Global warming? Killing animals? Feeding third world countries? World peace?
These are good issues to think about and worry about, but right now, in this moment, they aren't nearly as severe as the issue blossoming out into our society everyday.
Overpopulation.
Yeah, I know, I covered this before with Robert Kunzig's NatGeo article, but that was solutions to the problem in other countries. Now I'm talking about the issue in general. Overpopulation.
So the actual article I read for my English class was by a man named Boris Johnson. Him and I have the same views about overpopulation. That view is that overpopulation should be a number one priority. The problem is that this issue isn't even on the top ten list of "Issues that America and the Rest of the World Has to Solve". By the way, that's not a real list, I'm just being facetious. The argument for overpopulation has changed over the years. It was a budding topic early on, when people first got into demographics and all that jazz. But over the years, this topic has become almost banned. People don't want to talk about stopping the procreation of human beings because it might save their lives.
I'm Catholic, I'm all for procreation, but I would rather live healthy lives, then be corraled on this continent by the amount of people present. I mean, one day, it could be almost claustrophobic.
It seems that people, governments, and countries might have just given up on population control. It seems that way, but I'm sure there's a few people that are still willing to help keep it under the radar. In America, Johnson says that he thinks that both parties, (Right and Left wings) have reasons for disconcerting the issue of overpopulation. Pushing aside this issue allows them more time to go for things that aren't so overreaching. I guess our country has tried in recent years to do population control, but there's a difference between "forcing" and "encouraging". At least in my opinion.
The main source of support for the overpopulation issue that isn't being utilized are teenagers. Teenagers are flexible in their beliefs. They love standing up for what is right. Take the Invisible Children. On my Facebook, so many kids have shared pictures and videos and all sorts of advertisements for this organization, some of them not even fully knowing what it is but to jump on the bandwagon. If teenagers like myself, can take the time to post stuff about one organization and it catch like wildfire and spread over the entire planet, why can't overpopulation do the same thing? If teenagers participated in helping to come up with solutions for overpopulation, adults in other age groups might be more willing to help.
Just a though for the future.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Overpopulation: Solutions?
Hey AGAIN! This is a really late post, I know. I guess this was supposed to be posted over Spring Break and, I completely forgot about it until Monday when I looked at our Syllabus and was all, "Oh my goodness, how could I have forgotten this?!" So I'm making up for it now. I'm so sorry. This is how inadequate I am when it comes to remembering things. Early on-set dementia?
So we've been talking about overpopulation in English. It's also the next topic for our papers. Overpopulation is a growing trend in research of today's society. With a planet that has 7 continents and limited amount of space for people to live, the issue of overpopulation comes to the minds of people everywhere and how the 6 billion people living on this planet right now could affect the future of peoples' lives to come.
So, I had to read this article in National Geographic about the overpopulation problem in different countries like India, China, here in the US, and other parts of the world. Different solutions have been proposed, but how effective are these solutions?
Was Rev. Thomas Malthus right? Is the population growing faster than the food supply?
Overpopulation has been an issue among scientists for years, the issue being whether the Earth can support the growing number of people. Thomas Malthus proposed his general law of population saying that the population of the people on the planet is growing faster than the amount of food that can be produced. This theory has been agreed upon by many people over the years and has been influencing food production methods. But food production is not the only source to help control population growth.
One method proposed by Leeuwenhoek was the theory of "coitus interruptus" or the "pull-out" method, which saw a decline in the number of births over the years became a popular method next to the use of contraceptives, which weren't available until later anyway.
Some of the solutions that Kunzig proposed I believe might be effective, and then some which wouldn't be so popular or reasonable with society. Health and education is the source of my support. I believe that if we take the time to educate the growing children of the world in schools, they will be more likely to make more informed decisions about childbirth. Like in India, girls who are educated are more likely to put school first before having kids, prolonging the number of people developed in countries. Increasing medical technology also extends the life of an average person, where having simple medicinal happens shorten a person's life. Family-planning solutions have become available to much of the world, and I believe that it should be acted on. If more people spent time planning a family, they would be more likely to have fewer kids, which could help us stabilize the population.
Some of the solutions I didn't agree with were the "wartime-like rations" proposed. Though the food supply may be shortened, I think there are other ways to produce food, even if it has to be manufactured, at least people are not going hungry. Rations just make things more complicated for the average family.
Overpopulation is a problem that we as a society need to place in our minds. This particular situation isn't going away, if anything, it's getting larger. We need to take the necessary precautions to ensure that everyone on this planet can live. As Kunzig pointed out, it's too late to decrease the amount of the middle class of 2030, but it's not too late to educate it about making our future safer.
So we've been talking about overpopulation in English. It's also the next topic for our papers. Overpopulation is a growing trend in research of today's society. With a planet that has 7 continents and limited amount of space for people to live, the issue of overpopulation comes to the minds of people everywhere and how the 6 billion people living on this planet right now could affect the future of peoples' lives to come.
So, I had to read this article in National Geographic about the overpopulation problem in different countries like India, China, here in the US, and other parts of the world. Different solutions have been proposed, but how effective are these solutions?
Was Rev. Thomas Malthus right? Is the population growing faster than the food supply?
Overpopulation has been an issue among scientists for years, the issue being whether the Earth can support the growing number of people. Thomas Malthus proposed his general law of population saying that the population of the people on the planet is growing faster than the amount of food that can be produced. This theory has been agreed upon by many people over the years and has been influencing food production methods. But food production is not the only source to help control population growth.
One method proposed by Leeuwenhoek was the theory of "coitus interruptus" or the "pull-out" method, which saw a decline in the number of births over the years became a popular method next to the use of contraceptives, which weren't available until later anyway.
Some of the solutions that Kunzig proposed I believe might be effective, and then some which wouldn't be so popular or reasonable with society. Health and education is the source of my support. I believe that if we take the time to educate the growing children of the world in schools, they will be more likely to make more informed decisions about childbirth. Like in India, girls who are educated are more likely to put school first before having kids, prolonging the number of people developed in countries. Increasing medical technology also extends the life of an average person, where having simple medicinal happens shorten a person's life. Family-planning solutions have become available to much of the world, and I believe that it should be acted on. If more people spent time planning a family, they would be more likely to have fewer kids, which could help us stabilize the population.
Some of the solutions I didn't agree with were the "wartime-like rations" proposed. Though the food supply may be shortened, I think there are other ways to produce food, even if it has to be manufactured, at least people are not going hungry. Rations just make things more complicated for the average family.
Overpopulation is a problem that we as a society need to place in our minds. This particular situation isn't going away, if anything, it's getting larger. We need to take the necessary precautions to ensure that everyone on this planet can live. As Kunzig pointed out, it's too late to decrease the amount of the middle class of 2030, but it's not too late to educate it about making our future safer.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Snape, Snape, Severus Snape
*Spoilers
There might be some spoilers if you haven't seen the Harry Potter series.
What makes a hero? What makes a villain? Is it possible that heroes can look the part of a villain but intentionally be a hero? Heroes have been defined for years through different forms of media: comic books, television, movies, books. We view heroes as an icon of freedom and give us role models for how to live our lives. Though we all can picture a hero like Spiderman or Superman, what is the true definition of a hero?
Bernstein characterizes a hero with four qualities: elevated moral stature, superior ability, pursues his goals in the face of opposition and defense of reality conforming/life-affirming values. These values are Bernstein's definition of a hero.
My definition of a hero would be Severus Snape from the Harry Potter book and movie series. Severus Snape has been characterized throughout the Harry Potter series as a villain, until his intentions were released at the end of the series. Though his portrayal as a villain is significant, the understanding of Severus Snape as a hero might be implied. If we look at Bernstein's definition of a hero, Snape meets several, if not all, of these qualities.
There might be some spoilers if you haven't seen the Harry Potter series.
What makes a hero? What makes a villain? Is it possible that heroes can look the part of a villain but intentionally be a hero? Heroes have been defined for years through different forms of media: comic books, television, movies, books. We view heroes as an icon of freedom and give us role models for how to live our lives. Though we all can picture a hero like Spiderman or Superman, what is the true definition of a hero?
Bernstein characterizes a hero with four qualities: elevated moral stature, superior ability, pursues his goals in the face of opposition and defense of reality conforming/life-affirming values. These values are Bernstein's definition of a hero.
My definition of a hero would be Severus Snape from the Harry Potter book and movie series. Severus Snape has been characterized throughout the Harry Potter series as a villain, until his intentions were released at the end of the series. Though his portrayal as a villain is significant, the understanding of Severus Snape as a hero might be implied. If we look at Bernstein's definition of a hero, Snape meets several, if not all, of these qualities.
Through the movies, Snape holds himself high and commands much respect from the students of Hogwarts. He might not have the same "elevated moral stature" that Bernsteins describes, but he does have moral stature in regards to the safety of Harry himself as seen at the end of the series. This sort of love and protection of Harry qualifies him as a hero. His superior ability comes in the form of being an excellent wizard. Since the entire series is based on wizards, his abilities make him superior to other wizards of his time. Thirdly, through the whole series, Snape has been seen as both a professor at Hogwarts and a Death Eater for the opposition, Voldemort. But his skills as a spy for Dumbledore make Snape pursue his goals, even while keeping himself undetected from the opposition of the series. Snape's ability to hold the last Bernstein quality might make some believe him to be a villain. He may not defend the people and hold life affirming values, but he definitely shows signs of wanting life to be continued further, even if that is not his original intent.
I believe Snape to be a hero in his own right. He does perform good deeds for the good of Harry and of Hogwarts itself. Through the series he proves himself to be a good person, and I think the intent is what makes him truly a hero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)