Does helping the planet hurt the poor? This question is answer by two writers with differing perspectives. Read both of these pieces, and comment on which side you prefer. Do you think the two writers have presented their arguments well? Do they make logical claims? Use sweeping generalizations? Is this topic something you've ever thought about?
No: Peter Singer
Yes: Bjorn Lomborg
17 comments:
Does helping the planet hurt the poor?
I agree with Peter Singer, saying that helping the planet does not hurt the poor. His article touched on the fact that many of the people who die because of Global Warming by rising sea levels, disease, and drought are impoverished. He also talked about how the two issues “point in the same direction,” that we are really trying to achieve similar things with them. Although both articles were opinionated and had a lot of basis in statistics and facts, I personally believe that it is possible to help both the planet and the poor. We do not have to choose between the health of our planet and the health of our people. While both arguments are presented with logic and fact, Lomborg’s negative view is so pessimistic, saying that we must choose between the planet and the poor, that it was difficult to read at some points. I’ve never thought about how these two issues connect. They are two of the biggest problems in the modern world, problems too large to tackle all at once. They are complicated and intricate, and it is difficult to see any way to fully heal our world of these issues. But if we keep working in that direction, as Singer says, we will eventually resolve both of the issues. These articles opened my eyes to a range of complications with both of these prevalent issues.
Does helping the planet hurt the poor?
In the article by Singer, I was impressed by his use of powerful facts. For example, he writes, According to the World Health Organization, the rise in temperature that occurred between the 1970s and 2004 is causing an additional 140,000 deaths every year (roughly equivalent to causing, every week, as many deaths as occurred in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001). This was completely eye opening and shocking to me. I haven't ever really thought about this question before, and I find it quite interesting.
Lomborg's article did seem to me, however, as if he were talking directly to Singer, rather than to the reader. I liked Singer's article because it was less confrontational, and it seemed like he was addressing the reader (except for the section at the end), rather than Lomborg. I agree with Singer when he says that by doing simple things, we can achieve a lot. For example eating less meat, buying more energy efficient vehicles. Lomborg claims that this won't actually work, however, I see it happening all around us. More people are becoming vegetarians, and many more people around my town have switched from gas-guzzlers to hybrids and smaller vehicles.
Overall, I would have to side with Singer, but I am not adequately educated on the topic.
Does helping the planet hurt the poor?
Before reading these articles I had never once thought that the environment and poverty were linked. In my mind, they have always been big equally important problems that our generation will have to face, but never have they appeared related.
Similarly, Singer and Lomborg both focus is on the future and how we, in the present, can attain a future that we wan in their articles. What stood out to me most, apart from the writers different views on the subject, were how differently they chose to write their pieces. Singer chose to fill his article with interesting facts, important views, and his personal view on the matter. Lomborg wrote his article criticizing Singer's views, as well as his article. I wish that Lomborg had written a piece more focused on what he thought and he wanted, and less focused on what he didn't think was right that Singer said. However, I must agree with Lomborg's ending paragraph: "We are perfectly capable today of tackling the problems of both poverty and environmental pollution. But to do so, we must think clearly and rationally, and we must carefully weigh the costs and benefits of the approaches available to us." I agree completely with this statement, and I know that we have the ability to solve both of these problems.
I have never thought about the connection between helping the poor and helping our planet.
I agree with Peter Singer; however I found Bjorn Lomborg's article very interesting to read. Although some may read it as pessimistic, I found it to be very blunt. He states that "As uncomfortable as it may be, the reality is that we don't actually think of all people as equal. If we did, we would be building all of our new hospitals in developing countries." It is clear that he is not worried about the judgement of others but plainly voicing his opinion. Both articles are presented with facts to back up their claims.
I still agree with Singer. Cost effective technology is often green as well. For example, setting up solar panel ovens or solar electricity, although expensive to install, ultimately saves money while also helps the earth. There is an organization called "Jewish Heart for Africa" that installs green technology in Africa in medical centers, homes, schools, etc. This is an example of helping both the poor and the earth.
Even though Lomborg had an interesting perspective, I think that it is too harsh to claim that we cannot put our energy into helping both.
Does helping the planet hurt the poor?
In both of these articles, the writers take very direct stands with their opinions on this issue. I prefer Peter Singer’s article and the argument he makes. I like that he addresses the arguments made against his case but focuses on his own perspective and his ideas to combat poverty and global climate change. Although Bjorn Lomborg makes legitimate claims, he seemes quick to make sweeping generalizations and disregard the arguments of the other side. He spent too much time attacking Singer's piece and not enough time defending and cultivating his own perspective. I read Lomborg's article first, but rather than persuaded me to join his side, his piece just made me want to read Singer's article because he talked so much about its content. I learned enough in APES last year to develop my own opinion on poverty and global climate change. The quote from Singer’s article, “we should help today's global poor, but not at the expense of tomorrow's global poor,” stuck with me because it was bluntly honest. Works such as The Population Bomb and Cradle to Cradle were instrumental in supporting my opinion of these two articles.
Both articles made for interesting reads, and both authors are obviously very opinionated on this topic. It was also interesting to compare the ways in which the two pieces were written, with Singer's being an essay on his opinions, and Lomborg's being an essay in which he refuted most of Singer's claims.
Some of Lomborg's claims, however, did not seem logical: "Essentially, our generation should eat porridge, while we leave virtually all benefits to the future." That is a gross misinterpretation of Singer's argument. All Singer is suggesting is that we try to think about the future consequences of our present actions and weigh the outcomes. He isn't telling to save almost everything for future generations.
I agree with more of Mr. Singer's points, so I would have to say that I prefer his side. That being said, Mr. Lomborg also had some logical points.
Never had I thought about poverty and the environment being connected in any sort of way. Having said that, this reading was very interesting because of my lack of knowledge of these two topics being connected. Ultimately I agreed with Singer more than Lomborg. I did not agree with Lomborg's main point that we cannot help both but merely use our energy to fix one. I also liked that Singer used more factual evidence than Lomborg. Both articles had valid points however and it was interesting to learn something about the nether in-between poverty and the environment.
The connection between poverty and global warming has never occurred to me before, and even now that I've read two articles on the topic I'm still unclear on the relationship. My instincts say that helping the planet and the poor are entirely possible, given the excesses enjoyed by the developed world. This, somewhat confusingly, is the point made in the opening paragraph of both articles. Another point of confusion is the weakness of several of the writers' arguments. Singer's idea, for example, that the tendency of the poor to have many children brings the need to save their lives into questions. Or Lomborg's implication that Singer would have each generation live in poverty with the idea that the next would benefit from it, when he clearly meant only that we should take the future into consideration. While the writers both presented several unique, thought-provoking ideas regarding this issue, they have ultimately left me unclear on what major point the pieces were meant to convey.
First off, it was interesting to read an article "couplet," if you will. I've never seen writing more confrontational than this, especially Bjorn Lomborg's piece. Fundamentally, his article was a list of arguments against Peter Singer's. I agree with Julia that often times the relationship being argued in both articles between the poor and the environment became muddled with confusing arguments. However, both writers managed to find facts to support their arguments which gives each side more credibility.
Overall, I'd have to say I agreed more with Singer. He laid out cohesive points and showed how the poor and the environment can both be helped, and that this relationship may even be a little symbiotic. I understood and agreed with his point about big families in developing countries; over-population is something that does threaten the environment, and with better healthcare and education poorer families wouldn't necessarily have to reproduce as much.
I think that Singer just had more logical arguments than Lomborg. While I enjoyed Lomborg's bluntness ("As uncomfortable as it may be, the reality is that we don't actually think of all people as equal"), I thought his article was charged more directly at Singer while Singer was simply laying out his ideas. I'm not sure how much of Lomborg's article made sense as much as just attempting to deconstruct Singer's work.
Does helping the planet hurt the poor?
I believe that we can improve the ecology of our world without hurting those below the poverty line, but I do not think it is likely. Mr. Lomborg says that it is possible but very unlikely given how the human race behaves, especially western society. Because of this, it comes to the people we choose to lead us to make the difficult decision of what to make the priority. The simple fact that this decision has to be made highlights the greed that most of the human race embrace so foolhardily. While there are so many selfless people in the world trying to solve this problem of helping both those in need and the world around us, there are double the amount of people contributing nothing to either side, and often hurting one or both of them. Both of these authors agree that so much of this could be solved without this detail, but that would be taking the human out of humanity as they acknowledge. So for that reason a decision has to be made between the two, and I believe that the environment should take a priority, as developing a greener world might hurt the poor, but for some it could help.
While I've never thought about how these two problems in the world could be connected in such intricate and complicated ways. Does the world really have to choose? I understand how the action of helping underprivileged families could snow ball into them having more children and thus creating more children that they possibly cannot feed, thus effecting the environment, etc. I like Singer's theory about if we prevent one cause, it will also prevent the next one in line, and so on and so forth (which can be compared to having a baby as a teen. If one prevents having a baby at a young age, then you won't have to worry about managing college plus a baby, as well an income. If you give that person money, then they won't work at a job, creating more money. Instead, they will focus just on college. It's a win-lose situation). My only issues with the article is that he seems to be promoting his book, "Animal Liberation", but I know that he is passionate about these topics (evolution and the environment). I also disliked how Siger's article is a bit one-sided, which Bjørn rightfully pointed out. Yet I still agree with Singer, even if I did agree with Bjørn's sardonically titled article ("Does helping the Planet hurt the Poor? - Yes, if We Listen to Green Extremists"). I also noticed how Bjørn used a picture of a burnt forest (obviously focusing on Singer's global warming opinions) and Singer's photo - children. This shows how Singer is focusing more on the the future, and how our next generation will and will not be prepared to take on climate change and poverty. I ultimately agree with Singer. We hopefully won't have to live off of porridge, but if we eat up all of our resources now our future generation won't even have porridge.
Does helping the planet hurt the poor?
I don't think so, but these opinion pieces make powerful connections between two different issues I hadn't thought of as being related. I think that each opinion has its benefits and drawbacks, but ultimately, what's best for the world will be the best for the people in it, including the poor. After all, being poor in a healthy world is better than making slightly more money until the world falls apart. I think that both authors speak eloquently and present their respective cases logically and clearly. They both speak in broad generalizations, but it would be hard not to when discussing topics such as these.
I've thought about parts of this before, but never this deeply. For instance there is the debate right now between developed and developing countries. Even though the United States has been able to emit as much carbon as we wanted when we were developing, now we want to impose restrictions on countries like China and India, who will find it harder to grow without being able to emit tons of carbon dioxide. I think that using our resources sustainably will hurt everyone, maybe the poor more than most, but I also think that we have to do so in order to survive. That's not much of a choice.
Does Helping the Planet Hurt the Poor?
Prior to reading this article I really had not connected the two growing issues as competing. I found reading the two the articles consecutively to be very beneficial and interesting. It was nice to see the counter arguments to the points and statements made in the first article. Although both of the articles take interesting views on the subject matter, I agree with Peter Singer's take on the topic. However, even after reading the two articles I do not think that i know enough about the subject matter to make a firm belief. I think that Singer's use of factual evidence really persuade me to his side, while Lomborg's was really just arguing against what Singer had to say. Personally, although I thought it was interesting to hear the counter arguments to Singer's points--Lomborg's article would have been more effective if he would have included more of his own factual evidence instead of just arguing against Singer's.
Does helping the planet hurt the poor?
While I have heard allegations that the green movement in America targets the wealthy over the poor, I have not been exposed to the intricate relationship between environmentalism and poverty illustrated by Singer and Lomborg in these two articles. I personally think that Lomborg's candor in his prose makes his article a better read over Singer's, though I am not sure if I fully agree with the points that he makes. While I agree with Lomborg's assertion that one cannot ignore the role that our ethics play into these issues, i don't understand why "ignoring the ethical judgment of nearly everyone makes [Singer's] analysis less helpful"; Singer offers plenty of factual evidence to make his arguments significant without acknowledging the role of ethics. Yes, Singer could have noted this, but was it necessary? Though I did not have a problem with Lomborg's decision to write in response to Singer's ideas, I wish that Lomborg had used fewer sweeping generalizations in his counter-arguments to Singer's article. I think both authors' use of preconceived notions made it harder for me to follow the logic in some of their arguments: Singer's assumptions regarding the traditional family structure in developing countries feels far-fetched and inaccessible to me, as I unforunately do not know enough about the subject at hand.
In my opinion, both Lomborg and Singer were able to equally convey their ideas through their respective essays and express their personal opinions and ideas- one just happened to be substantially more blunt than the other. Although Lomborg had a far more forward and aggressive writing style in terms of addressing each of Singer’s arguments, I felt that the points made by Singer were supported by far more evidence. Singer was able to incorporate the arguments of several different people in order to provide differing perspectives on the issue, while simultaneously expressing why he either opposed or agreed with these ideas. I also appreciated Singer’s use of shocking statistics to support his claims, for example, relating the increased number of deaths that have occurred in recent years due to the climate change to the deaths that occurred on 9/11. Not only was this an astonishing statistic, but it also made the numbers a lot more relative to U.S. citizens; a good way to claim the readers attention and provide them with more relatable numbers. Although I prefer Singer’s style, I applaud Lomborg for his straightforward approach and no-nonsense attitude, one which might resonate very well with some readers.
Does helping the planet hurt the poor?
Before reading these articles, I had never considered the connections between these two global problems. I have recently been realizing how complex the issue of environmentalism/ sustainability is. Read these articles just reinforced the idea that achieving climate stability will have unimaginably diverse implications.
I think both writers did a good job of presenting clear, logical arguments, but ultimately, I preferred Peter Singer articles for a couple reasons. I agree with Singer that the world's developed nations are largely responsible for global warming. For this reason, I think its essential the world's richer nations to take responsibility and recognize the importance of prioritizing needs over luxuries. Similarly I think for the world, especially the western world, to redefine the standards of success and knowledge. Technology, and the knowledge that has enabled technological development, is exactly what allowed people all over the world to create cars, airplanes, powerplants - the very things that are causing global warming. I don't mean to say that technology is a completely bad thing, and I recognize that technological advancements like solar/wind are great potential solutions to the global warming issue. However, I think there needs to be a much greater emphasis on the worth of a different kind of knowledge: the knowledge of how to farm and produce one's own food, how to build safe and comfortable structures using purely natural materials - the knowledge of such practices is just as valuable to the struggle against climate change as is the knowledge of renewable energy technology.
Also, i found it quite unsettling that Lomborg would suggest any aspect of global warming to be positive, regardless of the statistical validity of the fact that 200,000 fewer people would die from cold-related fatalities annually. This does not outweigh the many negative impacts of global warming, such as the reduction in biodiversity, and the global flooding of coastal areas that would occur.
I think that the article written by Bjorn Lomborg is much stronger than that of Peter Singer. This is primarily because of the fact that Lomborg's is a response to Singer's, so he has the opportunity to make strong counterpoints. Although I believe more in the morals that Singer presents, and am a little bit disgusted by those of Lomborg (Singer was very green, while Lomborg thought that the current population should use the worlds resources as it wishes, and basically disregard future populations), I ended up siding with the latter in the end. Lomborg presents his argument with a less preachy tone. He makes Singer seem like just another environmentalist trying to save the world, while he remains rational. One great counterpoint presented by Lomborg is that instead of spending money to help the environment, and consequently save impoverished lives, we should spend the same amount of money on medicine and save an exponentially larger amount of lives. I think both articles use very broad terms and assumptions at times, but they definitely stay focused by using facts. The thing is, though, that there are so many little facts and statistics about the environment and global warming and such that they lose power as you throw more in, so I didn't really find the facts to help prove their argument that well.
Post a Comment