Sunday, September 8, 2013

8. Betting on the Apocalypse

       In the 1980s, two scientists bet against each other on 5 metal prices (copper, nickel, chromium, tin, and tungsten) in the near future. One of them was Paul R. Ehlrich who predicted that the rising population would cause resource scarcity and famine thus increasing the prices of the metals, while Julian L. Simon believed that "human welfare would flourish thanks to flexible markets and our collective ingenuity (metal prices would drop)". Ten years later, Simon's prediction was proven correct. Even as  the population grew to 800 million, prices still "hovered at around50 percent of their 1980 levels". The results of this bet are now celebrated by conservatives, but environmentalists say that the market does not really relate to the real issues of the environment. Points (good and bad) are made of both the conservatives and environmentalists and how as humans we should try to come with solution for environmental problems that might not be as easy to adapt as we think. 
        This selection is quite effective due to its vocabulary, content, and structure. The more advanced vocabulary is appropriate for the purpose and audience. The purpose of the author, Paul Sabin, was to inform and maybe persuade the reader to become more aware of the problems with both conservatism and environmentalism. He uses convincing examples, such as the of Solyndra company who went bankrupt after investing on polysilicon, to prove his point about how exaggerated fear of resource scarcity can negatively impact the market. Sabin also uses a range of sentence structure; short and long ones. He also gives his own opinion about the matter; that there should be a balance between environmentalism and conservatism, so when global changes do occur we do not ignore them or freak out. Sabin finally ends his article with a question "what kind of world do we want to live in?", which triggers further thinking (for the reader). 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opinion/sunday/betting-on-the-apocalypse.html?ref=opinion

1 comment:

  1. Good analysis! The first paragraph was a little confusing/hard to understand, but the analysis was thorough.

    ReplyDelete