• Author / Uploaded
• Pathricia Kasum

Citation preview

Argumentative Essay Sample Economic Growth and Environmental Damage Though nowadays it is more and more often claimed that humanity can develop without causing damage to nature, there still exists strong opposing arguments to this thesis. Development assumes economic growth, and economic growth is impossible without industry, which needs energy resources. Currently, the range of goods required by common people has expanded significantly compared to the times before modern industrial technology was employed on a mass scale. People feel the need, not only for primary essentials such as a piece of bread and a roof over their heads, but also for various facilities and luxuries. Providing humanity with these objects involves the exploitation of natural resources. In turn, the conventional sources of energy we use today cause pollution, so economic growth is almost inevitably associated with environmental damage. One of the aspects of economic growth which affects the environment most of all is that in order to produce more goods and products at a faster rate, the construction of large industrial plants is required. These enterprises generate a lot of pollution in the form of liquid waste and gaseous fumes. The liquid waste is frequently dumped in fresh water bodies, while the gaseous fumes are released into the atmosphere. The liquid waste leads to the pollution of water and the damaging of aquatic ecosystems (Mary, 2007). The gaseous fumes pollute the atmosphere, which may cause negative, long term health effects to nearby populations of animals or people. They also lead to the degradation of the ozone layer, which is one of the main reasons for the acceleration of global warming. The conventional energy sources that are commonly used nowadays are considered to be the greatest polluters of the environment, and intensive rates of industrial manufacturing lead to the constantly increasing energy consumption. One might say that the solution lies in the usage of so-called non-conventional sources of energy, such as tidal, geothermal or wind energy. They are preferred due to their environmentally-friendly means of energy generation, but at the same time, they possess several critical drawbacks. The high installation cost is one of them. Besides, they are yet less effective than conventional ones, and need the accompanying political will to initiate. Transiting from one energy source to another also requires time, during which people have to make some sacrifices to support these undertakings. In a democratic country, making people accept this would pose a challenge (Robert, 2009). Simultaneously, even if implemented, non-conventional sources of energy still don’t resolve the problem of inflicting damage to the environment. In order to produce economically viable energy, utilizing tidal and geothermal sources, a sometimes significant distortion of the natural site is often inevitable. This is expensive and has substantial harmful effects on the environment. Application of wind energy would necessitate blocking airflows’ natural velocity, which is the reason for their decrease in strength after crossing the windmill. Consequently, the pressure balance that is brought about by this current will be affected, and it is important to remember that the environment and weather conditions are directly affected by atmospheric pressure. As one can see, economic growth is connected to environmental damage, and at the current level of development, humanity can hardly avoid harming nature. This is caused by a number of factors, such as the inaccessibility and costliness of alternative sources of energy. But the most significant reason is that constant economic growth leads to the increase in the rate of industrial production. With the expansion of industry, more and more conventional resources are needed, and since their usage causes severe pollution, it can be concluded that economic growth is inseparable from the damage inflicted on the environment.

Should There Be the Division of Male and Female Sports? It would be difficult to underestimate the role of sports and exercise in our life and health, especially in relation to youth populous. Sport is far more than just an engaging and healthy hobby. As research shows, active participation in sports has a positive influence on a teenager’s social life, self-esteem and even academic performance (Sitkowski, 2008). There is no doubt

that sports are beneficial for boys and girls, women and men. However, it can be perplexing to believe that some 40 years ago, women and girls were almost virtually deprived of the opportunity to play sports in universities, colleges, high schools and junior high schools. It wasn’t until 1972, when Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendment Act was passed, that women received equal rights to participate in sports at all educational institutions in receipt of federal funds. What does this mean for us today? Does it mean that every woman has the right to play any type of sport? Well, not quite. But it certainly means that every person, notwithstanding their gender, has equal opportunity to try out for any team, or play a sport that the institution offers. Should there be a distinction between sports for women and sports for men? We have strong reasons to object to this idea, and here is why. First of all, from a physiological perspective, both male and female players are equally able to play all sports. There are fewer and fewer Olympic Games sports that are still strictly men-only or women-only. Women can box or take part in car racing, just like men can do synchronized swimming or rhythmic gymnastics. If some kind of sport is more popular among female or male players, it does not mean that the other gender cannot do the sport. Furthermore, according to law, if there is not a female baseball team in a high school, a girl can try out for the boys’ team, even though a boy cannot do the same for a girls’ team since boys are the over-represented sex in sports. The main point here is that trends and public opinion on different sports tend to change over time, and the general tendency is towards making all sports equally available to both sexes, since there are no objective reasons to consider any sport to be gender-specific. Secondly, supporting a social stereotype that boys, in comparison to girls, are more interested in sports is simply propagating an absolute myth. There is not one single research that validates this idea. The fact is that girls are just as interested in sports as boys are at an early age. But, because of social influences, traditional values and peer pressure, girls eventually become more sedentary in their activities and games. As a result, in time, girls get used to more calm pastimes and are less willing to play active sports. Other factors that greatly influence a girl’s choice of leisure are, of course, upbringing and their parents’ example, as well as the opportunities present in the local community. As a rule, the more developed a community is, both economically and socially, the less difference is seen statistically in gender division in sports. At the same time, it would be wrong to argue that female and male motivation for sports, and their physical abilities, is absolutely the same. There is a good reason why female and male championships, tournaments and sports associations are run separately. A female tennis player would have a small chance of beating a male tennis player of the same rank, simply because men can generally hit the ball much harder than women can. It has nothing to do with training and effort – it’s purely the nature of our bodies, and ignoring it would be a terrible mistake. Another side of the coin is motivation. As research has shown, females, in general, are more naturally motivated by self-improvement and goals related to team success, while men, as a rule, are more attracted to the idea of winning a challenge, or a competition, more than anything else. Once again, not more than general statistical facts and aspects that may differ on a personal level, of course. But these are points that need to be acknowledged when talking about the differences in male and female athletics and the way girls and boys should be coached. To conclude, sport is an important benefit that no human being should be deprived of in a modern society, whether based on racial, age or gender characteristics of the person. Sports allow youth to believe in themselves, widen their circle of friends and acquaintances, as well as introduce them to an activity that they might be willing to later make their profession or lifetime hobby. Discriminating against boys or girls accessing the wide variety of sporting activities would be completely and utterly wrong. The only objective reasons to choose one sport over another are personal preferences, individual physical abilities, and infrastructural facilities of the community in which one resides. References Sitkowski, L. (2008). The effects of participation in athletics on academic performance among high school sophomores and

juniors. Lynchburg, Va.: Liberty University. Stewart, C. (2008) Should boys & girls be coached the same way? Becoming a Better Coach. Available at: http://www.coachesinfo.com/

Argumentative Essay Based on the Article “Engineering Food for All” by Nina V. Fedoroff In the modern era, humans have come up with innovative ways of addressing their age-old problems. One of the most recent and controversial inventions in this regard is the engineering of food. Nina Fedoroff presents the debate on genetic modification of food in the article Engineering Food for All. Specifically, she supports the innovation, positing that it plays a critical role in addressing food security in the world. Genetic engineering of food elicits mixed reactions from those on either side of the debate. Central to the argument is the environmental sustainability of technology, human health and the economy. A closer examination of genetic engineering of food reveals the fallacy of its value. This dangerous technology poses serious risks to the environment, human health and the overarching economy. Consequently, genetic engineering of food does not positively contribute to food security in the world. Food engineering does not help global food security because it is not sustainable. Engineering of food can cause unintended harm to the environment. Pollen grains from genetically modified maize kill the larvae of the monarch butterfly (Conner, Glare & Nap 24). The indiscriminate killing of insects underlines the environmental unfriendliness of genetic engineering of food crops. Similarly, the use of herbicides results in the indiscriminate killing of plants. Therefore, this technology clearly undermines biodiversity (Freedman 72). In adopting this technology, we would have to be prepared for enormous technological challenges. Crops designed to resist pesticides would soon see their effectiveness decrease. An appropriate comparison would be mosquito resistance to DDT. In addition, weeds exposed to herbicides would soon become resistant. This would create unnecessary complications that would require the repeated modification the crops (Conner, Glare & Nap 26). Contrary to the stance of supporters, genetically modified foods have adverse effects on human health. Mostly, consumers of these foods would suffer from allergies and gastrointestinal complications (Freedman 82). Genetic engineering of food involves the inclusion of the genes of organisms that are not part of the human food chain (Freedman 83). The adoption of this technology would not solve poverty in the world. Instead, the technology widens the gap between the rich and the poor. This is because of the high costs associated with acquiring the inputs required in adopting genetic engineering. Supporters of genetic engineering of food, such as Nina Fedoroff, believe that this innovation holds the key to sustaining the growing human population. Fedoroff contends that genetic engineering comes at an appropriate time, when climatic changes are common phenomena in the world. To sustain the expanding world population, Fedoroff and other supporters of the technology believe that the world should turn to adopting genetically modified food. Central to this appeal is that engineering of food increases productivity and reduces costs of production. Farmers who have adopted the technology have reported increased yields of “as much as 10 times” (Fedoroff). In addition, the technology is environmentally-friendly. Using herbicides reduces the tendency of tilling land. Therefore, it “decreases soil erosion and shrinks the agricultural foot print” (Fedoroff). These claims by the supporters of genetic engineering of food are unrealistic. For instance, genetic engineering of food is not environmentally-friendly considering its impact on ecosystems. Secondly, it does not reduce the costs of production in agriculture. With patents in mind, the costs of the inputs in undertaking genetically engineering of foods are certain to be exorbitant. In the long run, reliance on this technology may result in the need for newer technologies to address emergent challenges. In addition, those supporting genetic engineering of food contend that it is safe for human consumption. Fedoroff uses the article to disown claims that there are significant dangers associated with genetically modified foods. Quoting from some research, she contends that products of this technology are “no more dangerous than crop modification by other methods.” However, only some research institutions are responsible for the research that supporters quote. What is notable is the absence of renowned institutions such as the EPA in supporting the health claim. This means the claims that genetically modified food is safe for human consumption are far-fetched (Freedman 67). Animosity between the relevant research bodies underlines the sinister motives behind the researchers’ assertion that the technology is healthy. Therefore, genetic engineering does not solve the problem of global food security. There are more risks than benefits associated with this technology. Genetic modification of food would have serious negative implications for the environment, the economy and human health. These risks negate the benefit of advancing food security, the main reason for employing the genetic modification of food.