#9 Environment
1. Issue #19 asks the question "Is Mankind Dangerously Harming the Environment?". Authors Brown and Lomborg, who declare yes and no, respectfully, both provide empirical arguments in there work. However, Lomborg's argument is more empirical because provides more evidence than Brown does in his statements.
2. Between the two arguments, Lomborg provides more facts than Brown (making it more empirical). Brown rather presents ideas and concerns about the environment's current condition.
3.Like every argument so far, both authors use some propaganda in their work. Lomborg, providing many facts, statistics, and graphs, tries to connect with the readers who only see numbers or have a higher tendency to look at graphs. Brown, on the other hand, tries to present his argument in a way that could make a reader fear what has become of the environment, when really it is more of a 'what if' situation.
4.Brown's 'what-if' situation can also be seen as a cause/effect relationship because it rolls off the idea that because you have one cause you get one effect. However, there are variables to the entire situation. For instance, it is incorrect to say that if one person litters, the world's ozone will deplete. Essentially, Brown is saying that the world has passed the tipping point while harming the environment.
5. Brown also distorts more information. Although he does go into depth about how the U.S., one of the larger providers of food, can encounter a problem with feeding the rest of the world, he leaves out the possibility of other countries cropping extra land to keep up. However, Lomborg's argument is also distorted. His "statistic happy" argument can reflect opinion more than fact.
6. Brown makes a faulty analogy as he compares China with the rest of the world. While China has one of the most dense population on the planet, it is also doing more than any other country to prevent overpopulation. For instance, China is one of the only countries that gives tax benefits for limiting the number of children a married couple can have.
7. Lomborg oversimplifies the issue. His argument is limited to only prove four statements to be incorrect. Although he does touch the pollution issue (one of the bigger ones), he ignores the global warming issue, which well over half the audience would consider before reading either argument about the environment.
8. Neither authors tend to stereotype much in each of their arguments. This is mainly because the issue effects mankind as a whole, therefore, particular groups aren't taken into much account. To be fair, Brown does stereotype the Chinese in one of his examples as he states how they would become dependent on food trade. He doesn't consider the idea that they could independently produce a sufficient amount of food for themselves.
9. Both authors make a generalization that the counter-argument is virtually impossible. For example, it could be so that mankind is harming the environment, but mankind, at the same time, could adapt to save the environment. At the same time, if mankind is not harming the environment, it could still be a concern that recent human interaction with the environment has been proven to be harmful. Neither cases consider.
2. Between the two arguments, Lomborg provides more facts than Brown (making it more empirical). Brown rather presents ideas and concerns about the environment's current condition.
3.Like every argument so far, both authors use some propaganda in their work. Lomborg, providing many facts, statistics, and graphs, tries to connect with the readers who only see numbers or have a higher tendency to look at graphs. Brown, on the other hand, tries to present his argument in a way that could make a reader fear what has become of the environment, when really it is more of a 'what if' situation.
4.Brown's 'what-if' situation can also be seen as a cause/effect relationship because it rolls off the idea that because you have one cause you get one effect. However, there are variables to the entire situation. For instance, it is incorrect to say that if one person litters, the world's ozone will deplete. Essentially, Brown is saying that the world has passed the tipping point while harming the environment.
5. Brown also distorts more information. Although he does go into depth about how the U.S., one of the larger providers of food, can encounter a problem with feeding the rest of the world, he leaves out the possibility of other countries cropping extra land to keep up. However, Lomborg's argument is also distorted. His "statistic happy" argument can reflect opinion more than fact.
6. Brown makes a faulty analogy as he compares China with the rest of the world. While China has one of the most dense population on the planet, it is also doing more than any other country to prevent overpopulation. For instance, China is one of the only countries that gives tax benefits for limiting the number of children a married couple can have.
7. Lomborg oversimplifies the issue. His argument is limited to only prove four statements to be incorrect. Although he does touch the pollution issue (one of the bigger ones), he ignores the global warming issue, which well over half the audience would consider before reading either argument about the environment.
8. Neither authors tend to stereotype much in each of their arguments. This is mainly because the issue effects mankind as a whole, therefore, particular groups aren't taken into much account. To be fair, Brown does stereotype the Chinese in one of his examples as he states how they would become dependent on food trade. He doesn't consider the idea that they could independently produce a sufficient amount of food for themselves.
9. Both authors make a generalization that the counter-argument is virtually impossible. For example, it could be so that mankind is harming the environment, but mankind, at the same time, could adapt to save the environment. At the same time, if mankind is not harming the environment, it could still be a concern that recent human interaction with the environment has been proven to be harmful. Neither cases consider.