Civilisation Time Bomb

I was watching History Channel's Digging for the Truth on Ang Kor Wat and found it absolutely fascinating. CAn you imagine that one of the most advanced civilisations to exist actually is three hours away from Singapore?

I visited Ang Kor a couple of years back and now, I'm wishing I watched the documentary first before going. It made a point that any civilisation with large building projects have been to build and move rocks without having a rope beneath it. There are holes in the rocks around the temples and they were used to slot in wooden poles to move the rocks. It is amazing to see that the whole of the main templ was stacked and then carved on the spot. Won't want to be the sculptor that makes a mistake. Furthermore, the rocks all fitted perfectly together because the surfaces were round smooth.

The thing about the civilisation was that it was a victim of its own success. Over planting and deforstation led to the clogging of their intricate water canals and led to limited water supplies in the cities. This let them have less crops, wealth and more vulnerable to enemie's attacks.

Over the weekend, I also went for a climate change conference and it got me thinking about in built destruction mechanisms to civilisations. For example, a reason cited for pollution is consumption and sometimes over consumption and waste production. But consumption is part parcel of the capitalist system. Our markets and societies thrive on needs and buying.It drives prosperity and the economy. If we consumed less, we would generate less wealth and the economy suffers. Hence, there is limited level of reduction of consumption that countries undertake in order to help climate change because all of us want to be wealthy.

Does that mean we are doomed?

One prof mentioned that perphaps we are not meant to halt climate change. We can only slow it down and more importantly perphaps, we are meant to survive it so that the next civilisation can do better. Who knows...........

Writing SBQ

In SBQ, structuring the writing is as important as writing the answer itself. I've seen answers whose points have been accurate and spot on but because of the phrasing, word choice or sequence of exmplaining, results in an answer that does not make as much of an impact.

For example in a Usefulness type question:
Negative

This source says that Iraq was using a smokescreen to cover their ambitious intentions. They wanted 200 miles of Persian Gulf. It is useful to a great extent in telling me about Saddam Hussein's reasons for war.

When you write something like this, it appears very disjointed and it seems not to be answering the question even though the points are there. Instead, when answering always always use the SEE or PEE style to explain

Positive

This source tells me about Saddam Hussein's reasons for invasion to a great extent. This is because it does state that the Rumaila claims are just "smokescreen" to cover their "ambitious Intentions". This evidence suggests and informs me that Iraq is attacking to gain more selfish and expansionist aims. Furthermore, the source states that Saddam wanted "200 miles of Persian Gulf coat line" suggesting that he is going to invade for land by the coast. These pieces of information do help me understand why he invaded Kuwait.

See the difference? By structuring the answer with Point, Evidence and then explaining the evidence, it answeras the SBQ more completely and helps make the answer clearer.
Please follow this type of PEE structure when tackling other SBQ questions