The vertical windmill, first documented in ancient Persia, is more efficient than the horizontal ...

Natural resources are not allocated evenly around the world. There is no fairness and no rational scheme. People
in the northwestern corner of Washington State have plenty of water, maybe too much. People in the opposite
corner of the same state have too little water. The natural resources that are available to a society, a region, or even
an individual are determined by geography, history, and politics.

The commons refers to natural resources that are owned by the group, but not really owned by any individual
or business: public lakes, oceans, national forests, parks, the atmosphere, and the like. Governments must accept
responsibility for managing the commons because there is no economic or biological incentive for any individual
to do so.

Regarding the first part of the question, the answer is clear. The existing national boundaries would be erased
in almost all cases.
 The remaining parts of the question are less simple and there are no right answers. Look for logical groupings
of soil and water resources to allow for food production and drinking water. Look for allocation of fossil fuel
resources. Consider the effect of similar land and climate. For instance, the southern parts of Texas, New
Mexico, Arizona, and California have more in common with Mexico than they do with the remainder of the
United States.

The students' answers to this will vary. You can expect many students to place themselves somewhat toward the
preservationist end initially. On the question of cockroaches, most of them will move to the other end. On the
question of oak trees, you can force changes by assuming the oak tree is in their front yards or in a forest away from
view. The question of whales should evoke preservationist responses because of the continuing Save-the-Whales
movement. The deer question will polarize the group between hunters and antihunters.