the century, America had caught up to England, with 53 kg of sulfur produced by every person, and 8.3 tonnes of CO2 per person. Great Britain had 45kg of sulfur production per person and 11 tonnes of CO2 per year. G
Income per person in GDP (GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) and Life expectancy at birth (in years)
This graph is trying to measure whether or not there is a correlation between income and life expectancy. Would life expectancy increase because of income? Obviously this is very texas sharpshooter because it might increase because of scientific discoveries and better medical care, but health consumers are still consumers, and therefore money’s still a factor. In general income per person of Ireland was extremely stable and increased at a stable rate. Great Britain was more erratic as well in terms of life expectancy but didn’t deviate a lot. In 1800 Ireland was at 38 years old as average life expectancy and 1213 as annual income. England was at 40 years old as average and 2717 average income. Until the 1830s the life expectancy of England bounced back and forth while in Ireland the life expectancy was the same and there was a steady increase of income per person. Suddenly in 1945 the average life expectancy of each country dropped exponentially, though Ireland at a much larger scale, namely because of the potato famine and their extreme dependence on it. By 1950, Ireland had an average life expectancy of 20 and the UK by 37. It should be noted that during this drop that income also decreased. It then rebounded by 1852. During 1859, the average life expectancy of Ireland grew nearer to the UK’s until in 1880 they were both 44. Income is gradually increases, which leads people to conjecture there is a relationship between them. By the end of the century, the average life expectancy of the UK is 47 and Ireland at 49, with a GDP per person per capita of 6232 for the Uk and 3365 for Ireland.
Life expectancy at Birth (years) vs Children per Women (total Fertility)
Since both of these things reflect on human help as well as current medicine technology. In the beginning it was expected for a women to ohave around 5.11 kids and 40 years as life expectancy. 4.2 kids were expected for Ireland and 38 as average years by year 1800. The stats for Ireland remained the same Ireland while the UK’s children per women rose to 5.69 by 1825 and finally went down, and it went down a lot. By 1830 it was back near the stats in 180 and by 1840 the UK’s average children per women hovered around 4.8. The life expectancy of Ireland suddenly dropped during the Irish famine, as well as in England, and children per women for both countries continued to drop at a steady rate. Between 1840 and 1875 the children per women for UK clustered around 4.8 and the life expectancy clustered between 40 and 45 while Ireland’s children per women dropped steadily until 1864, at 3.24, where it returned upwards and became 3.72 by 1871. Life expectancy simply continued to increase. By the end of the century the UK expected 3.53 children per women and Ireland at 3.05, while the average life expectancy was 49 for Ireland and 47 for the UK.
1. a) Which main topic does the artifact relate to:
This relates to human health.
b) Which other main topics does it also relate to:
Technology is an important factor in these statistics as well as the world under the microscope, as this is the major contributor of the field of medicine.
2. Why did you choose this artifact, and how much time did you spend creating and/or processing it:
These are essential in understanding how single historical events can impact the current situation of the times. Correlations between graphs are also important to note for future reference.
3. What insights and understanding have you gained from the creation and/or processing of this artifact
Many of the statistics follow a pattern, and leads me to think whether or not single events might affect the general populace psychologically.
4. Does this artifact reflect your best work and/or ideas Why, or why not
It wasn’t bad though to my deepest regret, a lot of the interesting looking indicators were not up for use.
5. Rate this artifact on a scale of -5 to 5(0 is neutral) for the following 4 criterion:
a) Impact on the quality of your Portfolio
2, not as successful as other artifacts.
b) Impact on your level of happiness/enjoyment
At first it was really boring, I procrastinated with this artifact, but eventually I did it and realized it was pretty fun watching indicators run with time and have information pop out right in front of your eyes.2
c) Impact on your learning
It took some serious thought to draw some conclusions, because the data is there for you to process. 4
d) Level of creativity and originality
Gapminder is not a bad invention of human kind. Kind of like the microwaves, easy to use and easily distributed.
6. Any additional comments.
It really is a pity that not all the indicators work…
No comments:
Post a Comment