Need opinions - Worksheet I received in Ecology class

Hello ATS'ers! Before I start I just want to say that if this is in the wrong forum, mods could you please move it. I want to take this time to explain to you a homework assignment I received on Friday in my Ecology class. I apologize for not being able to scan the image and let you see it directly. I will write the questions that it asks at the end of the reading.

The worksheet is titled "Should There Be a Global Effort to Limit Population Growth?"
Basically, the reading just describes how "Technology could save us". I am not sure about the copyright of the worksheet, though I would assume around 2007.

Now on to the questions:

CONSIDER THIS

1. Discuss ways that the human population might be controlled so that human and environmental damage is kept to a minimum.

2. In your opinion, could these results be achieved voluntarily within a free society, or should governments force people to comply? Explain your opinion.

The second question really caught my attention and I think it is something very odd to be asking.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Argokoo]

Originally posted by Argokoo
Hello ATS'ers! Before I start I just want to say that if this is in the wrong forum, mods could you please move it. I want to take this time to explain to you a homework assignment I received on Friday in my Ecology class. I apologize for not being able to scan the image and let you see it directly. I will write the questions that it asks at the end of the reading.

The worksheet is titled "Should There Be a Global Effort to Limit Population Growth?"
Basically, the reading just describes how "Technology could save us". I am not sure about the copyright of the worksheet, though I would assume around 2007.

Now on to the questions:

CONSIDER THIS

1. Discuss ways that the human population might be controlled so that human and environmental damage is kept to a minimum.

2. In your opinion, could these results be achieved voluntarily within a free society, or should governments force people to comply? Explain your opinion.

The second question really caught my attention and I wasn't sure what to write for it, and I still don't. I would love to hear anyones feedback.

2 Forced ideals with no human agreement never work. There has to be agreement.

Originally posted by Phlynx

Originally posted by Argokoo
Hello ATS'ers! Before I start I just want to say that if this is in the wrong forum, mods could you please move it. I want to take this time to explain to you a homework assignment I received on Friday in my Ecology class. I apologize for not being able to scan the image and let you see it directly. I will write the questions that it asks at the end of the reading.

The worksheet is titled "Should There Be a Global Effort to Limit Population Growth?"
Basically, the reading just describes how "Technology could save us". I am not sure about the copyright of the worksheet, though I would assume around 2007.

Now on to the questions:

CONSIDER THIS

1. Discuss ways that the human population might be controlled so that human and environmental damage is kept to a minimum.

2. In your opinion, could these results be achieved voluntarily within a free society, or should governments force people to comply? Explain your opinion.

The second question really caught my attention and I wasn't sure what to write for it, and I still don't. I would love to hear anyones feedback.

2 Forced ideals with no human agreement never work. There has to be agreement.

Maybe, but we'd need to built some more prisons and government child care centers.

reply to post by Argokoo


I think there are two issues here. First is the basic answering of the questions and second is what you believe the professor/teacher wants in the form of an answer. Certainly there are instructors who will give a grade based on the quality of answer regardless of how it jives with their personal views, but there are far more who will hammer quality work they disagree with. Don't listen to the "stand on your principal" trash if you have one of those professors. Give them what they want and get the good grade.

As far as the answer goes, I don't think it is possible without some governmental role. This could be heavy-handed such as China's one child policy or done through incentives. I doubt incentives would work.

I stick to my principles on this one. You could give him a BS answer or you could answer him with your views, giving him an answer that conforms to his views isn't learning, it is indoctrination.

I'm not going to tell you how to answer the question but he wouldn't like my answer and it would possibly get me in trouble, but this is an Ecology class there is not one reasonable explanation for involving politics into it.

If you object to the questions themsleves on a moral basis I would reply that you object to these questions on moral/religious grounds and find them offensive in the classroom setting. Tell him it is not an ecology question he is asking but a religious/moral question. If the teacher still presses you for an answer or threatens a bad grade for that reply, which I assume is your dilemma, threaten him back with a religious discrimination lawsuit. Most religions, especially Christian denominations are well documented to be against the suggested practices. Is this high school or college?

reply to post by GTORick


This is a high school course.

Thanks for the reply.

"When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near."

~Will Durant~

In an eleven volume set called The Story of Civilization, Will and his wife Ariel Durant wrote of the worlds civilization since time immemorial. In this seminal work they stressed the reality of war, famine, pestilence and natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions being natural checks upon the populations of all species, but since the book was about humanity they meant these natural occurrences were checks upon the human populace.

"Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice."

~Will Durant~

The nature of the second question in the worksheet of your ecology class reveals the nature of the first question. What your professor has given you is a fallacious argument that relies upon an excluded middle in order to solicit arguments that agree with the premise of his or her argument. That argument being that population control by government mandate is a given and the only question is how do we convince a populace to voluntarily agree to control their own self perpetuation through propagation.

If you disagree with the premise and believe that nature will do whatever is necessary to keep human population in check, then it would be correct and proper to make that argument by using both questions 1 and 2 as an opportunity to state your case. If you believe nature acts in this way then that is the obvious answer to the first question. Allowing nature to take its course, while we as humans continue to engage in our phenomenally successful perpetuation of the species. It might be worth noting that biologically speaking, propagation of the species is the primary goal of nature and to act against that goal invites problems arguably worse than those imagined by an "over-population" alarmist.

If you live in the United States then the answer to the second question is found within the Constitution for The United States at the very beginning in the preamble. That preamble states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

People have the right, the inalienable right, to have children. For some that right is mandated by religious beliefs. The Bill of Rights with its very first Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Thus, forcing people to comply to a population control is, as a matter of fact...as a matter of law, unconstitutional in the U.S. If there is to be any respect at all for the rule of law, then it should be clear that the U.S. government has been prohibited from forcing people to comply with any legislation that would endeavor to stop people from propagating. If you were to make this argument in the second question of this worksheet, there is no possible way that your professor could argue that your answer is wrong.

If for some stupid reason your professor actually declares you wrong and gives you an improper grade for your work, most universities and colleges have in place an arbitration system where you can take your professor to that arbitration and demand a better grade. Most arbitration tribunals have a mixture of faculty and students and your chances of winning your appeal for a better grade are high. That is assuming that your well thought out answers that relied upon facts was dismissed as incorrect simply because you rejected the fallacious argument that government population control is necessary.

"If man asks for many laws it is only because he is sure that his neighbor needs them; privately he is an unphilosophical anarchist, and thinks laws in his own case superflous."

~Will Durant~

Good luck!

All I can do is say how I would answer the question, not tell you how to answer it. Those 2 questions beg for "essay answers" because they ask for various methods & means, not specifying any particular "one answer." In short, the way those question were worded, your instructor opened the proverbial "can of worms."

Since it's for an Ecology class & an answer based on politics should be left out of it, I would say that the Laws of Nature already effects its own "checks & balances" within the ecosystem. The basic tenant of the Natural Law as it applies to the questions is that any species that overpopulates its environment will suffer from starvation, disease & heightened aggression (brought about by an increased competition for available food resources). These are the "checks" against the upset in the ecological balance. Once the population drops to a point where the numbers can be supported again, the ecological "niche" that experienced the imbalance will, in time, recover the resources lost because of the original imbalance. Nature "recycles" itself back to a proper balance.

Because human beings have the intellectual capacity to understand the problem & seek self-correction, this invokes a factor that no other species on this planet is capable of using.

To question #1: Various methods to reduce human population are already in effect & is a matter of merely researching ancient & recent history to cite the numerous examples, such as war, deliberate release of diseases, the use of potentially-damaging chemicals & toxins released into the environment & even the numerous individual acts of directly killing of another human being. To list all of the various methods cited by history would involve the writing of a multi-volume work & can't be done in a practical manner here.

Answering question #2 is very easy...There is no wrong answer when asked about your opinion. No one can tell you that "your opinion" is not your opinion.
Simply stating your own opinion is what the question asks, so as long as you honestly state your opinion, you can't "miss" the question.

In essence though, the truth about Question #2 is this: If human beings choose not to reduce population on a voluntary basis, it will be done by force, whether enforced by governments or the Laws of Nature, it will happen. Either way, whether by choice or force, population will be reduced.

But when others posting in this thread brought up the "politics of academics" & suggest that you answer according to what your instructor wants to hear, I suggest only that it's your decision to either betray your heart for the (dubious) gains from "sucking up" for a good grade...Or not.

In all, I think Jean Paul was much more eloquent than I was in answering your questions, but the general concept of the answer is the same. I very rarely give Stars or Flags, but Jean Paul earned my Star for the post.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by Argokoo


Interesting assignment you've got there, thanks for sharing it with us. I am not going to comment on possible answers to the question, since you have many good answers posted here already, besides I think you posted it not for the answers. I mean for different kind of answers, for example what the hell this teacher is doing?

If it was a philosophy class, I'd say it's possible that the teacher tried to stimulate your minds to think about difficult choices, controversial topics, etc. In science teachers use paradoxes to challenge your understanding of nature and reach to your own conclusions instead of memorizing the text book. This is a good teaching technique. It's all good, providing what he does in the end of that assignment. What moral lesson you will all learn. Many good philosophers used this form of thinking, starting with polemics. Aristotle said: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." In other words, playing devil’s advocate is a good way to test you mind and challenge accepted wisdom, as long as you reach a right conclusion in the end.

But this was an ecology class, not a philosophy class, which makes me worry about how far into the population control we are. Especially because he only offers two questions to consider, it’s not open enough discussion for this topic. Therefore it suggests that the assignment could be an exercise to gauge the worldview of the new generation in order to see how "they" will be judged by the immediate history (i.e. you) for what they are about to do (i.e. curb the population numbers), since they don’t want tot have a revolt on their hands in 10 years time.

If the results are favorable, then "they" can proceed further according to the plan. If results are bad, then more indoctrination is required, more extreme events, more BS like global warming, food shortage, etc. If this is indeed the case here, then the right answer would be to refuse the assignment, complain to the head teacher about inappropriate teaching, but never give them the answer. Giving them the answer (any answer) would further their agenda. If they cannot get a feedback from the population “they” would think twice before implementing any of “their” plans.

If we learned from politicians some "people skills" (refuse to give an answer, any answer - by answering another question for example) perhaps it would be much more difficult for "them" to do what "they" are doing.

As it has been pointed out, you don't need to force population control on people; neither do you need to reach an agreement about it. Just look around, check the stats for infertility cases, check the causes, and check what financed those causes.

well we only have a few options.

the only one I like is a poor space program,we should load them on generational ships and shoot them off towards the galactic core region of this galaxy.I'm sure there will be a civilization happy to help them in that direction.

OR we need orbital housing and not just around earth lots of places.

either that or get lots of celebrities to endorse cannibalism.you know,make it a delicacy.

EAT THE POOR.

I've heard we taste like pork.
mmmhh bacon