Keating_China+Revs+Up+annotation

‘World in the Balance: The People Paradox (China Revs Up),’ Directed by Sarah Holt and Jackie Mow (2004)
 * // 1. Title, director, and release year: //**

The film follows the growing problem of population, which leads to all sorts of problems, two of which are consumption and waste production. The ‘China Revs Up’ section of the film focused on the extremely large (and growing) population of China, along with the large migration of people moving from the country to the cities for economic stability with the unintended consequence of poor health.
 * 2.** **What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

//Technological/organizational//: extremely high energy consumption (based on population and production) makes it harder for people to find other suitable sustainable energy resources, as well as find ways in which they could live without those energy-demanding processes; also, there are many difficulties in making the transition to cleaner facilities, especially with the loss of production and jobs
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

//Behavioral//: China has 7 of 10 most polluted cities, yet people are still living there in poor conditions because that’s where the money is; consumerism is also a major factor in the ‘material world’ (e.g. 10 floor mall) that China associates with status

//Cultural//: there is a vast difference between life in the farmlands and economic betterment for families who live in cities; however, the health of families is put aside because the benefits living in the city outweigh those bad characteristics; even now, cars still remain as symbols of success, but China is using outdated cars and emission controls (only adding to their pollution problem)


 * 4.** **What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**
 * The fight for food supply: hillsides are now being used for farming, but this leads to water problems/floods when there aren’t any trees on the hillsides; the farming is causing new and slightly more intense problems for the people already struggling.
 * The move of 100 million people from the countryside to the cities in last 20 years; economic stability warrants their location change, but while families are financially stable, their health is declining due to pollution/poor air quality/etc. – they’re trapped between having enough money and being healthy.
 * The major transition from bikes to cars: 10 years ago bikes dominated streets of cities, and now they’re full of cars; this supports the mindset that the people want to prove that they can be successful by flaunting wealth, but decide to consider image above practicality (as do all industrialized countries: proving status outranks the consequences of those adopted lifestyles)


 * 5.** **What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**
 * Didn’t seem like there was any concern from the Chinese to make a balance between country and city life, save for their health; there was no mention of ways that they were looking into initiating a cultural shift to balancing the populations between the two areas, especially in regards to financially stable careers.
 * There was no recognition from the Chinese government (or push from world organizations) to start monitoring and decreasing their CO2 emissions as well as cleaning their air quality (especially after their 20 year binge of industrial growth when they had no pollution control at all); they realize that they are soon going to pass the U.S. in greenhouse gas and pollution production, so clearly they must be making some shift towards prevention. And if not, then maybe that’s a compelling fact not mentioned in the film before.

**
 * 6.** **What additional information does this film compel you to seek out?
 * The cultural, behavioral, economic, and technological effects that Chairman Mao’s “stop farming, forge steel” campaign of the Great Leap Forward social-political program had on the Chinese, as well as how it has led them to their current state; extreme famine from forcing workers to forge steel left little to no food (30 million lives cost), proving financial success in new areas, but no positive health and sustainable livelihood consequences.
 * China’s 1 child policy was put in place to fight the “race between the stork and the plow,” but is now under recent consideration due to the lack of enough younger people to fill jobs and provide support for the elderly citizens; they’re ignoring their obvious population problem, and want to reverse their decision so that the infrastructure remains unchanged.
 * The process (with scientific or factual integrity demonstrating a feasible plan) of filling gaps in jobs lost when shifting towards more sustainable careers. Why is it so hard for people to realize that their jobs aren’t at stake when you replace them with others that follow more sustainable living practices (e.g. farming)? Learning a new craft/trade isn’t bad - it’s still providing them with a job, food for their families, and isn’t harming the environment or feeding the world’s short-lived energy crisis (e.g. oil workers).
 * Current efforts by China to establish pollution controls, adoption of emission standards, and decreasing energy demands. With such a large population, China must develop to adapt (as well as adapt with the world changes in social and cultural elements), but there many environmental concerns: adding to their current coal demands of 1.3 billion tons/year would only make things worse, so how can China be a leader in developing large-scale sustainable communities?

The film gets audience members thinking about how vast the world actually is, and how over such a small amount of space we as humans have managed to take over all of it (and in non-sustainable manners with flawed organization and grossly over-populated countries), leaving very little for growth and future maintenance. These thoughts alone are bound to change how people view the Earth as different grids of space, each of which are quickly becoming saturated beyond what is able to be held, let alone supported by food.
 * 7.** **What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

**
 * 8.** **What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
 * Reverting back to bicycle usage, persuading Chinese citizens that it’s better for their health if they travel on bikes, especially in the city.
 *  Establishing more profitable careers outside of the city, reducing strain on the farmers that have remained, while also balancing out populations centered in small areas; smaller communities can benefit from support and smaller, sustainable infrastructures better than larger cities. If all of the smaller communities can establish themselves and be self-sufficient, then that alleviates problems of energy usage, food shortages, pollution, etc. when everyone is working together for the greater good of the community.

It was convincing, but provided no major solutions to the problem; the facts pointed the audience in the right direction to realize that the world is over-saturated with people and their demands, but the absence of establishing a blunt solution was a little disheartening after all of the persuasive elements.
 * 9.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**