Questõesde UNB sobre Inglês

          Israel and the Palestinian territories are among the most climate vulnerable places on the planet. Whereas worldwide temperatures have increased by an average of 1.1 °C (1.9 °F) since pre-industrial times, in Israel and the surrounding areas, average temperatures have risen by 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) between 1950 and 2017, with a forecasted increase of 4 °C (7.2 °F) by the end of the century. Meanwhile, rising sea levels — projected by Israel’s Environment Ministry to be as high as a meter by 2050, according to a new investigative report by Haaretz newspaper — threaten to obliterate Israel’s famed beaches, damage its desalination plants and undermine the sewage and drainage systems of many coastal cities. In the densely populated Gaza strip, where 2.1 million Palestinians are crammed into 365 square km (141 sq. mi.), sea level rise means a loss of precious real estate as well as saltwater intrusion into an already overtaxed aquifer.

         In an arid region already threatened by desertification and declining precipitation, one would think that the looming climate catastrophe would catalyze a powerful climate movement. Instead, the whole thing is largely an afterthought. In Israel and the Palestinian territories the threat is both existential and more acute. In this contested land, climate action is hamstrung by zerosum battles over territorial, political and historic rights, even as a warming climate exacerbates those tensions. 

          Israel and the Palestinian territories are among the most climate vulnerable places on the planet. Whereas worldwide temperatures have increased by an average of 1.1 °C (1.9 °F) since pre-industrial times, in Israel and the surrounding areas, average temperatures have risen by 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) between 1950 and 2017, with a forecasted increase of 4 °C (7.2 °F) by the end of the century. Meanwhile, rising sea levels — projected by Israel’s Environment Ministry to be as high as a meter by 2050, according to a new investigative report by Haaretz newspaper — threaten to obliterate Israel’s famed beaches, damage its desalination plants and undermine the sewage and drainage systems of many coastal cities. In the densely populated Gaza strip, where 2.1 million Palestinians are crammed into 365 square km (141 sq. mi.), sea level rise means a loss of precious real estate as well as saltwater intrusion into an already overtaxed aquifer.

         In an arid region already threatened by desertification and declining precipitation, one would think that the looming climate catastrophe would catalyze a powerful climate movement. Instead, the whole thing is largely an afterthought. In Israel and the Palestinian territories the threat is both existential and more acute. In this contested land, climate action is hamstrung by zerosum battles over territorial, political and historic rights, even as a warming climate exacerbates those tensions. 

         The idea that we might one day be able to construct some artefact which has a mind in the same sense that we have minds is not a new one. It has featured in entertaining and frightening fictions since Mary Shelley first conceived of Frankenstein’s monster.

        In the classic science fiction of the early to mid-twentieth century, this idea was generally cashed out in terms of ‘mechanical men’ or robots – from the Czech word robata, which translates roughly as the feudal term corvée, a term which refers to the unpaid labour provided to one’s liege lord.

    In more modern fiction, the idea of a mechanical mind has given way to the now commonplace notion of a computational artificial intelligence. The possibility of actually developing artificial intelligence, however, is not just a question of sufficiently advanced technology. It is rather a philosophical question. 

  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.

  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.

  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be

free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 

  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.

  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.

  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be

free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 

  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.

  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.

  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be

free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 

  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.

  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.

  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be

free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 

  On May 13th, 1822, a group of 186 women sent Maria Leopoldina the Letter from the Bahian Women to Her Royal Highness Dona Leopoldina, congratulating her on her role in the patriotic rulings of her husband, Prince Regent Dom Pedro. The document acknowledged the contribution made by the then princess and empress-to-be to ensuring her husband’s permanence in Brazil, which they believed was a key factor in gaining independence from Portugal. “Far more than just a letter, it is a political manifesto,” notes historian Maria de Lourdes Viana Lyra. “At that time, in Brazil, women were given a subordinate role restricted to private household and family affairs. Outside the domestic sphere, women were made invisible, but that did not stop them from mobilizing politically to fight for independence in a variety of ways,” she states.

  In addition to isolated actions led by famous figures, there were other many significant actions that are still largely unknown to the general public, more specifically, those related to instances of collective mobilization of women active in the public arena during the fight for Brazilian independence. Historian Andréa Slemian expands on the matter. “Throughout this process, many women expressed themselves through letters, manifestos, and other texts. Thus, the nascent press in Brazil played an important role, not only by publishing these women’s ideas regarding independence on editorial pages, for example, but also by serving as a mouthpiece for views supporting women’s rights,” notes Slemian.

Ana Paula Orlandi. Unafraid to fight.

Internet: :<www.revistapesquisa.fapesp.br> (adapted).

  On May 13th, 1822, a group of 186 women sent Maria Leopoldina the Letter from the Bahian Women to Her Royal Highness Dona Leopoldina, congratulating her on her role in the patriotic rulings of her husband, Prince Regent Dom Pedro. The document acknowledged the contribution made by the then princess and empress-to-be to ensuring her husband’s permanence in Brazil, which they believed was a key factor in gaining independence from Portugal. “Far more than just a letter, it is a political manifesto,” notes historian Maria de Lourdes Viana Lyra. “At that time, in Brazil, women were given a subordinate role restricted to private household and family affairs. Outside the domestic sphere, women were made invisible, but that did not stop them from mobilizing politically to fight for independence in a variety of ways,” she states.

  In addition to isolated actions led by famous figures, there were other many significant actions that are still largely unknown to the general public, more specifically, those related to instances of collective mobilization of women active in the public arena during the fight for Brazilian independence. Historian Andréa Slemian expands on the matter. “Throughout this process, many women expressed themselves through letters, manifestos, and other texts. Thus, the nascent press in Brazil played an important role, not only by publishing these women’s ideas regarding independence on editorial pages, for example, but also by serving as a mouthpiece for views supporting women’s rights,” notes Slemian.

Ana Paula Orlandi. Unafraid to fight.

Internet: :<www.revistapesquisa.fapesp.br> (adapted).