Rough Draft
FINAL DRAFT
COVER SHEET
What is your thesis? How did this particular argument come about?
I was in my environmental science class when we began talking about population growth, the affects of it, and ways that we could possibly fix this on going issue throughout the world. It entrigued me and I figured that it would be a good topic to bring about when writing about since there is so much to really say about it. My thesis is more or less stating that population growth is an issue in our hands that we face with every day and if we do not figure out a way to control our population then sooner than we think the human race will cease to exist.
Who's your audience and what techniques do you use to make your writing speak to their concerns and interests?
My audience is none the less directed to all of society and the human race because this does not just concern our class, our school, but everyone as a whole. I tried to bring about topics that happen globally and topics that affect us as a whole.
Upon reviewing your completed composition (and process), what aspect of your work (or it's process) most surprised you?
My completed rough draft first off was a weight off my shoulder. The thing that surprised me most was my style of writing this time was not my normal format. I usually tend to create my own rules for writing, but this time I tried my hardest to stick to the correct "college style" of writing.
Did you learn anything new while growing your composition? Explain.
I learned a million new things while writing this composition. I knew the basic details of what I was talking about, but as I began to read and do my research it just blossomed into this epic novel of life and existance as we know it.
When you use secondary sources, do those sources contribute to ethos, logos, or pathos appeals?
When writing I tried to use facts along with emotional connections through the stories so therefore my style of writing was a mixture of all three. My secondary sources were through lectures in class which obtained more or less a pathos appeal from the proffessor, as well as the book which was simply based on facts with no means of persuasion.
When considering peer feedback as you revised your rough draft, which advice/suggestion/question/criticism/edit was most useful/helpful?
My draft has yet to be edited by others.
On your final version, where would you like to see the most feedback and attention from graders?
The flow of my writing, because I tend to sometimes go on tangents and go off track.
POPULATION GROWTH
by Lauren Dow
The human population as we know it is growing nearly as fast as ever. It has almost doubled since 1966 and now grows roughly about 80 million people per year. By 1800 we reached one billion, in 1930 we reached two billion, and in 1960 which was not even thirty years later we were at three billion. Today we are at about seven billion people on this planet. Think about within the next thirty years how many people will actually be on this planet. Yes, during the 1960s the population growth reached 2.1% and since then has decreased from 1.2%. Do not let that number fool you because if you do your calculations correctly you will see that it’s still a dramatic growth in the population. Due to updated technology, improved sanitation, better medical care, increased agricultural output, and many other factors that have benefited society, we have been able to reduce death rates as well as infant mortality rates; however our birth rates are not decreasing. Not only can the rising population deplete resources, but it can also intensify pollution, stress social systems, or degrade ecosystems, such that natural environment or our quality of life decline.
In 1978 a demographer by the name of Thomas Malthus made a prediction. He made a prediction that the population growth would exceed our food supply by the middle of the 19th century. Others said that we would reach famine by the 1970s and 1980s. Both of course were incorrect, but not necessarily far off by a few hundred years. Technology has been able to postpone this famine. This fear of overpopulation occurs when the growth rate exceeds the carrying capacity, or the supportable population, in an environment. Even under populated areas are suffering because they cannot sufficiently provide for themselves. There needs to be some sort of balance. Now take into consideration the idea of sustainability and these billions of people that will soon enough be on this planet. How are we to sustain our resources and also be able to meet the demands of all these people?
In the big picture there are generally two main options. We are to either find a way to increase the food supply, or we find a way to control the population growth. When this is brought about, people become highly offended because then you begin to interfere with legislating morality. This is a situation that becomes hard for people to talk about, yet it is something that is really going on and is really happening as we speak. We have about sixty years of oil left in our land before we have to figure out new ways of obtaining oil. That is affecting us now with gas prices, and people do not realize how in every way they are being affected. Some demographers feel that a population increase is a good thing and the food supply is not necessarily an issue if we are able to find new resources to replace the depleted ones. On the other hand, environmental scientists realize that the few resources that have been created by people are scarce and the ones that have been depleted, not all of them can be replaced.
Increasing the food supply is the less offensive approach. A way we could start is by increasing the amount of arable land. Arable land is land that can be used for agricultural use for growing crops and such. Such as the song, “They paved paradise; they put up a parking lot.” A lot of our land that could be used for growing food for ourselves has been torn down and turned into parking lots, shopping malls, and other things we do not necessarily need. If we can increase the amount of arable land we have we are able to produce more goods for us to eat. Another option is that we could eat lower on the food chain, such as people who are vegetarians or vegans. There is also eating the food directly from the sea. People already do eat from the sea; however we eat high on the food chain in the water. Lobster, salmon, or tuna are all high on food chain. In Asian countries, they eat the brown kelp from the water which is from the bottom of the food chain. Completely edible, yet people would rather choose a cheeseburger from the drive threw at McDonald’s than eating kelp because it sounds more appetizing. If everyone substituted 30 to 40 percent of our protein supply with soy we would be able to feed millions. Soy is filled with phosphorus and nitrogen. There is the option of genetically engineering our food, but that would never work in the long run. The first plant to be genetically engineered took fifteen years and cost a billion dollars. It was a tomato in the shape of a square for cheaper shipping purposes. It would cost us too much money and would take too long to be able to sufficiently feed anyone.
A man by the name of Norman Borlaug had this idea of a type of a breeding program. He developed a strain of wheat and a strain of rice. The productivity of this wheat and rice was five times its average. These plants would then grow where the hungry people were, which was the tropics. This was the start of what they called the Green Revolution. The goal was to lift people out of poverty in the tropics. In 1985, the plan failed miserably. It failed due to the fact that the tropics has some of the poorest soil which meant that in order to grow these plants then they would have to import fertilizer. Since importing this fertilizer cost a lot of money the prices of the food then would have to increase. When the price of the food increased, it completely contradicted its original goal because these people could then not afford this food.
Being able to increase our food supply sounds like a good idea overall, however it will not sufficiently fix our problem of being overpopulated. It at some point would only backfire because our quality of life would not be substantial for actually living and surviving. The population will continue to increase and will deplete the amount of resources, stress social systems, or degrade the natural environment. This entails us declining in our quality of life. Maybe the issue is the distribution of people over the planet since it is so unevenly spread throughout. The population density is at its highest in the regions that are generally warmer or temperate such as China, Europe, and Mexico. Then of course the areas with the lower population density are the unbearable extreme temperatures such as the deserts, in the freezing poles, or areas that are far from water. This uneven distribution of people simply means that some areas are more suitable to obtain life than others.
Now here is the touchy subject of population control. First off there is the idea of euthanasia which I guarantee not a lot of people on this planet morally agree with, me being one of them. It is legal in some countries around the world such as Belgium and Switzerland. Euthanasia consists of killing off a group of people, the diseased, elderly, and infirmed in a harmless manner. There are other alternatives though. For a while the government was debating on putting a sterilant in our water supply which would stop women from being able to produce. If you wanted to have a child you would then have to apply to the government for the antidote. Once you give birth to your child the prescription is cancelled and you are sterile once again. The problem with this idea is that there is no such sterilant that we know of. A few other ideas that were thrown around consisted of things that were subsidized by the government. There is subsidized birth control, subsidized sex education, subsidized abortions, and subsidized sterilizations. In the 1980s, India attempted this idea of subsidized sterilization. After a woman bore two children the male would be allowed to have a subsidized vasectomy. The problem with this was that the male population in India was uneducated and misconstrued this idea of a vasectomy believing that it was about the same as castration. Because of this only about five percent of the male population in India actually went through with it. It also has been seen that poorer nations tend to have higher fertility and growth rates as well as higher birth and infant mortality rates and lower rates of contraceptive use. About 99% of the next billion people to be born into the global population will be born in poorer, less developed countries due to this fact. Any of these subsidized options would then benefit depleting the population because these people would not have to try and afford these, but would be able to receive them for free. In 2007 already about 54% of married women worldwide were to have been reported as using some means of contraception to plan or prevent pregnancy as it is.
You must take into consideration two terms when thinking about this: Zero Population Growth (ZPG) and Negative Population Growth (NPG). ZPG is basically the idea of self replacement. If someone dies you are replaced, easy as that. NPG is less than self replacement which depletes the population size overall. Take China for example. China is the most populated country in the world, holding about one-fifth of these seven billion people that walk the planet. In order to decrease the population growth they took the drastic level of enforcing a one-child birthing limit. Families that only had child received better access to schools, medical care, housing, and government jobs. Also, mothers who only had one child would be granted with longer maternity leaves. Any family that exceeded having one child were subjected to social ridicule, employment discrimination, and had to pay fines. There were even cases of the family’s income being cut in half. In 1984 the policy went through a judicial rollercoaster while they tried to find a way to really figure out how it was going to work and what would affect the population the way they wanted it to. It was also important to the people in China to give birth to males because they felt that males were superior since they carried the family name, helped with farming labor, and they cared for aging parents. While females on the other hand will simply marry and leave their family. Since they could only have one child the families who gave birth to a female would in some cases actually killed the female baby and would try to give birth until they bore a male. There were other downfalls to this policy such as an unbalanced gender ratio.
A man by the name of Paul Erlich wrote a book called The Dominant Animal in which a famous line is to be said, “Kill the pope.” Of course he did not mean this in a literal sense. What he meant by this was that we need to change our religious views in order to see the big picture. What is really happening to society and what can we do to fix this? Another option for population control is something called a birthing license which is exactly how it sounds. At birth, all females would be issued a birthing license which entitles you to having two births within your life time. These licenses are transferable so say that you did not necessarily want to have two children. You would be able to sell them for thousands of dollars to others who did. This would control how many people are actually being brought into the planet. The last option is to have a luxury tax. This permits only the wealthier families to be able to have more children. Your first two children would be a tax deduction. After that second child, every other child born would drastically increase your taxes. If people could not afford these taxes, than they would not be able to have more children.
The rates of births and deaths determine whether a human population grows, shrinks, or remains the same, pretty basic. Technology can only postpone this rapid growth and loss of resources so much. There are theories left and right of different reasons as to why it is occurring. Women’s empowerment and their rights have a huge affect on population growth rates. They now have access to contraceptives and family-planning programs. They also now have better education opportunities which enables them the knowledge of sex education that should none the less be subsidized. Other theories consist of emigration, immigration, poverty, and diseases. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) has taken hold of nations, particularly African nations are being targeted the hardest. In 2005, of the 40 million people around the world infected with HIV and AIDS more than half of them live in sub-Saharan African nations due to the low rate of contraceptives. Emigration and immigration are playing large roles in the idea of population growth. Refugees, for instance, are people who are forced to flee from their home country due to war or environmental degradation. The United Nations alone has about, if not more than, 25 million refuges per year due to poor environmental conditions. This gives the planet a more even spread throughout the world, or does it? Where do these people go? They head to where it is environmentally stable for them such as other populated areas. Or it could be such as the people of Rwanda and the large genocide that occurred in the 1990s. These people fled their land and destroyed large areas of forests to obtain goods for survival such as fuel wood, food, and shelter to stay alive until they reached the Democratic Republic of Congo. That was a way of postponing their rate of death.
Today the human population is at its all time high. About 90% of children that are being brought into this world are most likely going to live a far less healthy and stable life because of this dramatic growth. If you had to sit down and really think about which proposal of life or food expansion was reasonable, you would not be able to answer that question and it would simply just be an opinion. Because of the fact that it is legislating morality, it is therefore each individual’s decision. Hearing it, the actual facts about what is really going on makes you think though. The most important factor is that we need to stabilize our population size in time to avoid destroying the natural systems, our environment, which supports us in the economy and in society. We are indeed a very interesting species with enough intelligence to hopefully figure out a way to turn this situation around and expand the means of life on this planet for the human race even longer.
Argument in news about population control
Given Commentary (On Rough Drafts)
Barry Jay - I'm glad to see that you finally picked a topic that interested you instead of sticking on the "sustainability wave" as I like to call it. Overall, I liked your essay. You held a strong point and managed to get your idea across. You brought in statistics, examples, and personal experiences to tie everything together. Just make sure that you stick to the one point instead of trailing off, I tend to do that sometimes myself. Good job.
Lydia Mott - YOU WOULD. Just kidding. The way you began your essay is what drew me in, the metaphor of defining love being a hole in smoke. Then I continued reading and found more metaphors which made your essay different, enjoyable to read (also the fact that it's a topic that entrigues most girls). "With age, comes experience ; with experience comes knowledge ; and with knowledge comes wisdom." This is absolutely right, however I feel that there is a point where you can fall in love young, but to actually understand it comes with time and age. People can find love, different types of love. But to find that real, passionate, "true" love is definitly rare. How many people end up in divorce and heart breaking situations? Writing wise you did very well, there weren't any issues that I could find. Good job Apple Sauce.
Danny - Very good flow within your essay, definitly enjoyed reading it. You had a strong introduction that caused readers to want to continue reading. You are right when you say that the essay somewhat turns into more of an explanation as opposed to a causal, but I can still see the point that you are trying to get across which is more or less the point, actually several points all amongst the same topic. I agree with Jamie when you should use more examples. Good job.
Commentary Given to my Rough Draft from peers
http://sustainableidentities.pbwiki.com/overpopulation%20edited%20 SCOTT
http://sustainableidentities.pbwiki.com/Lauren+Dow+Edit+2-Jaime+Grullon JAMIE GRULLON
http://sustainableidentities.pbwiki.com/week+9+-+Lydia LYDIA MOTT
Final Draft Reviews and Grades given to Peers
Adam Parker
Your essay was definitly entriguing and I have to say that in many aspects I completely agree. The idea of media and propoganda being the means of our youth's persuasion is completely ridiculous. It makes our country look ignorant because of the fact that most of these people don't even know what they are talking about. They won't even listen to anything McCain has to say, whether he is right or not, just because of the fact that he is old, and for that matter, white. You don't see T-shirts with McCain's face being thrown on them with a catchy phrase because that isn't what is "cool." This makes it frustrating for those who actually know what is going on in the political world. As for the actual writing aspect of your essay, you did an excellent job, however you could have definitly expanded more in your essay with more actual facts because a lot of it was based on opinion. Overall I enjoyed your essay.
Rhetorical Knowledge Critical Thinking Writing and reading Process Knowledge of Conventions GRAND TOTAL:
5 5 3 4 5 22/25
Patrick Carew
Very assertive with your point, good essay. You had facts, historical references. It was more or less you stating your position with a story that was informative and a learning experience on my part. I didn't know half of the information that you put in there. Your essay had a very good flow and was easy to understand because you had each point followed by definitions and making sure that it was absolutely clear for the readers. I can tell that your process was very thorough and you knew exactly how you wanted to set it up.
Rhetorical Knowledge Critical Thinking Writing and reading Process Knowledge of Conventions GRAND TOTAL:
5 5 5 5 5 25/25
Deeroo
I liked your choice in topic along with the flow of your essay. Very informative, and could easily be considered almost a definitional argument. A lot of what you wrote felt like terms but it still got the point across. And you are absolutely right with your last statement, "Trickle down economics takes away that ability and therefore leads to economic turmoil if no one is there to stop it." This overall sums up your entire essay into one sentence, but you were able to expand using facts, dates, definitions, and any other options making your essay very well defined. Your writing was informative and easy for the reader, while your process was just as equally good. No other errors I could find.
Rhetorical Knowledge Critical Thinking Writing and reading Process Knowledge of Conventions GRAND TOTAL:
5 5 5 5 5 25/25
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.