With the increase of human population and decrease in meat supply, scientists are researching ways to adapt insects into regular diets. With their article “The Six-Legged Meat of the Future,” published in the Wall Street Journal on February 19, 2011, coauthors, Marcel Dicke and Arnold Van Huis propose the idea of Westerners adopting insects as a food source (344). These authors are both professors of entomology at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. Dicke gives speeches arguing that humans should eat insects rather than meat as one solution to the environmental degradation caused by the meat industry. As for his coauthor, Huis coordinates a research consortium of scientists investigating the nutritional value of insects and gives cooking classes featuring bug recipes (344). This editorial continues their studies of insects to be an implemented food supply. In this piece, Dicke and Huis provide a logical progression of separate reasons in support of eating insects has several rhetorical properties: it gives them stronger arguments towards logos and builds up their ethos; but lacks in reasoning dealing with pathos.
Dicke and Huis bring up the idea of insects being the meat of the future and establish their stance with supportive reasons. “As the global population blooms and demand strains the world’s supply of meat, there’s a growing need for alternative animal proteins,” (344). They detail how developing worlds already eat insects as a nutritious delicacy along with how bugs can be found being eaten in history and in the Old Testament. After briefly outlining the Netherlands adoption of insects in dishes, the authors explain the effects of livestock production due to the expected human population of nine billion by 2050.
The writers believe raising insects is comparably better than livestock. They compare and contrast livestock to insects with values such as yield of food, percent of inedible parts, and waste of the animals. Acknowledging the harsh conditions of raising livestock, Dicke explains how insects are used to living in dense quarters. These coauthors conclude their editorial with information regarding the amount of insect parts that can be found in processed food, chocolate, and juices. The lack of a tightly closed-form structure and supportive clauses in each reason allows the core
of the argument to appeal to logos. Throughout the article, the authors provide logical reasoning to support their claim. “The vast majority of the developing world already eats insects” (Dicke, 344). The authors provide examples of countries that devour insects as highly prized meals that are healthy and nutritious. This reason effectively gives a logical reasoning that the United States is capable of consuming bugs on a daily basis.
The writers continue their argument with by countering problems dealing with insect production. “Insects have a reputation for being dirty and carrying diseases-yet less than 0.5% of all known insects species are harmful to people, farm animals or crop plants,” (Dicke, 344). Marcel and Arnold acknowledge the possible complications with insects, but they provide logical rebuttals against those theories. The article contains multiple instances where they recognize an issue and apply rational ideas against those problems. Audience point of views are considered and debated. This technique is consistent throughout their article which strengthens the logical appeal of their argument.
Ethos is highly recognized in this article due to the author’s background and research. Marcel and Arnold first introduced insects as foods in the Netherlands. “Many people laughed-and cringed-at first, but interest gradually became more serious,” (Dicke, 344). Over time people took their promotion with interest. Now the Netherlands have insects upon their menus and dishes. They explain how they continue to make progress, “where the ministry of agriculture is funding a new $1.3 million research program,” (Dicke, 345). Their growth in the studies of insects as food acts as strong credibility for their argument. It shows how knowledgeable and understanding they are about their proposal.
These editors build their trustworthiness by comparing statistics with raising livestock to insects. “Raising insects requires relatively little water, especially compared to the production of conventional meat,” (Dicke, 345). The authors demonstrate how much more water is needed for livestock compared to the water need for bugs. Comparisons such as edible portions and greenhouse gas emissions can be found in the article. This approached method briefly acknowledged the statistics of raising livestock and established a better statistic with raising insects. This method used shows how knowledgeable the authors are about
the view of raising livestock but lacks some opposing information. There are limited views of the effects of a population that declines the idea of insects as food entirely. Overall, the writer’s style effectively appeals to their audiences expectations.
The proposal made by these coauthors relies heavily on logical reasons while having limited pathos appeal. A small portion of the argument contains emotional reasoning. “Housing cattle, swine or chickens in high densities causes stress to the animals,” (Dicke, 345). The authors recognize the pressure animals go through to emotionally charm audiences that believe in fighting against animal cruelty. Additionally, surprising information is included that emotionally strikes the audience. “In the U.S. most processed foods contain small amounts of insects, within limits set by the Food and Drug Administration,” (Dicke, 345). Marcel and Arnold use this startling information to catch some audience members off guard.
The sudden realization that people are already consuming insects helps their argument. Although their proposal lacks pathos, these few examples still affect the readers. Marcel Dicke and Arnold Van Huis created an argument rich in logos and ethos; but weak in pathos, supporting their idea of insect consumption. Together, the argument was successfully thought provoking. The structure contained multiple examples supported by logical reasons, along with credible comparisons that increased credibility. The minimal amount of pathos kept the editorial built off of logos. The article was made to address the awareness of insects as food. They have acknowledged the impact of the future population and proposed an effective and possible alternative. This logical and credible article would definitely provoke interest in the United States as it was intended to do.
Dicke, Marcel, and Arnold Van Huis. “The Six-Legged Meat of the Future.” Writing Arguments. Ed. John Ramage, John Bean, June Johnson. USA: Longman, 2011. 344-346. Print.
Problems arise all over the place, whether on purpose or accidental. But they give people a chance to solve those problems. A rising issue in the city of Tempe is the high levels of air pollution. With a proper solution, pollution will start to decrease. Addressing transportational programs and capital programs is the best way to work with this problem. With the help of Chair woman Shana Ellis from the Transportational Council Committee, implementing an answer will decrease contamination. The dangers of air pollution will continue to increase in the city of Tempe. To improve the atmosphere, a bike sharing system should be implemented throughout the city. The pollution found in Tempe is a serious issue.
Previous attempts have been tried in the past as a solution for this problem. At one time, Arizona was internationally known as a respite for those suffering respiratory difficulties. In the 1970s, the acute and visible pollution problems of our air pointed people toward controlling and managing the wastes that we could see (Golden, 1). Since the early 1990s, residents of the Valley of the Sun have been looking for some relief from the “Brown Cloud”. This cloud shrouds the Tempe area in pollutants nearly year-round resulting in the American Lung Association giving Maricopa County its lowest grade for air quality in both ozone and particulates in 2005 (Eastwood, 1). Among those at risk are residents with asthma, bronchitis, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.
The dedication towards fixing this problem will be a high investment which yields a cleaner environment along with profit. The air of Tempe will be healthier with the addition of a bike sharing system. This solution addresses the rising concerns of traffic, pollution, and health in the city of Tempe. By implementing a bike share system, there can be a reduced number of cars on the road, which decreases traffic and pollution, and increase physical activity and general health of Tempe citizens. Using the system, users can check out a bike from kiosks placed at convenient locations throughout the city. The bike can then be ridden to other kiosks at other destinations, where it is checked back in. Target locations for bike rental kiosks include restaurants, museums, places of business, and large residential complexes.
With the help of the Transportation Council Committee’s ability to work on transportation programs, these kiosks will be seen all around the city. Not much space is need for these bike kiosks as they are the size of an average bike rack. The bikes use GPS tracking and unique frame design to deter theft. Users have the option of purchasing a day, month, or annual membership. In order for the system to be successful, kiosks at many locations are needed to ensure availability and usability for riders. The overall effect of adopting this solution will return a high reward.
The bike sharing program will decrease the amount of contamination presented. In a population of around 150,000 people, 236 tons of carbon emissions will be reduced from the city (B-cycle, 1). With the decrease in fumes, people all around the city will at a less of a health risk. People will also be healthier with this biking system in action. People will put their bodies to work because of the constant bike use. In addition to healthy results, people save about $360,000 and around 16,000 cars will be removed from traffic (B-cycle, 1).
Another reason this system should be put into action is because it has been found successful in other countries and cities. In the state of Minnesota, a similar system has already been put into effect. For the year 2011, they recorded a total of 200,000 bike rides (Nice Ride, 1). With its high usage, it has proven to be a successful system as people continue to use this effective mode of transportation. Not only is this system found in Minnesota, larger cities such as Paris have been using this system as their main source of transportation. The large number of bike location allows all kinds of people to enjoy the cities’ culture and landmarks. Because of this successful method, Tempe should implement it as their key answer.
Applying this fresh idea to the city of Tempe includes sacrifices and will require perseverance. Arizona is infamous for its blistering summers with sustained temperatures of over 100 Degrees for several months. During this time it is actually dangerous to be out in the sun for prolonged periods of time much less be riding a bike in the heat of the day.
However, the pricing system in most bike shares works in a way that encourages users to use the bikes for not more than half an hour at a time. While even a half hour in the daytime during the summer is not going to be very workable, morning and evening times may be less strenuous and usable for 30 minutes. Another problem is the possible technical problems with the bikes themselves. Damages can take place such as a blown tire or missing pieces. These bikes can be easily replaced. When returned, they are marked damaged and stay in the kiosks until the repair is complete.
Overall, the adoption of this bike kiosks system is the best solution for the rising concerns of Tempe’s air pollution. Without this system, the air pollution of Tempe will continue to rise and cause health risks. In addition to this resolution, people can help reduce the effects of pollution by carpooling and using any other method of transportation. Maricopa County has been called of having one of the worst air qualities. There have even been actions imposing the use of leaf blowers due to the high pollution. Until air quality is improved, the citizens will soon see breathing as a difficult chore.
B-Cycle. “B-Effect.” BCycle. LLC, 01 Jan. 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. . Eastwood, Steve. “Brown Air in The Valley.” About.com Phoenix. About, 01 Jan. 2006. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. .
Golden, Mike. “City of Tempe – Pretreatment.” Tempe in Touch. Tempe Gov, 01 Jan. 1994. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. .
Nice Ride. “FAQ.” Nice Ride. Nice Ride, 01 Jan. 2012. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. .
Murder in the First Degree
A wise man once said, “Live and let die” (McCartney). These are lyrics from the hits song “Live and let die” from the great Paul McCartney. Yet, what do these words truly mean? Is there an underlined meaning behind these words, or are they just words for a song? Some may interpret the lyrics as a way to say for people to live other must die. Almost a way to state that people must be punished for their wrong doing for others to live peacefully. The death penalty for example is a way in which people are sentenced to death because of their actions, a completely legal action that all states have at their disposal when convicting an inmate.
There are five methods of execution used in the United States: lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, hanging, and firing squad. The most commonly used methods today are lethal injection and the electric chair. If a person is lethally injected, he is first put to sleep with thiopental sodium, and then he is administered potassium chloride that will stop his heart. The moralities of humanity are at stake when faced with this ongoing dilema. Yet, is sentencing someone to death for their crimes really aiding in the attempt to lower the murder rate? Or in doing so is this only raising the rate of murder. I believe the use of the death penalty in the United States is murder.
The word Murder can be defined as the act of one person killing another with deliberate planning, premeditation, or malice. Murder is often broken down according to how many of these actions a killer has taken. Murder is defined under two divisions, murder in the first and second degree. The definition of first degree murder is an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or “lying in wait” for the victim (First Degree).
Being convicted of first degree murder can sentence one to life in prison or sent to death. Second degree murder can be defined as a killing that is not premeditated or planned. It may be also defined as a killing that is caused by the dangerous conduct of an offender who has no concern for human life. Being convicted of second degree murder often leads to a sentence of time to be spent in prison (Second Degree). In some cases one can be released from prison after serving an amount of time and being released under parole. When a judge or jury is considering what the best sentence would be to place on a convict, they must make sure that their decision is fair and the crimes that have been committed are properly punished.
Looking at the view points of others they would also agree that murder is defined in this manner. The United States Attorney’s Office defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, and divides it into two degrees (Murder). These degrees as explained earlier being the first and second degrees of murder. Along with the United States Attorney’s Office the Crown Prosecution Service defines murder in a similar way. They see murder as a person who is of sound mind and discretion, unlawfully kills, and has intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Both of these groups define murder as involving the unlawful killing of a person. This plays a major roll when defining it. Along with talking about the unlawful killing, another major issue that was brought up with a majority of peoples definitions was the degrees of murder.
When compared side by side the death penalty has many characteristics that would classify it as being murder. One of the main factors for murder in the first degree is premeditation. This means that prior planning went into the killing. When inmates are put onto death row the process for in which they will be murdered is being planned out. Whether the death is caused from lethal injection or electrocution, prior planning went into the execution. Public records are kept and can be viewed by the public that contain information of inmates to be sentenced to death. This records show the time, date, and location in which the execution will take place. This use of record keeping can be classified as deliberate planning.
A final similarity that the death penalty and murder have in common is they contain malice. Murder is considered malice when it is intentionally done to kill brutally or cause harm. The different methods avaliable for the disposal of murderers bring about excrutiating pain. In letha injection, the criminal dies from anesthetic overdose and respiratory and cardiac arrest while he or she is unconscious. There have been cases where the administration of the drug was poorly done which resulted in pain that felt like burning throughout the body (Popular Mechanics). As for the electric chair, there is an initial jolt of 2,300 volts which lasts for eight seconds, followed by a low-voltage jolt of 1,000 volts for 22 seconds and finally a jolt of 2,300 volts for eight seconds (Popular Mechanics).
The murderer is rendered unconscious immediately, or within the first eight seconds at most, as the initial high-voltage jolt kills the brain. The subsequent jolts stop the heart in case it is still beating. Compare this to the heinous crimes of the murderer, where often the victim will go through excruciating pain for minutes, hours, or sometimes days. Along with the pain experienced by the one being executed, the family members that choose to watch the execution are left with hardships and painful emotiontions. The minute amount of pain experienced by the murderer on death row does not even begin to compensate for the pain of the victims.
One of the most common counter-arguments in favor of capital punishment is that if the person being punished has killed other people, it’s okay. Just because they have committed an immoral act, why should it now be okay to kill them? This logic is absurd. If someone has stolen from other people, that does not make it morally okay to steal from them. There is no logical jump from “They have committed an immoral act” to “We don’t have to be moral to them anymore.” Vengeance is not a moral act. If someone has killed someone else, that does not mean that you get to stop being moral to them. While attempting to live in a moral world, everyone has their own morality, and they don’t get to stop being moral to someone just because they’ve stopped doing so.
The phrase “Why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong” is powerful and it’s along the right lines. The more famous quote would be “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,” by Ghandi. Killing still remains an immoral act. Committing an immoral act in order to punish an immoral act does not make things even or right. Put more simply, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” The use of the death penalty is cold blooded murder. The characteristics of the penalty and of murder coincide perfectly. When defining murder there are some key elements that an act would have to contain in order for it to be murder. All of these acts are present in the case of the death penalty. Of course, like any major topic, many will debate whether or not these acts would even classify it as murder.
However, when all emotions are put aside and people begin to look at the true definition of murder along with the death penalty the picture becomes clearer. The act of sentencing someone to death is not deterring others from committing horrible crimes, and it also is not giving right justice to the grieving families of murdered victims. The moralities of society will not be just when faced with this controversial debate. A revenge philosophy inevitably leads to an endless cycle of violence. Why do you think the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been going on for 50+ years? Why do you think gang violence in this country never seems to end? It is important to send a message to society that striking back at your enemy purely for revenge will always make matters worse. The use of the death penalty is cruel and wrong, but as people start to look a little deeper into it they will realize it is murder.
“First Degree Murder Definition.” Findlaw. Thomson Reuters. Web. 19 Apr. 2012. McCartney, Linda, and Paul McCartney. “Live and Let Die.” Rec. Oct. 1972. Live and Let Die. Paul McCartney & Wings. George Martin, 1973. Vinyl recording.
“Murder — Definition and Degrees.” Office of the United States Attorneys. Web. 19 Apr. 2012. .
“Popular Mechanics.” Machines of Death. Web. 19 Apr. 2012
“Second Degree Murder Definition.” Findlaw. Thomson Reuters. Web. 19 Apr. 2012.