Final Draft: Writing Project #2 - The Annotated Bibliography
Carden, Art, “YOU WORRY. YOU SHOULDN’T. PART 1: OVERPOPULATION AND RESOURCE EXHAUSTION,” Forbes Magazine, JUN 15, 2012
While I presented three annotated bibliographies that encompassed the dangers of overpopulation, I researched yet another argument against it from Art Carden, an Associate Professor of Economics at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, a Research Fellow with the Oakland, California-based Independent Institute, a Senior Fellow with the Beacon Center of Tennessee, and a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics. In view of these credentials and mainly due to his idea that the world needs more people, not less, professor Carden captured my attention. In this brief paper, he was capable of summarizing the pros and cons of the issue, sending the message that we do not need to worry about overpopulation. This source represents a call to our senses, depositing the trust on the mind of humans to find out solutions to almost every disappointment nature has to offer us. According to his words: “we can be confident that people will find newer and ever-more ingenious ways to circumvent their constraints (asteroid mining and space elevators? Cool!).” Poverty is another point that catches my attention. Indeed, it is something that not only is related to overpopulation, but also represents an international embarrassment. These people living in poverty might just, given the opportunity, contribute to the resolving the many equations humanity must decipher. Therefore, the reader sees an image of future optimism through the words of professor Carden, and that is his accomplishment.
By directing our attention to several informative links embedded in the text, we can construct a plausible understanding of the general idea of the writer. The paper is a straightforward notion of believing that that is no reason for alarm, but emphasizes the need for action on poverty around the world, which, by itself is an extremely important point. Although the rhetoric is quite directed to everybody, due to the accessibility on the used words and grammar, we can conclude that such message can and must be observed by people directly involved in researching and study issues like this. Being simple is, often, a more accurate way of seeing things.
After writing this succinct interpretation of the paper by professor Carden, I believe I focused on the important exposed points, hence the credit I give it as a source for my research. It is important to have different views on the same subject, as I have stated before.
By directing our attention to several informative links embedded in the text, we can construct a plausible understanding of the general idea of the writer. The paper is a straightforward notion of believing that that is no reason for alarm, but emphasizes the need for action on poverty around the world, which, by itself is an extremely important point. Although the rhetoric is quite directed to everybody, due to the accessibility on the used words and grammar, we can conclude that such message can and must be observed by people directly involved in researching and study issues like this. Being simple is, often, a more accurate way of seeing things.
After writing this succinct interpretation of the paper by professor Carden, I believe I focused on the important exposed points, hence the credit I give it as a source for my research. It is important to have different views on the same subject, as I have stated before.
Ellis, Erle C., “OVERPOPULATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM,” The New York Times, Sep. 13, 2013
Another approach to the problem of overpopulation, published in The New York Times. I credit this vision because it comes from Erle C. Ellis, Ph.D., Cornell University, 1990, an associate professor of geography and environmental systems at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and a visiting associate professor at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design. It presents yet another view, contrary to the one shared by most specialists in this matter. And that’s why it is important because, for us to reach an acceptable conclusion on this subject, we must broaden our perception, allowing ourselves, to analyze and be part of the discussion, if we really wish to obtain results. The author clearly states that we have no problem of overpopulation and goes further to declare that “This is nonsense.” The author appeals to human ingenuity to surpass the obstacle of a growing population, mentioning that “genus Homo used social hunting strategies and tools of stone and fire to extract more sustenance from landscapes than would otherwise be possible. And, of course, Homo sapiens went much further. He says, however, that as the population will reach a higher number by 2050, (about 9 billion), and it is necessary to invest in “infrastructure and conducive trade, anti-poverty and food security policies.” One of his arguments that I consider worthy of attention, simple but important, is: “Who knows what will be possible with the technologies of the future?” Dr. Erle, himself, confesses that he too believed, at one point that the carrying capacity of the planet was at stake, in agreement with several of his colleagues. Therefore, and because of it, he needed to work very much trying to contradict an almost generalized idea, in which he also believed. In this manner Dr. Erle is attacking a long-held position, forcing the discussion to continue and to the “drawing table.” While he is using a language accessible to all, the message ought to be directed to their colleagues, rhetoric that should be interpreted by that particular group of stakeholders. I would argue that, when Dr. Erle says that it is necessary to prepare the world for the peak of the population at around 2050, it might be brought into the equation the following:
a) Without that preparation the overpopulation is truly a problem.
b) Once surpassed the 9 billion people, what kind of different preparation do we need?
c) Would we be forced to organize several types of preparations as the population grows?
This view, nonetheless, constitutes a worthy source, at least because it forces us to think that we must have the human error factor in the equation, if we want to achieve decent results.
Because of what I have written about this source, I am convinced that I can and will use it in my project, drawing ideas to confront with the ones I already have.
a) Without that preparation the overpopulation is truly a problem.
b) Once surpassed the 9 billion people, what kind of different preparation do we need?
c) Would we be forced to organize several types of preparations as the population grows?
This view, nonetheless, constitutes a worthy source, at least because it forces us to think that we must have the human error factor in the equation, if we want to achieve decent results.
Because of what I have written about this source, I am convinced that I can and will use it in my project, drawing ideas to confront with the ones I already have.
Waxman, Olivia B., “HERE’S WHEN AMERICANS REALLY STARTED TO PANIC ABOUT OVERPOPULATION,” Time Magazine, July 11, 2016
It is my belief that this article of TIMES magazine is credible because the publication was founded in 1923 and that ought to be one of the reasons for its existence today. Surviving time must rely on conquered credit. On the other hand, the publication cites all its sources, therefore, allowing for a deeper integration of the reader into the given context.
With several fonts of information embedded in this article from TIMES magazine, Olivia Waxman articulates the momentum in which American society is tuned on the issue of overpopulation. The consensus is, again, the need to control the birth rate, thus diminishing (or try to) population growth. One of the sources the author uses is Stanford entomologist Paul Ehrlich, who argues that “it was time for a population-control movement. Without it, the world would face shortages of food, water and more.”
The ZPG (zero population growth,) “the idea that there’s a number of children that the average parent should have in order to keep the population size from increasing,” which is represented by 2.1 children per woman, according to the grassroots organization Population Connection, was shaken by the reality of the real numbers.
This article discusses the book by Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968, which, according to the words of the author “brought human numbers into the debate on the human future.” This is the accomplishment of the article, the awareness for the issue.
It is a timely discussion of what sort of importance should we give to the issue of overpopulation and what can we do about it, directed mostly to the elected readers of this weekly publication. It works on the expansion of the line of inquiry and creates room for curiosity.
Finally I find it a good source to use it in my project. The matter of fact is present, and the views expressed are appropriate for a discussion of the idea in its entire concept.
With several fonts of information embedded in this article from TIMES magazine, Olivia Waxman articulates the momentum in which American society is tuned on the issue of overpopulation. The consensus is, again, the need to control the birth rate, thus diminishing (or try to) population growth. One of the sources the author uses is Stanford entomologist Paul Ehrlich, who argues that “it was time for a population-control movement. Without it, the world would face shortages of food, water and more.”
The ZPG (zero population growth,) “the idea that there’s a number of children that the average parent should have in order to keep the population size from increasing,” which is represented by 2.1 children per woman, according to the grassroots organization Population Connection, was shaken by the reality of the real numbers.
This article discusses the book by Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968, which, according to the words of the author “brought human numbers into the debate on the human future.” This is the accomplishment of the article, the awareness for the issue.
It is a timely discussion of what sort of importance should we give to the issue of overpopulation and what can we do about it, directed mostly to the elected readers of this weekly publication. It works on the expansion of the line of inquiry and creates room for curiosity.
Finally I find it a good source to use it in my project. The matter of fact is present, and the views expressed are appropriate for a discussion of the idea in its entire concept.
Paul, Alexandra, "OVERPOPULATION FACTS - THE PROBLEM NO ONE WILL DISCUSS," TEDxTopanga, 3 Jan., 2013
Along the same line of thought of Dr. Garrett James Hardin (OVERPOPULATION AND CARRYING CAPACITY), actress Alexandra Paul gave a TED Talk back in 2003. She believes having found a way to minimize the effects of the exponential growth of human population, by persuading people to have smaller families. She has chosen not to have any children of her own, which is consistent with her discourse. According to her, we are adding 220.000 people per day to the planet and about 1 billion every 12 years. This TED Talk was filled with other facts relevant to the issue.
I appreciate her effort in passing the message that the world needs the cooperation of all to achieve the proposed results. On the other hand, her honest valued effort, needs to observe other options which may pretty well be the education of the population, especially in countries where the birth rate is higher than three or even more children per woman, as is the case of several countries in Africa (between four and seven children per woman,) according to the The World FactBook (CIA), 2015, estimates.
Nonetheless, this cry for action, not only from Alexandra, has, so far, met with some international apathy by the optimistic approach that believes the planet and its tenants, rewarded with an intelligent and creative mind, are capable of finding the proper solution if need be.
I have chosen this TED Talk by Alexandra Paul, because I understand that my research must have different opinions from several walks of life, therefore, with diverse angles of approach to the same issue.
Finally, I believe that Alexandra is a good addition to my project because she comes across as a person who, quite clearly, understands the status quo of the planet, when the theme is overpopulation.
I appreciate her effort in passing the message that the world needs the cooperation of all to achieve the proposed results. On the other hand, her honest valued effort, needs to observe other options which may pretty well be the education of the population, especially in countries where the birth rate is higher than three or even more children per woman, as is the case of several countries in Africa (between four and seven children per woman,) according to the The World FactBook (CIA), 2015, estimates.
Nonetheless, this cry for action, not only from Alexandra, has, so far, met with some international apathy by the optimistic approach that believes the planet and its tenants, rewarded with an intelligent and creative mind, are capable of finding the proper solution if need be.
I have chosen this TED Talk by Alexandra Paul, because I understand that my research must have different opinions from several walks of life, therefore, with diverse angles of approach to the same issue.
Finally, I believe that Alexandra is a good addition to my project because she comes across as a person who, quite clearly, understands the status quo of the planet, when the theme is overpopulation.
Hardin, Garrett James, Ph.D. Microbiology – OVERPOPULATION AND CARRYING CAPACITY - Video Educational Communications, Inc., 18 Feb., 2008
Although this interview was recorded in 1990, I have found it interesting to use in one of my sources. The reason I have chosen the late Dr. Hardin interview, was because the ideas he had expressed are in accordance with my own. His understanding of the issue of carrying capacity of the planet, starts with his own words: “if the population suddenly decreases by, say, 10 percent, many things will immediately be much better.” Because of the fact that the planet has already too many people, Dr. Hardin adds that the major social crises are made worse by the excess population, and that is exactly where I believe the problem resides. The warning for people to control such situation is, of course, having less children per couple. Hardin believed that this is a situation with little importance to most governments.
As to its credit, I believe his Curriculum Vitae (http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/gh/gh_cv.html) enlightens very well his achievements and the authority to speak about the subject of overpopulation.
The food for all, according to him, is not the problem right now. Energy is. I will agree with him on this point, however, thinking for a moment in terms of future, if Earth will continue to raise its population numbers, as it appears to be the tendency, then, I would argue that we will be required to face this problem sooner or later.
The interviewee argues that the world would be healthier with less people, unless we stop consuming more energy than we suppose. This would certainly accommodate a big carrying capacity of the planet: “The higher the quality of living, the lower the carrying capacity.” By using this explanation, Hardin is using logos to convey the message that it is important to lower our actual habits of consumption.
He is directing his speech to the audition of the program where he was interviewed. Therefore, the rhetoric is appropriate because the terms are easy to understand by the general public.
It is a worthy source because of all the understanding the author has on the subject and I find it very difficult to disagree with the majority of his arguments.
I might use this interview in my research project because it has the central idea that can contribute to the overall conclusion of my work.
As to its credit, I believe his Curriculum Vitae (http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/gh/gh_cv.html) enlightens very well his achievements and the authority to speak about the subject of overpopulation.
The food for all, according to him, is not the problem right now. Energy is. I will agree with him on this point, however, thinking for a moment in terms of future, if Earth will continue to raise its population numbers, as it appears to be the tendency, then, I would argue that we will be required to face this problem sooner or later.
The interviewee argues that the world would be healthier with less people, unless we stop consuming more energy than we suppose. This would certainly accommodate a big carrying capacity of the planet: “The higher the quality of living, the lower the carrying capacity.” By using this explanation, Hardin is using logos to convey the message that it is important to lower our actual habits of consumption.
He is directing his speech to the audition of the program where he was interviewed. Therefore, the rhetoric is appropriate because the terms are easy to understand by the general public.
It is a worthy source because of all the understanding the author has on the subject and I find it very difficult to disagree with the majority of his arguments.
I might use this interview in my research project because it has the central idea that can contribute to the overall conclusion of my work.