Issues surrounding the environment are generally very complex, and are often thoroughly debated. Overpopulation is a very broad issue that has been covered by many people in different subjects of study. When subjects are so broad and complex, claims can be taken out of context or misunderstood. Jeff Abell, the author of “Don’t eat up farmland with solar panels” argues that “it makes absolutely zero sense to allow anymore development of any more land to accommodate human overpopulation”(Abell 2009). Conceptual analysis is needed to evaluate these complexities, to avoid the reader misunderstanding the author’s claims. This approach is used to separate select words or phrases and analyze them to acquire a better understanding of what the author is writing. Throughout his article, Abell uses phrases and terms, which have ambiguity and could be misunderstood by the reader.
As Abell writes he refers to an “Infinite growth industry” when he makes the claim “We’re making just another infinite growth industry for the sake of money rather than the sake of sustainability.” (Abell 2009) . These few words could be misunderstood and taken out of context. Readers may think that this phrase is describing the solar panel industry. They may think that the author is claiming that the solar industry is a forever growing industry that is more concentrated on the money rather than the efficiencies. This interpretation of the phrase is not farfetched either, because solar panels are becoming very popular as people are trying to conserve resources. The author however links infinite growth to the forever growing population. What he means is that the industry surrounding human population is more concentrated on the profit rather than trying to save resources.
Ambiguity can also be seen in the phrase “Leave the land that barely keeps us alive alone, and keep the greed contained within our concrete wasteland” (Abell 2009). There could be a misunderstanding with what Abell means by the land that barely keeps us alive. Readers may think that he is talking about any land in general: the problem with this explanation is that we get the majority of our resources from the land, and it helps keep us alive. The other possible explanation to the sentence is that Abell is talking about infertile land that cannot be farmed because it does not have the necessary nutrients; in this case it would be an ideal location to put a solar farm, because the land is otherwise useless. I believe that the author was trying to use bold words to push his claim that we should not accommodate overpopulation and keep the solar panels on roofs, rather than developing natural land to hold these farms. The only problem readers could get lost in the translation.
Conceptual analysis is a good way of achieving a better understanding of what the author is arguing. By isolating and rereading the reader can better decipher what the author is writing. With subjects as open ended as overpopulation, conceptual analysis is needed to fully understand the argument.
Reference:
Abell, J. (2009, October 18). Don't eat up farmland with solar panels. Toronto Star, Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/711651
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pat, I like the way you wrote your blog by applying conceptual analysis to different phrases in the article that overall helped the reader to understand the authors claim. Your second point is very well supported because you thought of all the different things the author may have been trying to convey and refuted them. I am still confused with his intentional meaning which is why there was a serious need for conceptual analysis.
ReplyDeleteHey pat, as always your blogs are very well structured allowing an easy read for all of us. You did a very good job explaining the different views that many people could intrepret each of the phrases you chose. YOu're ending paragraph is a good conclusion, restating the main idea of the blog. Good job buddy
ReplyDeletePAT! for some reason i always find myself commenting on your post, and i think everyone does have it right... you lay out each blog in a very easy way to follow your thinking process. You really have a knack for understanding how someone reading you blog would interpret what you are trying to say... and then saying what you want in a easy way.
ReplyDeletei loved the phrases you chose for analysis and the way you explained the meaning behind each one to the reader. you did a fantastic job and keep up the great work.