Geography, asked by Ajstr2426, 1 year ago

Why are people considered a resource? Explain

Answers

Answered by qudsiya99
1
Human are also animals but they are more minded so they rule on other animals and resources , many years ago man also live like an animal but later time changed and he became minded , he knew to burn fire and other animals are afraid of fire .
At first man live in under nature's way and now he keep nature in his way .
Answered by kaneshaurya
3

hi mate your answer is

It was Irving Fisher in 1897 who is recorded as introducing the concept of the human workforce as a capital investment or resource, drawing social science into economic calculations for the first time.

This novel idea was first drawn to public front by Adam Smith. In his fourth definition of what capital stands for Adam Smith, by many considered the father of capitalism, noted: “The acquisition of ... talents during ... education, study, or apprenticeship, costs a real expense, which is capital in [a] person. Those talents [are] part of his fortune [and] likewise that of society” (Smith, 1776).

Another economist, Gary Becker at the Business School of Chicago secured economics to the new sphere of human behaviour when he incorporated the idea of humans as a capital investment in calculations to confront the challenging Malthusian problem in the 1960’s.

The Malthusian problem, still central to economic calculations today an acting as a stimulant for the human resource idea, was two-fold. It reduced a complex social problem to a matter of fixed amount of resources in the form of land, and no fertility controls. The problem was formerly acknowledged by Malthus, an English cleric who was honourably distressed by the inadequacy of the Poor Law and the suffering it inflicted in eighteen century England— we can see his concerns were driven by moral reasons and inequality. H

It was with good intentions then that Mathus argued restraint as central to a better life. In the end, as we now know, it was however not Gary Becker, or the all the in-between political and economic calculations and discourse that came to the rescue of the Malthusian problem, but the advent of science and social progress— giving us birth control, women’s rights and the green revolution to stimulate more environmental awareness and increase equality.

Becker’s concept subsequently also contributed to the recognition and fame of another two economists, Oded Galor and David N Weil, who followed in Becker’s footsteps. Continuing the then new tradition of turning social issues with growing economic complexity and uncertainty into mathematical calculations, the Galor and Weil model eventuated, setting itself perhaps in what appears a bit equivocal, the following assumptions: ‘A greater and denser population increases technological change. Technology complements skill and increases the returns to investments in education. Education, in turn, induces more technical change. Finally, families are induced to have fewer and more highly-educated children than a greater number of lower-educated children and the crucial demographic transition can eventually set in.’

Although in most scientific circles one would struggle to make a mark with such uncertain deductions, the Galor-Weil model secured economists now with enough credibility to turn complex social needs and issues, firstly into statistics and then into calculations and predictions, with established recognition.

Two of Galor and Weil’s compatriots, Milton Friedman and Henry Shultz, were reputed for presenting the idea of human labour as calculations to American politicians in the 1960’s. Contemporary politicians saw Friedman and Schultz’s idea as an ingenious method to elevate the education and living standards of poor rural communities, supply industry’s needs and simultaneously strengthen the economy against a then rising Soviet threat. On the other end of the spectrum some city-based industrialists simultaneously had concerns about education of workers potentially posing a threat to their growing industries, with its insatiable need for subservient workers and profit.

Today stuck in an archaic economic model humans and threatened by AI and robotics humans continue to be calculated, and at time exploited, as capital investments and seen as resources rather than what they really are complex intricately interconnected social structures, evolving with perceptive means emotions and moral obligations.

hope it helps^_^ plz mark as brainliest


Similar questions