The Three Most Pressing Environmental Concerns - Term Paper Example

Analysis and Evaluation- “Fewer people would mean fewer worries” Name Institution Lecturer Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Analysis 3 Evaluation 5 Conclusion 7 Works Cited 9 Introduction Allen Greer (2008) in his essay "Fewer people would mean fewer worries," which was published in The Australian, presents arguments on why fewer people would solve underlying environmental concerns far better than technology. This paper analyses and evaluates the essay to determine the validity and reliability of his conclusion. Greer's persuasive essay had some high-points and gaps that prompt a need for analysis. Hence, the evaluation is mixed. Analysis In the essay, Greer indicates that the three most pressing environmental concerns at present include climate change, water shortages, and insufficient arable land for agriculture. According to Greer, much of the public and scholarly discourses have centred on the need to have more technology yet nothing has been stated regarding stabilising the human population. Basing on this background, Greer’s thesis statement is that once the population is stabilised, lower levels of populations would be achieved, which addresses the underlying concerns, such as climate change, water shortages and insufficient arable land for agriculture, far better than through increased application of technology. Greer's main argument in support of the thesis is that man is strongly opposed to considering the need to stabilize population since population growth has traditionally been a means of enhancing economic growth. Greer later presents several subarguments to support his premise. These include the various sub-ordinate arguments that make up a constituent of his larger argument (Govier 26-27). For instance, he reinforces his point by adding that people have tended to believe that technology will help them break away from resource constraints, limiting rapid population of all other species, even though it has endangered the human species. Indeed, Greer alludes to how man has relied on technological breakthrough since mastery of the fire technology over 400,000 years ago, which has instead released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere leading to climate change. He presents another subargument that the huge population and per capita consumption has overwhelmed the natural biogeochemical cycles, which had the capacity to deal with emissions before Industrial Revolution, some two and a half centuries ago. At this level, Greer presents two different arguments. Consequently, two divergent sets of premises and conclusions emerge. If Greer had simply stated the premise, the structure of his argument would not be clear. His subarguments were therefore necessary. Hence, he tried to convince the audience that man should centre on stabilising population rather than getting obsessed with technology to solve climate change. Certainly, he was aware that if he failed to persuade his audience in the very initial paragraphs, then his audience would not move on to the latter paragraphs and conclusion, At this stage, Greer presents his concerns that man is in the process of self-destruction. However, the conclusion he tries to establish is that lower population would provide a solution to man's underlying problems, such as climate change, water shortages, and insufficient arable land for agriculture, far better than increased application of advanced technology. This provides evidence that man has overlooked what should be prioritised on, to curb the underlying environmental concerns. He further offers examples as basis for making a more general claim that solving the fundamental environmental concerns, such as climate change would require stabilisation of the population. Greer progresses from this general claim to show what it would mean if humanity had focused more on stabilising population. His most probable explanation, as he states, is that the present-day environmental concerns are driven by man’s thirst for more technological innovation and reluctance to check population growth. Hence, the main point Lewis seeks to communicate is in fact his conclusion. Evaluation Greer has clearly stated his thesis. In fact, it is easy to identify the thesis in his introductory paragraph. In his thesis statement, he makes claims that stabilizing population leads to lower levels of populations, which would solve man's underlying problems, such as climate change, and water shortages in far better ways than continually using the technology. His explanations in support of the thesis are presented with clarity of thought. In fact, Greer's claims are tied to the thesis statement, which makes his hypothesis plausible and convincing. This also means that there is coherence and consistency of arguments throughout the article. For instance, Greer's idea that stabilizing population rather than continually embracing the technology remains dominant from his introduction to the concluding paragraph. Greer has provided sufficient details to allow for evaluation of the reliability and validity of his arguments and conclusion. For instance, while presenting his argument on how processes to stabilise population by tweaking policies can work, he alludes to the Australian case, which has a natural reproductive rate of 1.85 children per woman. He further mentions how China has been able to stabilise population through its one-child policy. These make it easy to evaluate his sources of assumptions and data. In the presence of sufficient detail, it becomes easy to evaluate the reliability and validity of his conclusions. Still, while Greer’s arguments are persuasive, there are gaps in the form of pertinent details regarding population growth and technological advancement that the text would have addressed. First, Greer appears to overlook the fact that man’s obsession with technology may be due to many factors, such as the effects of globalisation and the need to advance communication, rather than as means to curb problems resulting from population explosion: climate change, water shortages and insufficient arable land for agriculture (Sachs and Macarthur 157-158). This implies that he missed the fact that there may not be a correlation between population explosion and technological advancement. At this level, reference to empirical study was appropriate. Seemingly, Greer thought his idea is widely accepted to bother arguing in its support. In fact, a major gap in his text is that he mistakenly uses unproven hypotheses as if they are empirically investigated facts. There is therefore, a likely confusion between causation and correlation. For instance, obsession with technological advancement may also be due to market-driven phenomenon and evolution of man’s brain. Greer claims that population growth is acceptable since it signifies long-term economic growth. He also fails to acknowledge that the same would apply for technology. Indeed, in a related empirical study by Sachs and Macarthur (158-160), the researchers established that technological innovation is an acceptable trend since it is a key driver of long-term economic-growth. The researchers also claim that technological growth is a market-driven phenomenon, where companies innovate to gain higher profits, while governments rely on technologies to have highly innovative economic systems. While Greer has given a detailed analysis of the most pressing environmental concerns and man’s obsession with technology, he mostly relied on his opinions while asserting they are facts. For instance, he claims that stabilization of population would be simple to achieve the contemporary society with simply changes in the social, economic and immigration policies, such as by adopting restricting immigration policy. What Greer appears to overlook is that effects of globalization, human rights movements, and international relations overtake the modern society, where freedom of movement and reproduction remains increasingly unrestricted. Hence, the validity of his conclusions is challenged as alternative conclusions can be drawn from his supporting evidences. Greer also failed to rely on a theory to support his arguments. This shows that his depth of research was narrow. If he had used Economic Theory to understand economic change, he would have noted that technology has also been relied on, largely due to the need for increased specialization arbitrated by market forces and the need to promote efficiency in production, rather than to address environmental concerns. Hence, Greer’s subject focus was extremely narrow, which led to biased conclusions. He also offers a one-sided argument. Indeed, he fails to consider whether stabilizing population may also have other various limitations or disadvantages. His arguments are therefore, unfairly unbalanced. This also means that he omitted potentially relevant information. Conclusion In this paper, a mixed evaluation of Greer’ essay is carried out. As established, the most dominant argument in the essay is that stabilization of population leads to manageable levels of populations capable of addressing water shortages, climate change, and insufficient arable land for agriculture, far better than the use of technology. There is logic and consistency of arguments throughout the article to the effect that Greer persuades his audience that man is strongly opposed to stabilizing population since they view population growth as a means to enhance economic growth. However, while Greer’s arguments are persuasive, his details have several gaps. Hence, the validity and reliability of his conclusions are challenged. Additionally, his subject focus is extremely narrow, which may have led to biased conclusions. Greer seems to have overlooked the fact that technology may have made some significant milestones. Instead, he resorts to make a conditional statement that while technology may work, its solutions are never permanent. His idea of this is that the unstoppable increase in human numbers ultimately surpassed it, resulting to another process of scrambling to develop another technological solution. While arguing that increased population leads to increased uptake or adoption of technology, he did not make any claim to the effect that technology has not made any achievements. Works Cited Govier, Trudy. A Practical Study of Argument. Wadsworth Cengage Learning: Belmont, 2010 Greer, Allen. "Fewer people would mean fewer worries." The Australian, 16 Jan 2008. 10 Feb 2015, < http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/appointments/fewer-people-would-mean-fewer-worries/story-e6frgckf-1111115324512> Sachs, Jeffert and McArthur, John. "Technological Advancement and Long-Term Economic Growth in Asia," 2002. 10 Feb 2015, Read More

Certainly, he was aware that if he failed to persuade his audience in the very initial paragraphs, then his audience would not move on to the latter paragraphs and conclusion, At this stage, Greer presents his concerns that man is in the process of self-destruction. However, the conclusion he tries to establish is that lower population would provide a solution to man's underlying problems, such as climate change, water shortages, and insufficient arable land for agriculture, far better than increased application of advanced technology.

This provides evidence that man has overlooked what should be prioritised on, to curb the underlying environmental concerns. He further offers examples as basis for making a more general claim that solving the fundamental environmental concerns, such as climate change would require stabilisation of the population. Greer progresses from this general claim to show what it would mean if humanity had focused more on stabilising population. His most probable explanation, as he states, is that the present-day environmental concerns are driven by man’s thirst for more technological innovation and reluctance to check population growth.

Hence, the main point Lewis seeks to communicate is in fact his conclusion. Evaluation Greer has clearly stated his thesis. In fact, it is easy to identify the thesis in his introductory paragraph. In his thesis statement, he makes claims that stabilizing population leads to lower levels of populations, which would solve man's underlying problems, such as climate change, and water shortages in far better ways than continually using the technology. His explanations in support of the thesis are presented with clarity of thought.

In fact, Greer's claims are tied to the thesis statement, which makes his hypothesis plausible and convincing. This also means that there is coherence and consistency of arguments throughout the article. For instance, Greer's idea that stabilizing population rather than continually embracing the technology remains dominant from his introduction to the concluding paragraph. Greer has provided sufficient details to allow for evaluation of the reliability and validity of his arguments and conclusion.

For instance, while presenting his argument on how processes to stabilise population by tweaking policies can work, he alludes to the Australian case, which has a natural reproductive rate of 1.85 children per woman. He further mentions how China has been able to stabilise population through its one-child policy. These make it easy to evaluate his sources of assumptions and data. In the presence of sufficient detail, it becomes easy to evaluate the reliability and validity of his conclusions.

Still, while Greer’s arguments are persuasive, there are gaps in the form of pertinent details regarding population growth and technological advancement that the text would have addressed. First, Greer appears to overlook the fact that man’s obsession with technology may be due to many factors, such as the effects of globalisation and the need to advance communication, rather than as means to curb problems resulting from population explosion: climate change, water shortages and insufficient arable land for agriculture (Sachs and Macarthur 157-158).

This implies that he missed the fact that there may not be a correlation between population explosion and technological advancement. At this level, reference to empirical study was appropriate. Seemingly, Greer thought his idea is widely accepted to bother arguing in its support. In fact, a major gap in his text is that he mistakenly uses unproven hypotheses as if they are empirically investigated facts. There is therefore, a likely confusion between causation and correlation. For instance, obsession with technological advancement may also be due to market-driven phenomenon and evolution of man’s brain.

Greer claims that population growth is acceptable since it signifies long-term economic growth. He also fails to acknowledge that the same would apply for technology.

Read More