Blog #5

Clear as Mud.

When writing an article or a blog post, the intent in most cases is to share information with others through one’s work, why then do some authors choose to make this so difficult? In the blog post, “Re: Overpopulation Solutions” the author, Graciela uses some words and concepts that are not properly explained in her post. One of such phrases is: “We found a way around nature's model for the betterment of our own species but the consequences are that we don't have enough resources readily available for our successful species.”(Graciela, 2009), this sentence is not fully clear and understandable; there are many different ways it could be interpreted and therefore conceptual analysis is necessary.

Possibly, it may just mean that humans are overcoming the laws of nature in order to have benefits for our own species and unfortunately we do not have enough resources to sustain this newly large species. The author uses “nature’s model” and this can be interpreted as a natural standard. If Graciela is referring to the laws of nature she may be trying to communicate that humans are not following these “laws” in order to have benefits of some kind to our species. She also mentions “consequences” that could result from defying nature to benefit our species in some way; she may be trying to claim that we are depleting our resources. Although it is not obvious what Graciela is trying to communicate, it is possible that this analysis is correct.

It could imply that we, humans, are not following the natural path of most species and the consequences of trying to become successful are that we will run out of food and water. She does not fully explain the extent of the consequences when she says that resources will not be readily available for our successful species. The analysis above may be more extreme than the author intended but it is still a possible interpretation.

Another interpretation, although not as likely, is that Graciela and her co-workers are performing unnatural experiments that are intended to benefit the human species, but the funds to perform such experiments have been revoked because of uncertainty with ethics and such. This version may be a little less likely than the other explanations but is still a possible meaning of Graciela’s sentence. The author is not thorough in writing her blog in a way that she does not properly explain what her intentions are for each sentence. When phrases are not explained in Graciela’s posts, the readers may misunderstand them and that is unfortunate for the author.

In conclusion, conceptual analysis is needed in the blog post, “Re: Overpopulation Solutions” because the author’s claim is easily misinterpreted. The use of the words: “We,” “Nature’s Model” and “Consequences” make the intention of Graciela’s sentence ambiguous and difficult to interpret. The most likely interpretation is that humans are overcoming the laws of nature for their own benefit and the consequence is that there are not enough resources to sustain such a large population.

References:

Graciela. “Re: Overpopulation Solutions.” Treehugger and Green Planet. Page 3, Oct. 14, 2009. http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12741&start=30 Accessed: Oct. 26, 2009.