The "7 Billion" Question

     Overpopulation on our planet has become a serious matter of concern for all of us in this time. The population is changing in some way. Now even though we wake up and go outside we don't seem to feel the invisible effects of population rising. Well, just because we haven't noticed the population changing doesn't mean that it's not changing. At many points around the world, the population of cities are expected to grow rapidly despite the measures taken to avert over population on an unthinkable scale. Besides the United States, countries all over are experiencing moments where population is rising and an unknown fate hangs for the human population.

     Today an article for the Associated Press was written today. The article is titled "7 billion people fuel concern over world resources; and it is written by Jon Gambrell. In the article, Gambrell starts off the story by speaking briefly about a young Nigerian mother who gave birth to a newborn baby that she named "Enough". The mother's naming of her child in response to a nurse at a hospital in Lagos is ironic and at the same time appropriate for the situation that the city of Lagos is facing right now. Hospital in Lagos have a limited amount of electricity and that means require power being shared for the newborn babies to receive sufficient amount of oxygen from the hospitals power sources. It is hard to bring life in the world these days while worrying if each time a child is born without upsetting the delicate population balance. Don't get me wrong, children are a wonderful blessing to have in this world. I just wish there was enough room, or still much, much space on this planet to provide for the new lives that walk this Earth. In the article it states, "Where there is life, there is hope," their mother said. But ass the world's population surpasses 7 billion, fear were stirred anew about how the planet will cope with the needs of so many humans"( Gambrell, 1)
     Alot of people are born every single day. So I'm thinking that even though it might be at least seven billion people today, the numbers could change because more people are being born. But there are people who are dying each day too. I feel very upset when comparing the growing population with the numbers of people to dying to serve a mathematical purpose. It makes me appear as inhuman and cold. I would never want anyone to die. But I know that there is a balance in this world that exists for a reason. I'm just not sure if the growing population in certain areas around the world is a sign of the going out of balance, or going through a slight transition.
         In the article, Gambrell also comments on the population when he refers to news made by the United Nations on the issue of over population throughout the world. He states, " The United Nations estimates the world population will reach 8 billion by 2025 and 10 billion by 2083. But the numbers could vary widely, depending on life expectancy, access to birth control, infant mortality rates and other factors"( Gambrell,2). I will admit that I sure hope that the planet does not reach those population number. Or else the whole planet will be a giant big city that is crowded, filthy, and unsafe. Yet I always try to remain optimistic about situations like this. This world has means of population control that do not involve anything destructive. There is birth control and contraception in the 21st century. Limiting birth for anyone who is sexually active around the world is not an impossible mission. However, for parts of the world where contraception is not used frequently, populations tend to over develop in a way that causes crowding areas, poor health, and surprisingly toxic environments. There is a strong link between polluting of the earth and over population. If over population continues around some parts of the world with no option of birth control, then the Earth is not going to be beautiful place. So after reading this article on population, I am convinced that everyone around the world should keep thinking about the population of our planet changing. I would also mention that I do not stand against anyone having children. I love children. All I am saying is that people need to understand there is a delicate balance that we are all apart of. That includes the population of our planet. If we upset that balance and not do something responsible to become at peace with the flow of the world, then there won't be a beautiful planet or planet for the new generation to call a home.

The Ethical Existence of Kierkegaard

     Last week in my Rhetoric of Literature class, we were discussing chapter Nine of the Rhetoric and Human  Consciousness titled  "The Existential Revolt against Modernism." In this chapter I learned about the term existentialism. I discovered that the term meant the study of existence, the philosophy of existence. I also learned about one of the most influential  existentialist thinkers. His name was Soren Kierkegaard. After reading about the thinker and writer, I was a bit confused by his philosophy on existence, and where they stood on rhetoric. When I kept going over the sections of the chapter, I began to slowly understand little by little of what this thinker was saying.
     The philosopher Kierkegaard contributed many important points to rhetoric and existentialism. As the text mentions, " Kierkegaard endorsed the One ( primordial unity) over the dialectical duality of Hegel's logic" (Smith, 243). He wanted the human consciousness to be able to transcend the meaning of the One. There by either opposing or building on Kant and Hegel's studies of dialect and rhetoric.
     Another important point Kierkegaard made to to existentialism was his argument that's stated in the text, "Like Socrates, Kierkegaard argued that "one must know oneself before knowing anything else" (Smith, 243). The philosopher determined the idea of transcendence with oneself, I think, was to discover who we all are before we can understand and help the world around us. That is a wise thought to have when learning about the world ground you.
     Kierkegaard made another important point when he wrote in Concluding Unscientific Post-script that also appears in the American Earth text saying, " he claimed that it is not what a person decides but how one decides, because how a person decides defines himself" (Smith, 244). I will absolutely agree with Kierkegaard's approach to ethics. To me, how you do something is more important than something getting done. People can do questionable, illegal activities to ensure that a greater good is fulfilled, but the same questionable idea of 'the ends justify the means ' is what begins and escalates wars all over the world to minor arguments that lead to deadly outcomes. There is a right way, a wrong way, and a smart way to handle a situation. For me personally, I definitely wouldn't do things the wrong way. Even if I do succeed with whatever I do, I would still have to live with the circumstances of how I got to the place that I came to. That's what Kierkegaard is saying. He is trying to explain that the means justify the ends. The idea is a mart and honorable way to exist in this world.
    In conclusion, I admire the existential philosopher Kierkegaard for his approach to "The One" consciousness, and a person's ethos. That can be how we determine who we are inside.

Johnson and Zahniser: The Natural Laws.

     When I was reading over my American Earth text for my Rhetoric class, I was reading two legislative texts that dealt with the environment and nature. One piece of legislation deals with the protection of the wilderness, and the other piece of legislation focuses on improving the cleanliness of the highways. The two men who had proposed these legislative acts about the environment were Howard Zahniser, and for some reason, Lindon B. Johnson. The thirty-sixth President of the United States.

     The environmental writings that I had previously read in the American Earth text have been written by mostly writers and nature writers. Of course, there was one exception before when I read a speech given by President Theodore Roosevelt at the Grand Canyon. Either way, I was surprised to find that  President Johnson spoke on an environmentally relevant topic such as he did. But before I go to Johnson, I will speak first about Howard Zahniser. He was a politician around the time of World War II. Some time around the end of the war in 1945, Zahniser was appointed as the executive secretary of The Wilderness Society. Howard Zahniser was a man who was determined to protect the wilderness. To fulfill the goals of his new position, he proposed a bill that would be The Wilderness Act of 1964. Sadly, Zahniser passed away before the Wilderness Bill was finished. Yet he still managed to write poetic and touching words to describe the wilderness that he fought so hard and long to try and conserve. After reading The Wilderness Act by Zahniser, I can say that I admire him for his appreciation for woods. It's the kind of appreciation that all of us could have for the wilderness in our areas.

     Howard Zahniser said in the text, " A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and it's community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain" ( 393).  I must agree with the man that there are parts of the wilderness that must remain safe and reserved from civilization, if it's beauty will be there for the next generation to appreciate.

     The next politician I will discuss will be President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ). I did not know so much about Johnson other than he took over the Presidency right after his predecessor John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Johnson was also President during one of the most difficult times of the Vietnam War both foreign and domestically. What I also found out about President Johnson when reading American Earth was that he proposed a bill that would be removing some unnecessary billboards and trash along the American highways. Ironically, the plan for The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 was by Lady Bill Johnson, President Johnson's wife. It seems that The President proposed the Highway Bill on her behalf. The one memorable quote that I remember from reading 'Remarks at the Signing of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965' was when Johnson said, "This bill does not represent everything that we wanted. It does not represent what we need. It does not represent what the national interest requires. But it is a first step, and there will be others" ( 397). This message seems so simple and moving to me. The message can also mean anything to anyone. It brings up some difficulty, yet offers hope.  

Rachel Carson: Cleaning the Earth for eagles to fly

     There have been many environmental writers who have commented on the natural world. Some have written about it' beauty, and some writers have warned readers of the possible damage that face the environment if caution and care are not practiced immediately. A majority of these writers have been men. Although there have been just as many female writers of environmental literature. One of the most memorable women to write about nature is Rachel Carson.

     Nature writer Rachel Carson was a committed advocate against pesticide use. More specifically, DDT. Through her investigation and writing, Carson confirmed a connection between the use of pesticides for stimulating plant growth, and the deaths of natural life around it. Some of the living creatures poisoned by the practice of pesticide spraying were the bird population. In the environmental text American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau, there is a mentioning of Rachel Carson's battle against pesticides when the text reads, " She had been following reports of problems with the wonder-pesticide DDT almost since it's introduction in the wake of World War II" ( McKibben, 365).
     So I can imagine that Carson has made a life long ambition to write about the harmful effects of DDT pesticides. The environmental text that was written by Rachel Carson titled Silent Spring, expressed the writer's concerns about animal life and human life being sickened by the use of DDT. The animals that she feared would be lost forever by DDT usage were birds. Specifically the American bald eagle. For Carlson's writings, she managed to save the bald eagles from disappearing forever. As the American Earth text says, "Not only did the U.S. move to restrict the chemical, thus saving our national symbol, the bald eagle, but more importantly, the idea had been firmly planted that perhaps modernity was not as problem free as we might have imagined"( McKibben, 365).
     During Rachel Carson's time of the early and mid 20th century, the world was becoming technologically advanced in science and agriculture. Some breakthroughs were extraordinary, but some were also harmful to nature's creatures. Especially human beings.  Without Rachel Carson, the American bald eagle wouldn't be saved from extinction, and mankind would not be aware of the cancerous effects that DDT can have on the immune system. Carson's Silent Spring has become an influential piece of environmental literature that has changed our opinion of agricultural practices, and animal preservation.

Bacon, Locke, and Descartes: The Epistemology Poster Boys

     This week in my Rhetoric of Literature " American Environmentalism" class, I learned about an interesting topic that deals with rhetoric. I learned about epistemology. The subject was discussed in  chapter eight of the text book tittled " Epistemology and the Modern Rhetorics." The term epistemology is described as the study of knowledge, the categorization of the mind. Through my reading of the chapter I managed to learn about three famous philosophers who are connected through their pursuit of exploring the practise of rhetoric. The three philosophers were Descartes, Francis Bacon, and John Locke.

     Each of these thinkers approached rhetoric using some kind of epistemology. I will speak the truth that I was aware of Descartes, Locke, and Bacon in my past English studies, but I was still forgetful of each of the philosophies that they developed. After reading chapter eight, I remember how much the three men approached rhetoric, built their thoughts using epistemology, and changed the way that we, as a whole, think today.

     The first philosopher that i will discuss is named Rene Descartes. He was a brilliant, french mathematician who attempted to use the method of solving math problems to explain the world through philosophy, or vice versa. He contributed to epistemology, and how people think today when he came up with the phrase " I think, therefore I am." I was aware of the phrase by Descartes for the longest time. Even now I am learning about the meaning of the phrase. The way that I see it, as long as I am able to think and know anything, I am an actual person. I exist in the world, and I keep on thinking to still exist in the world that I live in . I'm not sure if Descartes was spuing was brilliant or B.S., but I found it very clever. In the text, Descartes was a firm believer in logical thinking when the chapter reads, " He believed that reason, as opposed to imagination or the senses, should supply us with the evidence we use to make claims about existence in the world" ( Smith, 208).
     After reading this, I can understand that would approach the world this way for being a mathematician, but unsure if he was stepping outside of the box, or inside the box to determine the world around him. What do you think?

     Moving on, the next philosopher I will talk about is another famous person named Francis Bacon. He is one of the many great thinkers of the seventeenth century, and student of epistemology in Great Britain. Bacon has made many contributions to the practise of thought and speaking. He developed four faculties for people to think. As it's listed on page 213 of the " Rhetoric" text, Bacon's four examples are: 1. inquire and invent 2. examine and judge 3. recall ideas and maintain custody over them 4. transmit thought in language. To make it easier to understand, I will say that Bacon was not very supportive of rhetoric. Instead " Bacon argued that eloquence prevails in civic life" ( Smith, 213). I believe Bacon suggests that speakers be charming and likable when giving speeches. It's an admirable;e tool today.

     The final philosopher that I will talk about is another English thinker named John Locke. The most important contribution that Locke made to Epistemology was improving on Bacon's already influential ideas. John Locke started out as a physician and agreed with Francis Bacon that mind was capable of a lot of things. Locke agreed with Descartes on his view of approaching the world. His study of Descartes had him contribute categories of knowledge dealing with Epistemology. As chapter eight lists them in the text, Locke stated that " knowledge of self was intuitive"( 216), " knowledge is demonstrative"( 216), " knowledge is sensitive" ( 216), and "humans are born with tabula rasa" ( 216). The term tabula rasa refers to entering the world with a clean slate.
     The three philosophers Bacon, Locke, and Descartes changed the way we have approached thought. They are also serious  contributors to our understanding of rhetoric. So to sum up their influence on me, I will say, " They think, therefore we know."

John Muir: An American Environmental Rebel

     There are a number of environmental writers who have spoken so passionately, and with such eloquence about nature and the preservation of the environment. One of the most famous environmental writers in American history is John Muir. The writer Muir was a pioneer in the method of writing about the natural world. After reading about his background and his contributions to the natural settings of North America within the literary text " American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau," I have come to the conclusion that John Muir was a man whose life had been shaped by numerous factors. Muir made arguments his whole life. He had convictions about subjects other than the environment. I have determined that John Muir was a rebel.

     I am going to begin talking about the life of John Muir by stating that he was not born in America. He was a Scottish immigrant. When Muir was a young boy, he came to the United States and him and his family settled in the state of Wisconsin. I've never been to Wisconsin personally, but I hear that the state is known for being tolerant to people from all over the place.John Muir grew up during the mid 19th century. Like many children during that time, John was brought up in a strict, christian background. Learning the Bible was an important task for Muir to accomplish. The poor boy would even get beaten for not knowing the Holy Bible well enough. I think that the seeds of rebellion began to grow within the young boy at this time.
     In response to his abusive, christian home life, John Muir decided to live his life as a traveler, an adventurer. Along his travels, Muir began to question religious philosophy that was a very risky action to take back in those days. One of his arguments was questioning whether " people stood at the center of the universe"( American Earth, 84). I think that he was one of the many individuals that argued human beings were not the only worthy species of God's creations. I think those ideas Muir had on the environment, and the natural creatures being as important as human life led him to begin writing the way he did.
     Muir's travels led him to write about many natural locations that possessed beauty and importance that he felt other people needed to understand. In John Muir's one environmental literary piece A Thousand-Mile Walk to the Gulf, he writes about offering different opinions toward the large reptile known as the Alligator. I should point out that this environmental piece was written in 1867, two years after the Civil War ended. The nation was recuperating while Muir was writing about the natural world. In Muir's A Thousand-Mile Walk to the Gulf, the writer offers some benefit of the doubt to alligators by saying, " these creatures are happy and fill the place assigned them by the great Creator of us all. Fierce and cruel they appear to us, but beautiful in the eyes of God. They, also are his children, for He hears their cries, cares for them tenderly, and provides their daily bread" ( Muir, 86).
     It seems obvious that because Muir was brought up as a Christian, he would speak about the animals as creatures of God. Even terrifying, gruesome looking creatures as alligators or crocodiles.John Muir used his rhetoric of christian preaching methods to bring humanity to the alligators. This was also an example of rebellion. Muir developed a whole new style, of environmental writing that would influence future writers like Henry Thoreau before him. Muir added a new vocabulary of wilderness and grammar to describe the natural world.

     John Muir's travels led him to another rebellious action, and an historical action as well. He would take action into protecting and preserving natural wonders of North America. When Muir reached the state of California, he helped create Yosemite National Park with Louis Agassiz. It was during this occassion that he became close friends with fellow, natural conservationist Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States. I feel that him and Muir were kindrid spirits considering that the two men shared a passion for preserving the natural environment. The writer's anger over sheep flocks ruining the rural areas led him to found the Sierra Club( one of the first environmental organizations in the world). If it wasn't for John Muir, I don't believe that the Sierra Club or Yosemite National Park would exist today. Muir's many writings changed environmental literature, and saved some of the natural world today.
     So I would like to end this blog by saying,
                                                                           Thank You John Muir.


    
    

    

A Platonic Perspective: Aristotle's Rhetorical Theory and Form of speech.

     In high school or college, you receive assignments where you not only have to hand in a complete paper. Part of your assignment involves you to give a speech on the assignment that you completed. The idea of public speaking can be unbearable to some students. I personally have never had any fear of public speaking. One of the problems that I faced was the question of how I was going to present my speech for class. I though to myself, " Is there a form of categorization to present a speech?" After reading about the Greek  philosopher Aristotle in Chapter 4 of my ENG/SPE 335 text book titled RHETORIC and Human Consciousness, I discovered that there was a form of presenting a speech. I read the chapter Aristotle's Rhetoric and discovered that the philosopher made an important impact on how people present speeches today.

     In Aristotle's book Poetics there's a discussion of speech giving. In the text RHETORIC and Human Consciousness, Aristotle's Poetics is mentioned and gives tools for speaking in public.The author of the text Craig R. Smith discusses the philosopher Aristotle's take on rhetoric when he  says:

      " the Poetics explores ways to bring a scene alive before an audience, a talent useful in forensic speaking. Character (ethos), the second element, dianoia ( the connecting process that determines the course of events in the story) is the province of rhetorical theory because rhetoric is more concerned with proper timing, appropriateness, and the contingent nature of humans"(Smith, 65).

     Two of these skills are considered useful for public speaking.They are ethos and dianoia. They are ideas brought together by Aristotle to categorize the process of constructing a speech. The philosopher wanted to point people to a system of categories that would lead to truth. Unlike his mentor and predecessor Plato, who only wanted for people to seek truth from the so called noumenal world ( aka the after life, nether world, etc). Plato wanted to seek truth from having the answers be brought down from the heavens. While Aristotle argued that Truth could easily be achieved here on Earth. In the non-spiritual realm. A visual description of Aristotle and Plato's theories of seeking truth is shown in the artist's Michaelangelo's fresco titled School of Athens. There is an image of Plato pointing up to the sky and Aristotle pressing his hand down mid air. The image speaks for itself on the two Platonists view of how to seek truth. One man was looking up while the other was keeping himself in the moment.  The writer Smith continues to say about Aristotle's influence on rhetoric is:
   
     " The Poetics also develops the notion of catharsis ( katharsis) by which emotions are released and the soul is cleansed. In the Poetics, Aristotle focuses on the use of emotions for a consummatory art form" ( Smith, 65).

     So Aristotle expects emotion to play a role in his form of rhetoric. That element along with the previous one's are useful while not forgetting the last element of mimesis. The art of mimicry, imitation, and memorization. I must admit, memorizing is an important tool to have at college and at giving a speech. It is important to remember what your saying before you present your point. Or else your  just some tool up on a podium who is just flinging garbage to whoever is around to hear it, and possibly listen to it. I give points to Aristotle for including the element of mimesis.

     I must also point out that Aristotle's Rhetoric includes the three forms of public address. Part of Aristotle's elements of Form and Organization is three types of speech: Deliberative( political), Epideictic( ceremonial), and Forensic ( legal).  Page 85 of Smith's RHETORIC explains the three types of genres. The text says:
     " A forensic speech is for an audience who will assess the accusation and defense to determine guilt or innocence regarding past acts" ( Smith, 85).
     It was mentioned in the first paragraph that I cited that forensic speaking was needed to bring a speech alive. I think that the other two genres of epideictic and deliberative can be just as able to bring a persons words to life to lift up or press down an audience. Aristotle's theories on speech have made those actions possible in today's world.