If a tropical rain forest is removed, it does not regenerate quickly as compared to a tropical deciduous forest. This is because ?->(Show Answer!)

1. If a tropical rain forest is removed, it does not regenerate quickly as compared to a tropical deciduous forest. This is because

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Trees in tropical deciduous forest shed their leaves in which season?....

QA->Food is cooked in a pressure cooker quickly because boiling point of water....

QA->Where are tropical deciduous or monsoonal forests occur?....

QA->Which is known for extensive tropical rain forest?....

QA->Scientistshave discovered a way to regenerate what using mother’s genetic material?....

MCQ->If a tropical rain forest is removed, it does not regenerate quickly as compared to a tropical deciduous forest. This is because....

MCQ->Consider the following statements: The Himalayan vegetation varies according to both altitude and climatic conditions There are mainly two types of tropical forests that are found in the Himalayas--the tropical rain forests and the tropical deciduous forests. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Once upon a time, there lived a lion in a forest. A jackal, a crow and a wolf had developed friendship. They knew that the lion was the king of the forest and friendship with such a fierce creature would always help them. To meet their selfish ends, they started obeying and were always at the service of the lion. They didn’t have to make any efforts to search for their food, as the lion gave his leftover meals to them. Moreover, they became powerful as they were next to the king of the forest. One day, a camel, who came from some distant land, lost his way and entered the same forest where these friends lived. In the meantime, these three friends happened to pass the same way that the camel was wandering. When they saw the camel, they realized that he did not belong to their forest. The jackal suggested to his other two friends, “Let’s kill and eat him.” The wolf replied, “It is a big animal. We cannot kill him like this. I think, we should first inform our king about this camel.” The crow agreed with the wolf s idea. All of them went to meet the lion. On reaching the lion’s den, the jackal approached the lion and said, Your Majesty, an unknown camel has dared to enter your kingdom without your consent, Let’s kill him; he could make a nice meal.” The lion roared loudly on hearing this and said, ‘What are you saying ? The camel has come for refuge in ray kingdom. It is unethical to kill him. We should provide him the best shelter. Go and bring him to me,” All of them were dispirited to hear these words from the king. They unwillingly went to the camel and told him about the lion’s desire to meet him, The camel was scared about the strange offer. He thought that his end had come and in a little while he would become the lion’s meal. As he couldn’t even escape, he decided to meet the lion. The selfish friends escorted the camel to the lion’s den. The lion welcomed the camel warmly and assured him of a safe stay in the forest. The camel was totally amazed to hear the lion’s words. He happily started living with the jackal, the crow and the wolf. One day, when the lion was hunting for food, he had a struggle with a mighty elephant. The lion was badly injured in the struggle and became incapable of hunting for his food. Thus the lion had to sustain without food for days. Due to this, his friends too had to go hungry for days as they totally depended on the lion’s kill for their food. But the camel was satisfied grazing around in the forest. All the three friends were worried and discussed the matter among them, As the jackal, the crow and the wolf had set their evil eyes on the camel, they met once again and devised a plan to kill the camel. They went to the camel and said, “Dear Friend, you know our king has not eaten anything for many days now. He is unable to hunt due to his wounds and sickness. Under such circumstances, it becomes our duty to sacrifice ourselves to save the life of our king. Come with us, we will offer our bodies as food for him.” The camel didn’t understand their plan, but innocently nodded in favour of it. All of them approached the lion’s den. First of all, the crow came forward and said, “Your Majesty, I can’t see you like this. So please eat me.” The lion replied, “I would prefer to die than to perform such a sinful deed.” Then, the jackal came forward and said, “Your Majesty, crow’s body is too small for your appetite. I offer myself to you, as it is my duty to save your life.” The lion politely rejected the offer. As per the plan, now it was the wolf’s turn to offer himself to the king. So, the wolf came forward and said, “Your Majesty, jackal is quite small to gratify your hunger. I offer myself for this kind job, Please, kill me and appease your hunger.” But the Lion didn’t kill any of them. The camel, who was watching the whole scene felt reassured of his safety and also decided to go forward and complete the formality. He marched forward and said, “Your Majesty, why don’t you kill me ? You are my friend. Please allow me to offer you my body.” The lion found the offer quite appropriate as the camel himself had offered his body for food. The lion attacked the camel at once, ripped open his body and lore him into pieces. The lion and his friends feasted on the poor camel for days together.‘Why could the lion not hunt anymore ?
....

MCQ-> A difficult readjustment in the scientist's conception of duty is imperatively necessary. As Lord Adrain said in his address to the British Association, unless we are ready to give up some of our old loyalties, we may be forced into a fight which might end the human race. This matter of loyalty is the crux. Hitherto, in the East and in the West alike, most scientists, like most other people, have felt that loyalty to their own state is paramount. They have no longer a right to feel this. Loyalty to the human race must take its place. Everyone in the West will at once admit this as regards Soviet scientists. We are shocked that Kapitza who was Rutherford's favourite pupil, was willing when the Soviet government refused him permission to return to Cambridge, to place his scientific skill at the disposal of those who wished to spread communism by means of H-bombs. We do not so readily apprehend a similar failure of duty on our own side. I do not wish to be thought to suggest treachery, since that is only a transference of loyalty to another national state. I am suggesting a very different thing; that scientists the world over should join in enlightening mankind as to the perils of a great war and in devising methods for its prevention. I urge with all the emphasis at my disposal that this is the duty of scientists in East and West alike. It is a difficult duty, and one likely to entail penalties for those who perform it. But, after all, it is the labours of scientists which have caused the danger and on this account, if on no other, scientists must do everything in their power to save mankind from the madness which they have made possible. Science from the dawn of History, and probably longer, has been intimately associated with war. I imagine that when our ancestors descended from the trees they were victorious over the arboreal conservatives because flints were sharper than coconuts. To come to more recent times, Archimedes was respected for his scientific defense of Syracuse against the Romans; Leonardo obtained employment under the Duke of Milan because of his skill in fortification, though he did mention in a postscript that he could also paint a bit. Galileo similarly derived an income from the Grant Duke of Tuscany because of his skill in calculating the trajectories of projectiles. In the French Revolution, those scientists who were not guillotined devoted themselves to making new explosives. There is therefore no departure from tradition in the present day scientists manufacture of A-bombs and H-bomb. All that is new is the extent of their destructive skill.I do not think that men of science can cease to regard the disinterested pursuit of knowledge as their primary duty. It is true that new knowledge and new skills are sometimes harmful in their effects, but scientists cannot profitably take account of this fact since the effects are impossible to foresee. We cannot blame Columbus because the discovery of the Western Hemisphere spread throughout the Eastern Hemisphere an appallingly devastating plague. Nor can we blame James Watt for the Dust Bowl although if there had been no steam engines and no railways the West would not have been so carelessly or so quickly cultivated To see that knowledge is wisely used in primarily the duty of statesmen, not of science; but it is part of the duty of men of science to see that important knowledge is widely disseminated and is not falsified in the interests of this or that propaganda.Scientific knowledge has its dangers; but so has every great thing. And over and beyond the dangers with which it threatens the present, it opens up, as nothing else can, the vision of a possible happy world, a world without poverty, without war, with little illness. And what is perhaps more than all, when science has mastered the forces which mould human character, it will be able to produce populations in which few suffer from destructive fierceness and in which the great majority regard other people, not as competitors, to be feared, but as helpers in a common task. Science has only recently begun to apply itself to human beings except in their purely physical aspect. Such science as exists in psychology and anthropology has hardly begun to affect political behaviour or private ethics. The minds of men remain attuned to a world that is fast disappearing. The changes in our physical environment require, if they are to bring well being, correlative changes in our beliefs and habits. If we cannot effect these changes, we shall suffer the fate of the dinosaurs, who could not live on dry land.I think it is the duty of science. I do not say of every individual man of science, to study the means by which we can adapt ourselves to the new world. There are certain things that the world quite obviously needs; tentativeness, as opposed to dogmatism in our beliefs: an expectation of co-operation, rather than competition, in social relations, a lessening of envy and collective hatred These are things which education could produce without much difficulty. They are not things adequately sought in the education of the present day.It is progress in the human sciences that we must look to undo the evils which have resulted from a knowledge of the physical world hastily and superficially acquired by populations unconscious of the changes in themselves that the new knowledge has made imperative. The road to a happier world than any known in the past lies open before us if atavistic destructive passion can be kept in leash while the necessary adaptations are made. Fears are inevitable in our time, but hopes are equally rational and far more likely to bear good fruit. We must learn to think rather less of the dangers to be avoided than of the good that will be within our grasp if we believe in it and let it dominate our thoughts. Science, whatever unpleasant consequences it may have by the way, is in its very nature a liberator, a liberator of bondage to physical nature and, in time to come a liberator from the weight of destructive passion. We are on the threshold of utter disaster or unprecedented glorious achievement. No previous age has been fraught with problems so momentous and it is to science that we must look for happy issue.The duty of science, according to the author is :-
....

MCQ-> Governments looking for easy popularity have frequently been tempted into announcing giveaways of all sorts; free electricity, virtually free water, subsidized food, cloth at half price, and so on. The subsidy culture has gone to extremes. The richest farmers in the country get subsidized fertilizers. University education, typically accessed by the wealthier sections, is charged at a fraction of cost. Postal services are subsidized, and so are railway services. Bus fares cannot be raised to economical levels because there will be violent protest, so bus travel is subsidized too. In the past, price control on a variety of items, from steel to cement, meant that industrial consumer of these items got them at less than actual cost, while the losses of the public sector companies that produced them were borne by the taxpayer! A study done a few years ago, came to the conclusion that subsidies in the Indian economy total as much as 14.5 per cent of gross domestic product. At today's level, that would work out to about 1,50,000 crore. And who pay the bill? The theoryand the Political fiction on the basis of I which it is sold to unsuspecting votersis that subsidies go the poor. and are paid for by the rich. The fact is that most subsidies go the 'rich' (defined in the Indian context as those who are above the poverty line), and much of the tab goes indirectly to the poor. Because the hefty subsidy bill results in fiscal deficits, which in turn push up rates of inflationwhich, as everyone knows, hits the poor the hardest of all. That is why taxmen call inflation the most regressive form of taxation. The entire subsidy system is built on the thesis that people cannot help themselves, therefore governments must do so. That people cannot afford to pay for variety of goods and services, and therefore the government must step in. This thesis has been applied not just in the poor countries but in the rich ones as well; hence the birth of the welfare state in the west, and an almost Utopian social security system; free medical care, food aid, old age security, et.al. But with the passage of time, most of the wealthy nations have discovered that their economies cannot sustain this social safety net, which in fact reduces the desire among people to pay their own way, and takes away some of the incentive to work, in short, the bill was unaffordable, and their societies were simply not willing to pay. To the regret of many, but because of the laws of economies are harsh, most Western societies have been busy pruning the welfare bill. In India, the lessons of this experience over several decades, and in many countriesdo not seem to have been learnt. Or they are simply ignored in the pursuit of immediate votes. People who are promised cheap food or clothing do not in most cases look beyond the gift horsesto the question of who picks up the tab. The uproar over higher petrol, diesel and cooking gas prices ignored this basic question; if the user of cooking gas does not want to pay for its cost, who should pay? Diesel in the country is subsidised, and if the user of cooking gas does not want to pay for its full cost, who does he or she think should pay the balance of the cost? It is a simple question, nevertheless if remains unasked. The Deva Gowda government has shown some courage in biting the bullet when it comes to the price of petroleum products. But it has been bitten by much bigger subsidy bug. It wants to offer food at half its cost to everyone below the poverty line, supposedly estimated at some 380 million people. What will be the cost? And of course, who will pick up the tab? The Andhra Pradesh Government has been bankrupted by selling rice as 2 per kg. Should the Central Government be bankrupted too, before facing up to the question of what is affordable and what is not? Already, India is perennially short of power because the subsidy on electricity has bankrupted most electricity boards, and made private investment wary unless it gets all manner of state guarantees. Delhi's subsidised bus fares have bankrupted the Delhi Transport Corporation, whose buses have slowly disappeared from the capital's streets. It is easy to be soft and sentimental, by looking at programmes that will be popular. After all, who does not like a free lunch? But the evidence is surely mounting that the lunch isn't free at all. Somebody is paying the bill. And if you want to know who, take at the country's poor economic performance over the years. Which of the following should not be subsidised over the years ?
....