Global Over-population a Myth- New Report

Primary Journal Article: http://www.sdnetwork.net/files/pdf/Too%20Many%20People_%20web.pdf

Secondary Journal Article:

http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=114

A study on Global Overpopulation was conducted July 11, 2007. The results showed that there is no causative link between population density and poverty. Listed above are links to both primary and secondary articles of this study. This post will concentrate on comparing and contrasting the primary and secondary article in regards to content/claims, structure, and style/language. It will also focus on examining the limitations of each topic mentioned in both pieces of work.

Content/Claims Made:

To begin, if you look at the physical amount of pages in both sources, the primary article is much longer than the secondary article. I was expecting this, as the secondary article is a summary of the important information present in the primary article. The secondary article is short and only touches on the most critical points of the topic. It starts off with a very brief introduction stating the main idea of the article: “ There is no causative link between population density and poverty.” (Global Population a Myth-New report 2009). Because this introduction is so clear and to the point, the reader will immediately know what this article is about. If we now look at the primary article we will see that there is a drastic change. Instead of a concise statement, the secondary source has one and a half pages introducing the topic to the reader, and educating them about the topic as well. This introduction would be helpful to get a better understanding of the roots of the topic ‘overpopulation’ and gives a more detailed description of what the article is about. The primary article states in the introduction: The quest to “stabilise human population” (or to “stabilise world population”, was formally launched on the global stage in 1994 by the United Nations at its Cairo Conference on Population and Development.” (Too Many People? 2007) The primary article gives a background of the issue and makes the topic more clear for the reader, where as the secondary article states: “the UN Population Fund’s believes that we must stabilise and decrease world population in order to save the planet and promote economic growth.” (Global Overpopulation a Myth- New Report, 2009). The secondary source gives the same information, however it is much more vague.

As we read further through the articles a number of claims are made. In the primary article the claims are backed with data, charts, calculations and graphs, whereas in the secondary article the claims are made with no evidence to support them.

Taken from secondary article: “Over the last century, global life expectancy has increased from 30 years to over 60 years, maize, rice and wheat have become far more abundant and other natural resources have become more easily available.” (Global Overpopulation a Myth- New Report, 2009). There is no evidence cited that supports this claim and therefore the reader is expected to trust that the author is making a true statement. If we look at the primary article, we note that every statement claimed has some form of evidence to prove it to be true. “There was no discernable international relationship between overall national population density and a country’s per capita GDP in the year 2003” (Too Many People?, 2007). Above this statement is a graph containing the information needed to come to this conclusion and displaying this result.

After taking a good look at both articles, it is clear that the primary article make more valid and sound claims, whereas the secondary article does not contain data, graphs, calculations and actual statistical figures to help demonstrate its findings. It must be noted though, that the secondary article does provide a link directly to the primary source, therefore both articles can be treated as creditable.

Structure:

Structure is always a key component in article writing. The way you present your information will directly affect how the reader understands your topic and findings. If you look at the secondary source you will see that the article is very short, and broken up into four small paragraphs; an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Moving to the primary source we note that there is Background Information, Data collected, Results and Findings, Conclusion, and Key terms. The primary article is broken into a variation of sections, which break up the article and organize it for the reader. We see that one topic flows nicely into the data presented, which emphasizes the excellent job the primary article does in arranging its ideas and findings. The secondary does not have this organization, however there is less material presented to the reader that is easier to process and gets to the basis faster.

Writing Style/Language

There is an explicit difference as to the language and words used in secondary and primary sources. The sources are directed to difference target demographics therefore the language used varies from article to article. Secondary articles are intended for the general public, assuming that not all people have a scientific background, or great understanding for the topic presented, where as the primary article is primarily intended for other scientists. This is why primary articles have much more complex terminology, such as scientific terms such as “fertility rate”, and secondary articles have simple more simple ways of explaining things such as “the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime”.

In the primary article there are countless amounts of information, data, facts and results presented to the reader. This information is confusing and hard to grasp for an audience that does not have a strong grounding on the topic. “According to the World Bank’s figures, the adult literacy rate in 2006 was almost 15 percentage points higher in Malawi than Morocco (54 per cent vs. 40 per cent) – but the fertility level in Malawi was also over twice as high in 2005 (5.8 births vs. 2.4 births).” (Too Many People?. 2009); this information might be important to someone examining literacy rates, however for the general public this would be hard and unnecessary to understand. Evidence and scientific terminology is crucial in both primary and secondary articles to validate claims, however the extent to which they are needed vary from one source to the other.

Conclusion

The primary article states: “The idea that global population levels are too high and therefore must be stabilized has been embraces by policymakers and opinion formers from all over the world from the UN and Al Gore but there is no evidence to support this” (Too Many People, 2007). In both articles this idea that overpopulation is not a crisis is conveyed. The way in which each source presents its information differs from one another and each article has its advantages and disadvantages. We found that primary sources are more in-depth with the subject matter, including lots of data, graphs, calculations and terminology, which is directed to a more specific audience (science-based backgrounds). The secondary article was short, concise and used wording that was easier for the general public even though it lacked credibility due to limited citation and data. Both articles conveyed the same message and, if used in the proper way by the proper audience, were both well written.

References:

Cudjoe, F. “Global Over-population a Myth- New Report.” International Policy Network. 2009. (October 8^th 2009) http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=114

Eberstadt, N. “Too Many People?” Sustainable Development Network. (July 11, 2007) 1-21. http://www.sdnetwork.net/files/pdf/Too%20Many%20People_%20web.pdf