News articles like Philip Bowring’s “Aging Nations”, on the negative effects of decreasing birth rates in Shanghai are meant to be factual and informative. For the most part his article is but some phrases are unclear and are in need of conceptual analysis.
Although most of the article is on the factual side conceptual analysis aids in understanding the phrase “In an era in which one frequently hears dire warnings that overpopulation will one day overwhelm the planet, this [low births rates] may not seem like an insurmountable problem. ” (Bowring, 2009)
There are many ambiguous terms in this sentence, each making the true meaning more unclear. Firstly the word “frequently” means a different amount of time to different people. The author probably intended for it to mean that the general public knows that overpopulation is an issue because it is in the media and is a talked about subject. But it could be taken to mean that you are told it a vast majority of the time and it is found everywhere in conversation.
Dire warnings could be taken to be a range of consequences anywhere from the end of the world to the need to halt population growth or the dwindling amount of resources our planet has left due to overpopulation. I believe Bowring intended for it to imply that overpopulation is a serious problem that is in need of a solution soon, no matter what the consequences of taking no action are.
Overwhelming the plant may mean a variety of things as well and is much like the meaning of dire warning. I took it to imply that the planet is running out of space for so many humans, but it could also mean that overpopulation increases the effects of global warming thus overwhelming the planet and its atmosphere.
So with the various meanings of these three words it makes the whole sentence need conceptual analysis as well. I believe that the implication the author intended was that almost everyone knows that overpopulation is a problem in our world today, but they may not have known that under population or decreasing birth rates is an equally prevailing problem. But if the worst case scenarios of each separate word were used the sentence could be taken to mean that all we hear about in the world today is how overpopulation will cause the end of the world so why are low birth rates a problem. I still believe that Bowring intended for the sentence not to be taken as dramatically as my second example but conceptual analysis was still needed to understand all elements involved.
Bowring, P. (2009, August 7). Aging nations. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/opinion/08iht-edbowring.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Overpopulation&st=nyt
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Overpopulation: A Persistent Myth Rescheduled Many Times
There are always statements or phrases in literature that lead to misconceptions, confusion and perplexity. Authors often don’t realise the gravity of such implications that can misconstrue the thoughts and intentions of the reader and sometimes bemuse them as a repercussion. While reading articles, blogs, statements and any piece of writing, readers gain the perspective that the author lays out for them, however sometimes, if misled, the reader attains a perspective that the author was not intending on implying. In the article “Overpopulation: A Persistent Myth Rescheduled Many Times” the author conveys many statements where ambiguity may be caused. This post will analyse one statement to shed light on the assumed meaning of the author.
The opinion given by the author in this article is that overpopulation is a myth and there is more then enough room for the entire human population to live on earth, comfortably with all the resources needed. One comment in the article that I found needed to be analysed was “What of famines? True there are shortages in the world here and there. We have plenty of food here in America…”(Charles Pope, 2009). This is a bold statement that could be interpreted in a number of ways. If read incorrectly, the reader would gain from the statement that there are food shortages around the world, but in America, there is plenty of food and we should not be worried. This is the literal meaning of the statement. If we look deeper into the statement we will see that it becomes much more elaborate.
Ending extreme hunger around the world is a very complex subject. Without taking into consideration major factors which affect the ability to grow food environmentally; whether or not people are educated to grow food, and whether or not people have the tools required and mindset needed to work together to harvest food sustainably. We will never come close to finding a solution to the hunger epidemic.
When reading the statement chosen from the article “Overpopulation: A Persistent Myth Rescheduled Many Times” the reader might assume that the person writing the article has not taken into account these important factors. The author states “What of famines?” as if they are not a problem, and “True there are shortages in the world here and there. We have plenty of food here in America”(Charles Pope, 2009), blowing the subject off as if it is not of importance. Rather then assuming the author has not taken into account the factors listed above, if you read further into the article we see it is quite the contrary. What the author is trying to imply is that we have plenty of food here in America; shortage is not a problem. Distributing food equally around the world is our problem, and is one we need to face to have equal opportunities on our globe.
The author is not saying forget about all the starving people around the world. He is simply saying do not worry about having to produce more food, focus on finding a method to distribute food around the world so no one has to suffer from starvation or malnutrition. In conclusion, we find that there are many different viewpoints that can drawn from this statement. By taking the statement out of context or without analysing the statement the reader may not realize the true meaning behind it. To avoid ambiguity, conceptual analysis was needed to clarify the authors point.
References:
C Pope, (2009) Overpopulation: A Persistent Myth Rescheduled Many Times. Archdiocese of Washington. Sept 23, 2009.
http://blog.adw.org/2009/09/overpopulation-a-persistant-myth-rescheduled-many-times/ Accessed 25 Oct 2009.
The Polemics of Carrying Capacity
The ‘what’ of Carrying Capacity? I have never had to use dictionary.com as much as I did to understand what Frank Joseph Smecker was talking about throughout the article. If you are interested read the article I chose and leave a comment whether you are able to understand it or not. His advance vocabulary he uses may be good for the common university professor to understand but not the common student. Conceptual Analysis is highly needed throughout the article because of the high level of vocabulary that some (including myself) find too advanced to understand his main points completely. Conceptual analysis is the understanding of a phrase or term that one may misunderstand.
The quote “With regard to a contemporary program, for instance (neo)-Malthusian measures, to solve the “population problem,” such propositional theory put into wholesale praxis would essentially expand and accelerate the genocidal effects of the civilizing process” (Smecker, 2009) can be interpreted in many different ways because of the language that may be misunderstood. The author is explaining that the Malthusian approach to reducing the overpopulation problem is to increase the rate of people dying. He is also stating that the ideas that Malthus came up with were key to a successful world even though his beliefs may be morally wrong. Some ambiguity that one might come across is the understanding of the wholesale praxis. He believed that inequality was natural and good, helping solve the issues with overpopulation.
Malthus also put down early marriages and soup kitchens while promoting smallpox, child murder, and slavery. It took me a couple times of reading that sentence over to understand what Malthus was trying to say. He is saying that the promotion of negative problems such as smallpox should be kept while life sustaining charities such as soup kitchens should be reduced. The word denounced means to negatively talk about. That word alone can cause some ambiguity about what the author is trying to say because it is not a word that is easily understood without looking it up with a dictionary. Some may disagree with his statement but in his world the key to a sustainable world is to basically try and not fix issues that cannot easily be changed.
In conclusion, Smecker’s article is in need of some more simple vocabulary to get his points across more quickly. Also, it is to avoid people being turned off by his article because it is too difficult to understand him.
Reference:
Smecker, Frank. http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/the-polemics-of-carrying-capacity/. Accessed October 28, 2009
The quote “With regard to a contemporary program, for instance (neo)-Malthusian measures, to solve the “population problem,” such propositional theory put into wholesale praxis would essentially expand and accelerate the genocidal effects of the civilizing process” (Smecker, 2009) can be interpreted in many different ways because of the language that may be misunderstood. The author is explaining that the Malthusian approach to reducing the overpopulation problem is to increase the rate of people dying. He is also stating that the ideas that Malthus came up with were key to a successful world even though his beliefs may be morally wrong. Some ambiguity that one might come across is the understanding of the wholesale praxis. He believed that inequality was natural and good, helping solve the issues with overpopulation.
Malthus also put down early marriages and soup kitchens while promoting smallpox, child murder, and slavery. It took me a couple times of reading that sentence over to understand what Malthus was trying to say. He is saying that the promotion of negative problems such as smallpox should be kept while life sustaining charities such as soup kitchens should be reduced. The word denounced means to negatively talk about. That word alone can cause some ambiguity about what the author is trying to say because it is not a word that is easily understood without looking it up with a dictionary. Some may disagree with his statement but in his world the key to a sustainable world is to basically try and not fix issues that cannot easily be changed.
In conclusion, Smecker’s article is in need of some more simple vocabulary to get his points across more quickly. Also, it is to avoid people being turned off by his article because it is too difficult to understand him.
Reference:
Smecker, Frank. http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/the-polemics-of-carrying-capacity/. Accessed October 28, 2009
Another Look at Infinite Growth
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
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Blog #4:China Sticking With One-Child Policy
This article demonstrates the use of the precautionary principal within the government of China. The topic considers the enforcement of the ‘One Child Policy’ to China’s population. The following blog post will explain how the precautionary principal was used, and critique the way it was put into effect.
Studies have shown that that the population of China was growing by up to 17 million people a year. To ensure stable and balanced population growth the ‘one-child-per-family’ plan has been put into action. “Given such a large population base, there would be major fluctuations in population growth if we abandoned the one-child rule now…it would cause serious problems and add extra pressure on social and economic development.” (Zhang Weiqing, minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission 2008) It is not certain that population growth is the direct cause of pressures on social and economic development however the one-child-per family policy has been in effect for the last three decades to assure control over unwanted volatility to the birthrate.
The policy mentioned above will in fact prevent an increase in the birthrate of China, however there are negative consequences to the precautionary measure. The policy results in an excess of boys. Most families are keen on having a boy to carry on the family name, and to aid in financial support. As a result, the one-child-per-family policy has been linked to female infanticide, forced abortions, and selective abortion of female fetuses. Not only are these practices un-safe, they also demonstrate great gender inequality in the population of China. If there is not a mutual respect and desire for both male and female children, China will have an unstable population in the future, and male chauvinist population in the present.
In conclusion, the one-child-per-family policy will not only result in the perilous medical procedures to women and children, but also to the lack of gender equality in the population of China. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure equality and safety to the nation; therefore the precautionary principal should be kept but re-examined to better society as a whole.
References:
(2009) China Sticking With One-Child Policy, Jim Yardley. The New York Times, October 19th, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/world/asia/11china.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=68285ad4Q2FimL-i5GnweGG1ZiZQ25Q25ziQ25Q2AiUUimGeQ2F5ilwfliUUnVfQ7ElFV1YQ2F
Toilets Help Reduce Overpopulation
In some third world countries, each person is limited to as little as 13 liters of water per day. Here in Canada, every time we use the toilet here, we flush 13 liters of water in one sitting! Imagine limiting yourself to going to the washroom once per day as well as not drink any water or wash your hands for the rest of the day. The article Toilets Help Stop Overpopulation uses the precautionary principle by stating how an issue such as overpopulation can be reduced by simply adding more accessible toilets in schools in developing countries. The implementation of these toilets is perceived to be harmless thus is a fine example of precautionary thinking. In the targeted country that Adam Shake, the author, concentrated his research on, Kenya, men and women had to share the washroom. Women were being harassed by men because of their menstrual period and defecation and they were likely to drop out of school. Statistics show that women that drop out of school are twice as likely to have children compared to women enrolled in school.
The increase in these sanitary areas will definitely help keep women enrolled in school which helps contribute to their self esteem and their ability to care for themselves. Now in contrast to what I believe some may say that the increase of these hygienic areas will cost too much and maybe be unrealistic because toilets cannot just be placed anywhere. Sewers must be in place, running water and proper resources must be available. I am going to have to agree that this strategy may be a little bit too ambitious unless these developing countries begin to start improve their way of life. In conclusion, the addition of toilets is a good starting point for developing countries to reduce their population rates because out of the whole world it is estimated that at least 90% of the world’s population growth will be in developing countries.
Resources
Shake, Adam http://www.twilightearth.com/children/toilets-help-stop-overpopulation-heres-how/, Accessed October 20, 2009
The increase in these sanitary areas will definitely help keep women enrolled in school which helps contribute to their self esteem and their ability to care for themselves. Now in contrast to what I believe some may say that the increase of these hygienic areas will cost too much and maybe be unrealistic because toilets cannot just be placed anywhere. Sewers must be in place, running water and proper resources must be available. I am going to have to agree that this strategy may be a little bit too ambitious unless these developing countries begin to start improve their way of life. In conclusion, the addition of toilets is a good starting point for developing countries to reduce their population rates because out of the whole world it is estimated that at least 90% of the world’s population growth will be in developing countries.
Resources
Shake, Adam http://www.twilightearth.com/children/toilets-help-stop-overpopulation-heres-how/, Accessed October 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
