Get help from the best in academic writing.

Causes of Technological and Economic Growth by Ester Boserup in Population and Technology and by

Historical differences in technological change by Ester Boserup Beserup suggests a theory that population density was one of the most influential, if not the most, factors in technological progress. In this respect, civilizations that had increased population density in terms of people in a definite area were doomed to experience technological changes.

Some technological inventions, even being useful and quite applicable, can remain unrealised until the conditions change in terms of population density, food scarcity, and food supply. In this respect, knowledge can remain unimplemented for a long period of time.

The author claims that the period and timeframe necessary for realisation of some knowledge and its application in life can be predicted with the help of analysis of population density, population growth, and the growth rate. In other words, the historical differences in the speed of technological change can be explained in terms of the interrelations between population needs, demographic situation, and realisation of knowledge.

I think that her explanation is rather convincing because there should be some impulse in society or science to promote and encourage the practical realisation of knowledge and its introduction for the purpose of overcoming some problems faced by society.

Analysis of technological change by Lewis Mumford Lewis Mumford analyses technology as a scope of machines aimed at promotion of capitalism in human society. Also, this author called religious aspects and warfare strong elements that contributed greatly to the technological change. Besides, Mumford saw ‘technics’, as he called technology, in combination with religious and social values as a one whole or ‘organic mechanism’.

In this respect, Mumford analysed technological progress as the one related to capitalism and social factors: technological changes can restrict people to power or increase potential and exist as a ‘machine’ in combination with social factors.

Differences and similarities The concept of ‘technics’ by Mumford and ‘technology’ by Boserup

Boserup’s concept of ‘technology’ includes development of agriculture as she analyses the methods of people in overcoming famine and other stresses related to food scarcity, growth of population, or decrease of resources.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Thus, Ester Boserup suggests agriculture and techniques used for intensification of crop growth, development of crop resistance methods, and other tools that can be used to fight the problems related to food scarcity and population growth.

Though Mumford claimed about the use of technology as he called it ‘technics’, he realised the threat of technological progress to the progress of social and religious sectors.

Approaches to technological change

Boserup approaches technological change as means to find an appropriate application of knowledge and overcome famine or other difficulties encountered by population because of increase in population density, decrease in resources, and other factors related to environment, land, and demographic situation. On the other hand, Mumford approaches technological change as the one that can make the human life more convenient or more restricted.

Explanation of ‘Promethean impulse’

Mumford explains the ‘Promethean impulse’ as a shift from the technology as a tool to narrow and restrict human life to power to personal use of technological progress products and methods. For Boserup, an impulse included appropriate conditions in society and environment so that certain knowledge, that could be potentially used to overcome certain difficulty, was realised.

Reference List Boserup, Ester, 1981. Population and technology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Mumford, Lewis, 1967. The myth of the machine: Technics and human development. San Diego, California: Harcourt, Brace

Title VII Fact Situations Essay

Nursing Assignment Help According to the title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the employees can sue the employers for utilizing the unjustified employment practices which had an adverse impact on the working conditions.

Regarding the appearance policy of Peace City Salon which required wearing a uniform and prohibited beards and hair longer than shoulder length, the owner of the salon rationalizes it with presenting a consistent image for the salon and relates it to business necessity of the enterprise. Though several employees object to the requirements, the practice does not violate the title VII and cannot be regarded as unlawful.

The main difficulties of proving the unlawful character of the procedures are caused with indistinct concepts of a disparate impact of the practice and the business necessity to which the employer relates it. On the one hand, the requirements are equal for all the classes of workers without discriminating representatives of particular racial, gender or ethnical groups. On the other hand, some of the requirements are too strict and it is difficult to prove the relationship between the practice and its impact on business.

It is important to distinguish between the generally accepted appearance standards and the biased perception of dress code requirements which can result in unjustified employment practices. Considering the norms that are generally accepted in the present day society, the employer could limit the appearance policies to wearing a uniform and cutting hair neatly that would be a less discriminatory but more reasonable method for achieving the business goals.

Regarding the case with Gourmet Grocery, which made knowledge of Spanish obligatory for promotion to the managerial positions, this practice does not violate the Title VII because it is based not on the criterion of ethnical origin of the employee but on worker’s knowledge and skills.

According to the Title VII, the practice can be defined as unlawful if the choice of applicants or candidates for promotion is performed on the basis of consideration of race or national origin as wll as sex and religion.

It is important that this requirement can be justified with business necessity of the store because the 75 % of its customers are Hispanic, and employees’ ability to communicate with the customers is crucial for maximizing the profit potential of the market.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Looking for a less discriminatory method of meeting the business goals, the employers could organize training courses for teaching the workers Spanish and providing them with opportunities to enhance their chances for promotion.

The policy of Martin’s Shoes Company which distributes athletic shoes prohibits individuals weighing more than 150 lbs (68 kg) to use the elevator to the third floor because of its maximum weight capacity of 250 lbs.

Though this requirement is predetermined with the objective factors of technical characteristics of the equipment, it violates the title VII disregarding its innocent appearance. In this case the discriminatory practice cannot be justified with business necessity because there is no relationship between the economic goals of the company and the technical limits of the elevator.

The employers should have considered the disadvantages of the technical characteristics of the elevator while working on the project of the building for preventing the disparate impact situations. A less discriminatory practice is changing the construction if it is possible or allotting the third floor to some departments which are not of crucial importance for ensuring the equal working conditions for the staff.

Reference List Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved from US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website