Recently, I’ve been reading a lot of articles about various sustainability issues so I decided to organize my thoughts and respond to some of them. The first is my response and the second is the article it was written in response to.
I'm thinking about writing an article about the extent of influence that professors have on students. I want to discuss the difference between the word "teacher" and "professor." One of my favorite professors here at Tech is also a pastor but he never says the word God in any of his classes. The teacher for the famous World Region class is an expert about politics but won't tell his students who he is voting for in the Presidential election. I want to interview these people and ask them about there conscious efforts to remain neutral. What do you think?
-- The basic parameter for the science and environment writing class is to consider the environment in a broad context. General political neutrality is more or less expected of all professors. I'll bet he's not so neutral on the importance of the topic he teaches. (Few of us are).
If you ask the question of how religion and environment interesect, you get some interesting answers and some important new developments. What does your professor think about the "creation care" movement or the "Christians for the Mountains" group? Has he seen the Bill Moyers "Is God Green?" documentary. Can he comment on the Kentucky Coal Association's citing of Isaiah to justify MTR mining : “Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill shall be made low; The rugged land shall be made a plain, the rough country, a broad valley. Then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all mankind shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” Isaiah 40:4-5, New American Bible.
Your writing and your research is good, so that's not a question. The report is well thought out in a linear way. But the general direction and organization of the paper as you have it here is very confusing. The paper lacks a title, an abstract, a set of key words, a byline, an executive summary, subheads, table of contents or conclusion. It is straight text and footnotes.
The conclusion is that there is an abundance of aged and sick horses, that we don't have an agreed-upon system for dealing with them, and that any slaughtering that must be done should be in the US where it can be regulated, and that HB 503 and other bills prohibiting horse slaughter all need to be considered. So with that, you ought to be able to at least give your report a title like "The Humane Care of Aging Horses" or something like that.
Sept. 2 -- Orwell - Politics and the English language (Sept. 2)
Orwell critiques the use of the English language in a sentimental, archaic way, claiming that it is currently being “abused” and forgetting that all people are different and that everything changes with time, even language.
He uses words like “decline,” “ugly,” “inaccurate,” “foolish” and “slovenliness” to describe the English language in its current state. Then what does he have to say about society? Are we declining, ugly, inaccurate, foolish and slovenly? I think most people would agree that, though there are some people in our society who would indeed fit this description, society as a whole, speaking the English language, is quite the opposite. We, like the English language, are in a constant state of change. We are progressing, not declining. We are learning from our mistakes and unfollishly trying to achieve our many goals in more efficient ways. We are one of the most impressive societies in the world and we speak the English language.
Language is a means by which people communicate. I think that if people can understand each other, then language is doing its job effectively. He does specifically pick on writing however. As this form of communication is not usually interactive, it is more important to convey meaning more precisely when writing. In the provided examples, Orwell has indeed found bad use of the English language as these are obviously bad writers. What about the good writers out there? What about diversity of writing styles? If a writer can communicate their thoughts to their readers, they have succeeded regardless of their use of proper English.
As this article was written in 1946, I can understand why he uses outdated metaphors and other examples. For the exact reasons he mentions, the metaphors he references are not used anymore because people don’t know what they mean. There are tons of metaphors used today that are extremely common but I do not think that the people who use them are unimaginative. I think that this is the progression of the English language. People make useful comparisons which become commonly used because they help people communicate with each other. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the use of “foreign words and expressions” as long as those communicating can understand.
I feel that Orwell has forgotten that ordinary people also have the ability to listen to someone or read their work and decide for ourselves if they really said anything.
Though he does slightly redeem himself through his last few paragraphs, I think this article as a whole is outdated and stereotypes English speaking people. I especially have a problem with his constant use of the word “improper” as I think that is “vague” and “meaningless.”
This article asks a plethora of questions concerning climate change. However, it avoids the question, “Is climate change really happening?” This may be because the author thinks that there is “generally not the time or space for that kind of explanatory coverage” on climate change.
However, there are plenty of different spaces to explain and to find information in today’s world. Where someone will go for information depends on what they are looking for. Someone looking for facts about species extinction is not going to go to a website dedicated to solar panels. “Sharpening coverage” on climate change should mean acknowledging the different types of people out there. Sure a journal sent to geologists across the globe who agree that climate change is happening does not need an article that explains what climate change is. That article belongs in a source whose audience is unaware of climate change.
Since there are so many different ways to talk about climate change, no facts should be omitted. Just because something may be the majority opinion, does not always mean it is right. (Though it was accepted that the world was flat, we now know that it is not.) It is a fact that the world has gone through changes in climate before and it is also a fact that greenhouse gases trap heat. As this issue is relatively new, it is not a highly established field of study. Therefore, there are a lot of uncertainties and different ways to interpret data. Furthermore, as the future has not happened yet, no one knows what will actually occur. My point being, it may be dangerous to ignore someone with facts just because their conclusions are not mainstream.
Climate change news coverage is vital in order to pass climate change policies but not only are some people still unsure about this topic; most people are scared by it. People would rather watch “sports and celebrity coverage.” Most people are however interested in energy issues because they effects us directly. Some of the issues mentioned in this article have to do more with the recent prices of energy then with climate change. For example, though biofuels may be better for the environment than oil as they intake carbon dioxide while they grow, biofuels are also a big issue because oil is not as easily accessible as it once was. It would be easier to reach to public if there weren't a million arms stretched out.
Journalism plays an important role in educating the public and people all over the world need to be educated about climate change. I agree with the need for continuous coverage because there are so many topics to cover concerning global warming. People advocate everything from switching to renewable energies to becoming vegetarian in order to cut carbon dioxide emissions. This issue is so complex that it seems impossible to accurately discuss in the "one-and-a-half minutes" often allotted. However, it could be very productive to talk about a certain aspect of climate change in 90 seconds. This could be even more productive if climate change discussion was granted a 90 second slot at least once a week. Climate change coverage should be continuous because climate change is continuous. It doesn’t happen one day and not happen the next. If the public (global and local) is educated about it and reminded of it continuously, there is a much greater possibility that we will see a larger demand for climate change tools and policies.
Sept. 16 -- The Alligator’s Allure: Changing Perceptions of a Charismatic Carnivore by Mark Barrow
If someone thinks it is possible for an immense numbers of birds to attack and kill a town of people (which is the horror story of Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds), they would probably be afraid of birds. If someone believes that they will die if they get bitten by a spider, they would probably be afraid of spiders. Since most people know that alligators have the ability to overpower most humans, a lot pf people are afraid of alligators. We are not afraid because we know of a real town that was attacked by birds or had a close friend die from a spider bite or have ever witnessed an alligator eat a human; we are afraid when we believe that something has the ability to harm us.
Regardless of the behavioral studies mentioned in Barrow’s The Alligator’s Allure: Changing Perceptions of a Charismatic Carnivore, I think that humans legitimately fear alligators as most of them really do have the ability to kill us. Though we should not forget that the alligator is a powerful creature, we must remember that it is simply a part of nature and that it should be respected.
Humans pushed the alligator to the brink of extinction and then brought it back by declaring it endangered. Once population numbers were up again, it was delisted and Florida implemented a nuisance alligator program which kills the ones that stumbled onto “human” property. Through this complicated series of events, humans have undoubtedly changed the alligator population. We like to keep wildlife at numbers that are fitting to us. We don't want to make them extinct because they are interesting, a part of nature, or maybe even because they are important to the ecosystem that sustains us. As we recall the strategies utilized to control deer populations, we see that the alligator's situation is not original. As the human population grows and grows and grows, we begin to fight with wildlife for resources and we usually win. (We don’t pay much attention to how the alligators feel about all of this but maybe they are thinking the same thing about us. Maybe they are thinking that they have to control the human population as it is not fitting to them. Maybe the alligator attacks on people that we read about are their attempt at human population control.)
Barrow says, “What such an examination reveals is not only a longstanding fear of the alligator but also a yearning to tame or domesticate the beast. Euroamericans have long sought to manipulate and control the natural world, to impose order on nature while bringing it under human dominion.” Though this view is interesting, I feel that an examination of the question “Are humans a part of nature?” would be more interesting. Are we just another one of nature’s creations? Is it possible for us to “manipulate and control” nature if we are simply creatures living in nature? Are our actions just as manipulative as a squirrel’s?
Due Sept. 23 Historical exercise -- Find article(s) dealing with a controversy before 1922. How was it written? What sources were used? What assumptions are evident?
In 1906, San Francisco who was looking for a water supply wanted to dam Hetch Hetchy Valley. Only the Federal Government had the right to approve the dam construction because the valley is located in Yosemite National Park. Though this proposal was heavily debated, Congress (to the regret of many) finally permitted the dam in 1913.
I uncovered an article about this issue written on January 30, 1909 titled “Saving the Yosemite Park.” I found this article that was published in The Outlook to be surprisingly biased. Though it does not mention John Muir, the article preaches his preservation ideals as it is very opposed to damming the Hetch Hetchy Valley. It does reference and criticize “Mr. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior, and Mr. Pinchot, National Forester, men of the highest character” who approved the project.
This article states that though San Francisco needs access to water, there is “excellent evidence from competent engineers” that “at least a dozen other sources of supply” could be utilized. The authors then insinuate that the Hetch Hetchy Valley dam should only be constructed in order to “save the lives and health of the citizens of San Francisco,” not just to save their dollars.
These comments are meaningful and relevant even in today’s society. I could not have agreed more when I read, “The National habit is to waste the beauty of nature and save the dollars of business.” This exact argument could be used in opposition of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
When Congress allowed the Hetch Hetchy Valley to be flooded, it allowed precious American wilderness to be destroyed. Hopefully, we can learn from the past and recognize the importance of preserving the wilderness in Alaska.
Soroity Girls Letter to Editor.doc
Squires-urban-sprawl.pdf
Daly full world response.doc
Daly-economics-full-world.pdf
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.