Global Poverty

As we have seen throughout the course of this class, everything in the world is intricately interconnected. This rule applies to economics just as it does to environment and biodiversity. More than six billion of us share an already crowded planet, and we are starting to realize that our interests are increasingly transnational. So when nearly half of that booming population lives on less that $2/day (try to imagine living on $2/day), something has to give. As Susan Rice argues in "The Threat of Global Poverty,"

When Americans see televised images of bone-thin children with distended bellies, their humanitarian instincts take over. They don't typically look at UNICEF footage and perceive a threat that could destroy our way of life. Yet global poverty is not solely a humanitarian concern. In real ways, over the long term, it can threaten U.S. national security. Poverty erodes weak states' capacity to prevent the spread of disease and protect the world's forests and watersheds . . . It also creates conditions conducive to transnational criminal enterprises and terrorist activity, not only by making desperate individuals potentially more susceptible to recruitment, but also, and more significantly, by undermining the state's ability to prevent and counter those violent threats. Poverty can also give rise to the tensions that erupt in civil conflict, which further taxes the state and allows transnational predators greater freedom of action.

Poverty is an issue that affects all of us, but there is disagreement as to what is the best method of fighting it. Consider the two articles below:

1.) Jeffrey D. Sachs - "Securing the Future at the Evian Summit"
2.) Jim Klauder - "Paper Money Can't Save Billions from Poverty"

Then answer the following questions in relation to all three of the articles linked above:

1.) What is the argument of the piece?
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?

Post your responses in the "COMMENTS" section of this entry before class on Friday.

Biodiversity

One of the interesting things about biodiversity (as a political issue) is that it's extremely difficult to find anyone sane willing to speak against it (i.e. "biodiversity is not important"). There's a good reason for this: biodiversity is crucial to our continued existence on this planet. To get a sense of why this is the case, read this brief article:

David Mussared - Biodiversity in Your Backyard

Even though most people agree that biodiversity is important, sometimes the preservation of biodiversity interferes with economic development. When biodiversity and economy clash, there is often heated debate as to which is more important. This is the case with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling controversy.

Some argue that a large-scale drilling project in Alaska would threaten biodiversity in a pristine wilderness region and is therefore a bad idea. Others contend that the economic advantages of drilling outweigh the biodiversity issues. Read the two articles below:

1.) Paul Driessen - "It's Time to Support ANWR Drilling"
2.) Susan McGrath - "The Last Great Wilderness"

Then answer these three questions in relation to each article:

1.) What is the argument of the article?
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
3.) Do you find the argument convincing? Why or why not?

Post your answers in the "COMMENTS" section of this entry before class on Wednesday.

Global Warming

Consider these two articles on global warming:

1.) John Hepburn - "After the Thaw"
2.) George Will - "Let Cooler Heads Prevail"

After reading each article, answer the following questions:

1.) What is the argument of the article?
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
3.) Do you find the article convincing? Why or why not?

Post your answers in the "COMMENTS" section of this entry before class on Monday.