There were definitely a few different times throughout this essay where I either agreed or disagreed with something from Mann’s essay.
The first time was on page 3 in the last paragraph. This is when Mann is explaining how the Wizards view the prophet’s ideas. I do not agree with the wizard’s thinking here. I don’t believe that reducing consumption and cutting back on farming is intellectually dishonest, indifferent to the poor, or racist. I don’t believe that trying to save the environment before it is too late is in any way racist. Yes, I can see where the wizards are coming from. It would be more of a challenge to people who are already short on food to reduce their supply, but I don’t believe that is racist. It is not directed at people who live in a certain part of the world. It would be everybody working together to try and save the world’s ecosystem. I do not agree that it is dishonest to want to think about the environment and not put your complete faith in future technology. However, it is a complicated situation, for both the wizards and the prophets.
The second thing is on page 4 in the first paragraph. I agree with the statement talking about the long run. I don’t know much about the science and technology that the wizards are trying to enforce, but I know that it is extremely important to think about the long run when it comes to the health of the planet. If industrial farming is a short-term solution that causes more pollution and damage to our ecosystem, I don’t see it as a good investment. I don’t think that doing something that will do more damage, in the long run, is something that should be done at all, even if that means that there needs to be another short-term solution. If there was a way to industrialize farming that was better for the environment, I would be all for it, but the way that the wizards are suggesting is doing more harm than good. I can see the point the prophets are trying to make here, and I agree with it.
The third thing is on page 7 in the second full paragraph. I agree with what Mann was saying about needing to require some type of education about agricultural history. I think that it is really important that people are aware of how farming works and how soil affects the plant. I feel like if everyone had a little bit of an idea of how agriculture grows, it would allow people to have a better relationship with nature. If people were taught the negative impacts of factory-made fertilizer they might be less inclined to use it. I think that it should be required to some extent to educate people about the importance of agriculture and the major factors that are affecting it.
Page 1, paragraph 2, final sentence. I find this final sentence the real purpose behind this writing, with a very in depth overview of the issue highlighted. I completely agree with this sentence and can compare the idea to things more related to myself, opposed to the eye opening experience of having a child. When I read the question “How is it going to work” I question other things that have recently come into my head, how will we stop the climate from deteriorating further? I think that these problems are problems that have no time for people to discuss the legitimacy of climate change or food situations, these are problems that need to be addressed.
Page 7, paragraph 2. “Almost everybody eats every day, but too few of us give any thought to how that happens” This is closely related to the food essay we just wrote and writing about what food means to me is an important topic. Spending time talking and thinking about my family and relating food to memories makes me think about both sides of the ball. Significant meals memory wise have played a bigger part of my life than you would originally think. The opposite side is thinking about how food can be fully functional for fuel. Bringing up the idea of functionality, I agree with the statement that the world would benefit from having agricultural history. Slightly off topic, but the vast ranges of agriculture around the world is completely untouched as a subject, and food is often overlooked.
Page 11, Paragraph 1. This is the introduction of a solution to the worldwide hunger problem. While genetically modified food is common practice in the world today, it is going to be necessary for the future of food, especially in different parts of the world that haven’t already put so many resources into agriculture. Rice is one of the most abundant crops in the world, and is a staple in the majority of the world’s diet. Multiplying the number of people on earth will obviously require more food. One thing I don’t agree with is the statement that we have used all the resourceful land for agriculture. I think that further genetically modifying food will be necessary for the future, as well as expansion. However the effect that mass agriculture has on the climate is also something to consider.
Pg. 2 par. 3 – I agree with William Vogt’s philosophy. I think of myself as leaning toward the environmentalist side of things. Perhaps it comes from me taking environmental issues last semester. I remember us specifically talking about carrying capacity. This passage is very important in setting up the two conflicting sides of Mann’s essay. The mantra “Cut back! Cut back!” reminds me of the novel “Make Room! Make Room!”, which is about the consequences of dystopian levels of population growth. Vogt not only considers the wellbeing of people, but the wellbeing of ecosystems. He recognizes that people and the Earth exist together. Perhaps effort should not be put into crop yield, but crop nutrition instead. In the modern day, I still see people supporting both Vogt and Borlaug’s arguments. I do not see a future in which everyone will agree about what to do about the environmental dilemma. I link what Vogt is saying to consumerism as a whole. Affluence leads to societal damage as well.
Pg. 2-3 par. 4 – I disagree with Norman Borlaug’s philosophy. In this passage, Borlaug fails to see a limit to his proposition. Of course technological advancements will lead to better and better yield, but there will come a time where there physically isn’t enough room to be shared between produce and people. Also, people cannot predict how crops will perform under genetic modification. Pushing crop yield to the standard needed might not be genetically possible. With the focus on increasing yield, there also comes the problem of lack of crop diversity. Borlaug has a more anthropocentric view than Vogt. He fails to consider the impacts of technological improvements on the greater environment, which will inevitably seep in the anthropocentric bubble he lives in. People and the Earth are one, and they cannot be separated. In this passage, the metric of theoretical deaths prevented seems to have higher priority than the health of those kept alive.
Pg. 18 par. 2 – I both agree and disagree with the arguments in this passage. There are some aspects of life on Earth that operate beyond human understanding, such as soil, and I wish that people never discovered its secrets. I think that people should have a symbiotic relationship with their environment, because it is only right to give back to the Earth after taking so much from it. Basically, I believe that people have a duty to tend to the Earth. I also believe that the industrial revolution led to the downfall of humanity. The mechanization of farming did not increase individual liberty. The people who lost their jobs in agriculture moved on to meaningless work that benefits the rich instead of benefiting everyone. The term “wizard” is interesting to me. It makes me think of how fanciful and not grounded in reality Borlaug’s philosophy is. The term “prophet” is fitting, because Vogt is aware of the inevitable truth, and delivers his message as a warning to everyone on Earth.
(Paragraph 1, pg. 2): In this paragraph Mann is expressing his concern for the future comfortability of his children. He feels that it is very unlikely for his children to be comfortable in their adult lives, and as I was reading this I said to myself: “Is he serious?”. As a parent it is one’s job and life purpose to raise, and teach their child in ways to ensure their success, and in this case comfortability. If I were to ever have a child this would never be on of my concerns because I know that I would do everything in my power to make sure my child has what it takes to make it in whatever society the future holds in store. Mann states that his concerns derive from the future state of the world, and that a majority of the population will be middle class, and that the new middle class will not be satisfied. The way I see it is just to wait and see what the new world is going to look like with 10 billion people. Hunger, poverty etc. is inevitable in my opinion no matter the global population.
(Paragraph 3, pg. 3): Mann takes an interesting approach of creating an analogy for Vogt and Borlaug. In this paragraph he compares both men to wizards, and prophets. Mann says that wizards (Borlaug) rely on technology to fix our problems; whereas prophets (Vogt) kind of say “whatever” and put down the idea of consequences based on our environmental actions. I found this to be a very interesting analogy. By putting it in these words I feel that I can make much more sense of the ideologies behind these men. Rather than overcomplicating the ideas they have, Mann was able to make a simple comparison which helped me further understand the reading. If I were to take a stance based on just this one analogy, I might consider Borlaug’s model, because I feel that as we move forward in time we will be able to create more technology/science necessary for the improvement of society.
(Paragraph 2, pg. 18): In this paragraph Mann sort of sums up the entirety of what he was trying to get at throughout the article. Borlaugians want farmers to have the liberty and choice, Vogtians believe farming maintains communities. When I read this all I can focus on is the Vogtian ideal. If each and every community were to have some sort of agriculture/farming methods to produce enough food for that community, should we not start doing that? I’m not saying we implement agriculture on every street, and every neighborhood, but, we can definitely start somewhere. However, with this idea we have to also consider the best conditions for raising food. For instance, I’m from Lynn, MA. Living in New England does not constitute for around the year warm weather, and therefore, agriculture cannot be relied on all year. In reality though, after reading this paragraph it makes me want to say: “screw it lets just see what happens if we keep moving forward”, but honestly I would need to dive deeper into this concern in order to provide a better opinion.
Reading Manns Essay you can see that this is not just as simple as agreeing and disagreeing, there are many aspects to these opinions. Manns essay discusses the debate between Phrophets and farmers. Prophets’ ideas fall towards behavioral change in society in order to keep the environment able to feed us. Farmers propose working with technology to find solutions for food supply and farming. The two “spokespeople” for each of these groups apply their ideas and go head to head. Vogt, a Prophet who founded “apocalyptic environmentalism” says that “If we continue taking more than the Earth can give, he said, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale. Cut back! Cut back! Was his mantra.” (page 2 para 3) This is something I agree with extremely. Reading about Vogts ideas and opinions, it is clear he is very adamant about climate change and keeping the Earth how it needs to be. He has a very naturalistic perspective and is concerned about the results of technology to the environment. Vogt states multiple times that the ideas of the Wizards do not take the health of the environment into account; fertilizer runoff, soil erosion, pesticide use, etc. I agree with all of Vogts opinions, especially due to the state our Earth is in right now. If humans could change their actions, the farming industry would be a lot easier to manage. For example, Vogt also proposes that humans could cut back on meat consumption and it would make a vast difference. The thought of cutting back on meat consumption made the Wizards cringe. A statement the wizards made I really disagreed with. On page 14 para 3, the wizards claim that using super productive genetically modified crops can “feed tomorrow’s world” As said above, the Wizards do not take precautions against the environment, instead they are adding fuel to the fire. I believe if the Prophets and the Wizards could meet somewhere in the middle it would make a huge difference. I have learned about GMOs over the years and many of this use in farming includes pesticides. Pesticides are incredibly damaging to the Earth and do not mess around. Pesticides are basically toxic to humans. I disagreed with this statement because it has absolutely no factors that involve protecting the Earth that is desperately in need of protection now. A part of Manns essay I found complicated was on page 3 para 1. Vogt proposed that eating lower on the food chain opposed to growing more grain and producing more meat would lighten the burden on our ecosystem. I somewhat do agree with this statement because it’s true, as humans we do need to make changes in our eating habits for the Earth. I think it’s a complicated opinion because at the same time I don’t know if I would ever want to stop eating meat and things like that. It seems unrealistic but I know that he is right.
7 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 7”
https://harmstrong2.uneportfolio.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=203&action=edit
There were definitely a few different times throughout this essay where I either agreed or disagreed with something from Mann’s essay.
The first time was on page 3 in the last paragraph. This is when Mann is explaining how the Wizards view the prophet’s ideas. I do not agree with the wizard’s thinking here. I don’t believe that reducing consumption and cutting back on farming is intellectually dishonest, indifferent to the poor, or racist. I don’t believe that trying to save the environment before it is too late is in any way racist. Yes, I can see where the wizards are coming from. It would be more of a challenge to people who are already short on food to reduce their supply, but I don’t believe that is racist. It is not directed at people who live in a certain part of the world. It would be everybody working together to try and save the world’s ecosystem. I do not agree that it is dishonest to want to think about the environment and not put your complete faith in future technology. However, it is a complicated situation, for both the wizards and the prophets.
The second thing is on page 4 in the first paragraph. I agree with the statement talking about the long run. I don’t know much about the science and technology that the wizards are trying to enforce, but I know that it is extremely important to think about the long run when it comes to the health of the planet. If industrial farming is a short-term solution that causes more pollution and damage to our ecosystem, I don’t see it as a good investment. I don’t think that doing something that will do more damage, in the long run, is something that should be done at all, even if that means that there needs to be another short-term solution. If there was a way to industrialize farming that was better for the environment, I would be all for it, but the way that the wizards are suggesting is doing more harm than good. I can see the point the prophets are trying to make here, and I agree with it.
The third thing is on page 7 in the second full paragraph. I agree with what Mann was saying about needing to require some type of education about agricultural history. I think that it is really important that people are aware of how farming works and how soil affects the plant. I feel like if everyone had a little bit of an idea of how agriculture grows, it would allow people to have a better relationship with nature. If people were taught the negative impacts of factory-made fertilizer they might be less inclined to use it. I think that it should be required to some extent to educate people about the importance of agriculture and the major factors that are affecting it.
Page 1, paragraph 2, final sentence. I find this final sentence the real purpose behind this writing, with a very in depth overview of the issue highlighted. I completely agree with this sentence and can compare the idea to things more related to myself, opposed to the eye opening experience of having a child. When I read the question “How is it going to work” I question other things that have recently come into my head, how will we stop the climate from deteriorating further? I think that these problems are problems that have no time for people to discuss the legitimacy of climate change or food situations, these are problems that need to be addressed.
Page 7, paragraph 2. “Almost everybody eats every day, but too few of us give any thought to how that happens” This is closely related to the food essay we just wrote and writing about what food means to me is an important topic. Spending time talking and thinking about my family and relating food to memories makes me think about both sides of the ball. Significant meals memory wise have played a bigger part of my life than you would originally think. The opposite side is thinking about how food can be fully functional for fuel. Bringing up the idea of functionality, I agree with the statement that the world would benefit from having agricultural history. Slightly off topic, but the vast ranges of agriculture around the world is completely untouched as a subject, and food is often overlooked.
Page 11, Paragraph 1. This is the introduction of a solution to the worldwide hunger problem. While genetically modified food is common practice in the world today, it is going to be necessary for the future of food, especially in different parts of the world that haven’t already put so many resources into agriculture. Rice is one of the most abundant crops in the world, and is a staple in the majority of the world’s diet. Multiplying the number of people on earth will obviously require more food. One thing I don’t agree with is the statement that we have used all the resourceful land for agriculture. I think that further genetically modifying food will be necessary for the future, as well as expansion. However the effect that mass agriculture has on the climate is also something to consider.
Pg. 2 par. 3 – I agree with William Vogt’s philosophy. I think of myself as leaning toward the environmentalist side of things. Perhaps it comes from me taking environmental issues last semester. I remember us specifically talking about carrying capacity. This passage is very important in setting up the two conflicting sides of Mann’s essay. The mantra “Cut back! Cut back!” reminds me of the novel “Make Room! Make Room!”, which is about the consequences of dystopian levels of population growth. Vogt not only considers the wellbeing of people, but the wellbeing of ecosystems. He recognizes that people and the Earth exist together. Perhaps effort should not be put into crop yield, but crop nutrition instead. In the modern day, I still see people supporting both Vogt and Borlaug’s arguments. I do not see a future in which everyone will agree about what to do about the environmental dilemma. I link what Vogt is saying to consumerism as a whole. Affluence leads to societal damage as well.
Pg. 2-3 par. 4 – I disagree with Norman Borlaug’s philosophy. In this passage, Borlaug fails to see a limit to his proposition. Of course technological advancements will lead to better and better yield, but there will come a time where there physically isn’t enough room to be shared between produce and people. Also, people cannot predict how crops will perform under genetic modification. Pushing crop yield to the standard needed might not be genetically possible. With the focus on increasing yield, there also comes the problem of lack of crop diversity. Borlaug has a more anthropocentric view than Vogt. He fails to consider the impacts of technological improvements on the greater environment, which will inevitably seep in the anthropocentric bubble he lives in. People and the Earth are one, and they cannot be separated. In this passage, the metric of theoretical deaths prevented seems to have higher priority than the health of those kept alive.
Pg. 18 par. 2 – I both agree and disagree with the arguments in this passage. There are some aspects of life on Earth that operate beyond human understanding, such as soil, and I wish that people never discovered its secrets. I think that people should have a symbiotic relationship with their environment, because it is only right to give back to the Earth after taking so much from it. Basically, I believe that people have a duty to tend to the Earth. I also believe that the industrial revolution led to the downfall of humanity. The mechanization of farming did not increase individual liberty. The people who lost their jobs in agriculture moved on to meaningless work that benefits the rich instead of benefiting everyone. The term “wizard” is interesting to me. It makes me think of how fanciful and not grounded in reality Borlaug’s philosophy is. The term “prophet” is fitting, because Vogt is aware of the inevitable truth, and delivers his message as a warning to everyone on Earth.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HJ7_45vxlPY9U7zycLjw4uyodGvIfy2vnuOm5nV5KDU/edit
(Paragraph 1, pg. 2): In this paragraph Mann is expressing his concern for the future comfortability of his children. He feels that it is very unlikely for his children to be comfortable in their adult lives, and as I was reading this I said to myself: “Is he serious?”. As a parent it is one’s job and life purpose to raise, and teach their child in ways to ensure their success, and in this case comfortability. If I were to ever have a child this would never be on of my concerns because I know that I would do everything in my power to make sure my child has what it takes to make it in whatever society the future holds in store. Mann states that his concerns derive from the future state of the world, and that a majority of the population will be middle class, and that the new middle class will not be satisfied. The way I see it is just to wait and see what the new world is going to look like with 10 billion people. Hunger, poverty etc. is inevitable in my opinion no matter the global population.
(Paragraph 3, pg. 3): Mann takes an interesting approach of creating an analogy for Vogt and Borlaug. In this paragraph he compares both men to wizards, and prophets. Mann says that wizards (Borlaug) rely on technology to fix our problems; whereas prophets (Vogt) kind of say “whatever” and put down the idea of consequences based on our environmental actions. I found this to be a very interesting analogy. By putting it in these words I feel that I can make much more sense of the ideologies behind these men. Rather than overcomplicating the ideas they have, Mann was able to make a simple comparison which helped me further understand the reading. If I were to take a stance based on just this one analogy, I might consider Borlaug’s model, because I feel that as we move forward in time we will be able to create more technology/science necessary for the improvement of society.
(Paragraph 2, pg. 18): In this paragraph Mann sort of sums up the entirety of what he was trying to get at throughout the article. Borlaugians want farmers to have the liberty and choice, Vogtians believe farming maintains communities. When I read this all I can focus on is the Vogtian ideal. If each and every community were to have some sort of agriculture/farming methods to produce enough food for that community, should we not start doing that? I’m not saying we implement agriculture on every street, and every neighborhood, but, we can definitely start somewhere. However, with this idea we have to also consider the best conditions for raising food. For instance, I’m from Lynn, MA. Living in New England does not constitute for around the year warm weather, and therefore, agriculture cannot be relied on all year. In reality though, after reading this paragraph it makes me want to say: “screw it lets just see what happens if we keep moving forward”, but honestly I would need to dive deeper into this concern in order to provide a better opinion.
Reading Manns Essay you can see that this is not just as simple as agreeing and disagreeing, there are many aspects to these opinions. Manns essay discusses the debate between Phrophets and farmers. Prophets’ ideas fall towards behavioral change in society in order to keep the environment able to feed us. Farmers propose working with technology to find solutions for food supply and farming. The two “spokespeople” for each of these groups apply their ideas and go head to head. Vogt, a Prophet who founded “apocalyptic environmentalism” says that “If we continue taking more than the Earth can give, he said, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale. Cut back! Cut back! Was his mantra.” (page 2 para 3) This is something I agree with extremely. Reading about Vogts ideas and opinions, it is clear he is very adamant about climate change and keeping the Earth how it needs to be. He has a very naturalistic perspective and is concerned about the results of technology to the environment. Vogt states multiple times that the ideas of the Wizards do not take the health of the environment into account; fertilizer runoff, soil erosion, pesticide use, etc. I agree with all of Vogts opinions, especially due to the state our Earth is in right now. If humans could change their actions, the farming industry would be a lot easier to manage. For example, Vogt also proposes that humans could cut back on meat consumption and it would make a vast difference. The thought of cutting back on meat consumption made the Wizards cringe. A statement the wizards made I really disagreed with. On page 14 para 3, the wizards claim that using super productive genetically modified crops can “feed tomorrow’s world” As said above, the Wizards do not take precautions against the environment, instead they are adding fuel to the fire. I believe if the Prophets and the Wizards could meet somewhere in the middle it would make a huge difference. I have learned about GMOs over the years and many of this use in farming includes pesticides. Pesticides are incredibly damaging to the Earth and do not mess around. Pesticides are basically toxic to humans. I disagreed with this statement because it has absolutely no factors that involve protecting the Earth that is desperately in need of protection now. A part of Manns essay I found complicated was on page 3 para 1. Vogt proposed that eating lower on the food chain opposed to growing more grain and producing more meat would lighten the burden on our ecosystem. I somewhat do agree with this statement because it’s true, as humans we do need to make changes in our eating habits for the Earth. I think it’s a complicated opinion because at the same time I don’t know if I would ever want to stop eating meat and things like that. It seems unrealistic but I know that he is right.