Addressing Ethical Issues of Overconsumption and Resource Depletion

A brief description of the ethical problem related to your topic,
as addressed by your
source (75-150 words): Why is this an ethical problem? Why
does this author think it's an
ethical problem? Who is being harmed? and how? how often?
under what circumstances?
A few ethical issues that I addressed in my argumentative essay
is the way we treat our
environment and continuously pollute and plummet our
resources, e.g., public parks, nature
reserves, national parks, forests, oceans and our overall
surroundings. Animals are impacted by
the expansion of humans encroaching on their territories in an
effort to expand on an industrial
scale and while humans do not feel an immediate impact, over
time the depletion of natural forest
and preserves has diminished air quality and landscape.
Another ethical issue is who decides when
humans have sufficient resources. One person’s opinion of
what is sufficient versus another is an

argument within itself.
The argumentative THESIS (25-50 words): This is a proposal
essay, so succinctly state
your PROPOSAL/PLAN for addressing the ethical
problem/issue.
A plan to address these ethical issues is to confirm the
expansion and industrialization of earth’s
resources in an effort to satisfy human consumption. How much
does one person really need?
How much industrialization is required? Is the
overconsumption of resources really a need or just
greed? Ultimately, my plan is to address what is necessary
versus industrialization for political
and economic gain. In a true conservation effort, information
could be gathered to reflect the
impact of over-consumption and diminishing resources. In a
grassroots fashion, flyers or emails
could be sent requesting that each member of a household only
use 15-20 minutes of water a day,
recycle, and as part of an exercise routine, take a garbage bag,
some gloves, and pick up litter.
Analysis (150 words minimum): How does the other author

suggest approaching/solving the
problem? What assumptions does that author make? What kinds
of concerns does the author's
treatment of this issue raise? What are the implications for that
way of thinking/approach to
problem solving? Address ALL FOUR of the stasis questions
for the other author's
argument.
The author’s approach is to provide a brief history of our
history’s consumption and possibly the
inability to stop. The author cites to several sources in an effort
to reflect how the earth has
changed since the Native American tribes originally resided on
the land. She also hints at the fact
that humans are degrading earth’s landscape and asks the
reader(s) to logically reflect on who we
are becoming as a species. Where will we be in the future if we
continue this path? The author’s
stasis questions reference human consumption, industrialization,
political and economic gain, and
basically greed. What can be a downfall to the author’s
approach is that she is assuming a good
majority of people will be sympathetic to the earth’s current
condition. Each individual has to

look deep inside and reflect on this ethical/moral issue of what
is best for them at the moment or
what is best for the future.
Your New Stance (75-150 words): Elaborate on the elements of
your plan. Why/how is
this a better plan than the other author offered? And because the
solutions to all complex
problems create additional issue, what are the concerns people
would have about your
solution? What are the potential negative implications of your
own plan?
I support the author in tying past and current events to open up
the reader’s perception of what can
be accomplished when one person spreads information. The
author touches on the subject of
political, economic, and industrial greed. The author also
empathizes with the earth and
organisms. While I believe opening up a reader to all that the
author has expressed, I believe that
action is necessary. Small campaigns concerning conservation
can be started, small community
meetings on how to conserve at home and in the community,
and monthly neighborhood litter

collection. The only issues I believe some people would have is
either they simply do not want to
participate, they do not believe in conservation, or they do not
have the time to participate. Neither
of my suggestions force people to participate, they only spread
information and have action for
those that do want to participate.
1. Which rubric element is giving you the most trouble?. Why?
The rubric element that I seemed to be giving me the difficult
is/was identifying the claims in the article that I chose. The
reason I could be having trouble with identifying the claims
could be due to the article that I selected. The article I
originally selected was an article about Cesar Chavez and as I
attempted to identify claims, I found it difficult to confirm what
was would be debatable. Also, I am having trouble converting
these claims into an actual argumentative essay in order to form
the purpose of the essay. I am sure three to four claims can be
identified in every article, but any possible guidance in how to
identify these for a historical figure would be beneficial for
future development.
2. Which rubric element do you feel you are managing the most
successfully? Why?
I believe that I have constructed a solid thesis that is somewhat
vague, possibly due to the individual I selected, yet at the same

time is also very descriptive for an introduction to what my
essay entails. I give the reader a brief understand of what is to
come in the remainder of my essay. I think I can essentially
identify and guide the reader of what is to be expected in my
essay. Any possible pointers on how I could expand on my
these would be greatly appreciated. If there are several sources
that can be recommended or essays that I could analyze, this
could help formulate ideas.
3. Which of the fundamental elements of the argument—claims,
evidence, implications, assumptions—is most difficult for you
to identify at this moment? Why?
Identifying factual debatable claims seems to be a major issue
for me and seems to be my weakness. Or, at least, this is my
main issue(s) for the article that I have chosen, which is an
article based on Cesar Chavez. There are some statements in
this article that do not appear to be debatable. I also realize
that opinions can vary dependent upon the reader’s perception
of facts. When an article is based on a historical figure’s life,
how can an argument be developed without downplaying the
figure’s achievements?
4. Which of the fundamental elements of the argument has been
easiest for you to identify? Where/what is this in your
argument?
I have a decent outline for my argumentative essay, although, I
am missing the claims. I believe the easiest thing for me is to
gather evidence from the article and use it in my essay. I can
easily identify a fact in an article and address it. In my first
paragraph, I identify the fact that the author assists with
understanding why individuals developed a union, movements
and the importance of participating in a cause. How many facts
should be identified in order to effectively persuade an
audience?

Pelayo 1
Andrew Pelayo
ENGL 1310.101
Professor Kristen Jackson
September 30, 2018
Argument Description of "Cesar E. Chavez National Monument,
California, and the Future" in The Hour of Land
Published in _____, the article “Cesar E. Chavez National
Monument, California, and the
Future" in The Hour of Land was written by Terry Tempest
Williams Williams (“Williams”).
Williams uses historical and current events in an effort to
validate why an individual would feel a
connection to “utopian based” group and celebrate their

successes. She focuses and argues the
effects of political motivation based on conservation and the
reasons why conversation is over-
looked when industrial and monetary values take precedence.
She also makes reference to the
importance of human beings collaborating as a whole to better
society, and overlooking cultural
differences, can achieve equality and conserve the earth.
Summary and Organization
Williams begins with a personal story of her and a friend
visiting the Cesar Chavez
National monument, which leads to her bringing forth her
argument(s) as to why it is important
for people to participate movements, conversation, and why
others may choose not to participate.
Williams highlights Cesar Chavez’s achievements and quotes,
“Together with Dolores Huerta, he
founded the National Farm Workers Association” (351). This
ultimately developed the United
Farm Workers Association (UFW). Williams seems to be
directing her comments toward possible
Pelayo 2

students, individuals who care about equality, also individuals
who are active in politics and could
possibly be conservationists or naturalists. Williams is
ultimately appealing to anyone that is open
to the preservation of the earth and has a passion for preserving
equality.
Williams entices readers starting with, “What if our national
parks and monuments
became places of conscience instead of places of consumption?
How many more T-shirts can we
buy, let alone wear, that advertise where we’ve been? How
many different forms of recreation
must we create to assuage our adrenaline addictions, from wing
suits to pack rafts to rollerblades?
Is it not enough to return home with a fresh idea gleaned while
walking in new territory? As I
have been visiting our national parks, I keep asking myself:
Who are we becoming?” (Williams
384). She guides the reader with a brief history of Cesar
Chavez’s movement and then follows
with an ideal mentality on perseveration. While she is not
necessarily making an argument, she
is appealing to a reader’s human side by making reference to the

idea that humans are focused on
their own wealth that they have a tendency to be destructive
when it pertains to the environment.
“If our national parks are to remain viable in the future, they
must become sites of transformation
where the paradigm of domination and manipulation ends, and a
vision of unison begins”
(Williams 355). Williams worries about the high rate of
consumption of the earth’s resources and
humans’ needs to seek more resources in order to feel satisfied.
As evidence, Williams touches
on the fact that numerous Native American tribes view the
planet as a revered resource and are
tied to the land by their ancestors. Oil production has
encroached on these tribes’ land and has
threatened their way of life. “Robert Thompson, an Inupiat
guide and hunter in the village of
Kak-tovik, Alaska, on the border of the Arctic Refuge testified
before the United States Senate on
March 4, 2005:
Pelayo 3

I am honored to be part of this movement to save our land, our
ocean and our
culture . . . We are attempting to use the democratic process to
save our culture.
Before this it could be said and often was, that we wanted all
that oil money.
You are now facing a group of people who are saying that no
amount of money
is worth exchanging our culture for oil. However this goes,
future generations
of Inupiat can look back and say, those people who signed this
petition to
protect our lands tried to do the right thing. Somehow, I feel
that it will be
important to them to know that someone cared” (Williams 355).
Williams is appealing to readers citing to the fact that certain
tribes have hunted particular
types of animals for survival and unfortunately, with the need
for more oil production, more land
consumption is required in order to keep up with the demand of
the population. The consumption
of land is driving away animals and/or destroying their
environment, which can eventually cause
the species to become extinct. This is why the author

emphasizes how important it is for us to be
involved in these humanitarian and environmental groups.
Argument and Description
Williams’ argument(s) throughout the article are personal,
emotional, and passionate.
Williams cites to other scholars, activists, and industrialists
whom have knowledge or experience
in advocating for conservation or give a bleak description of
human consumption. When a prior
generation advocated opening up sections of land in an effort to
expand on an industrial scale, they
more than likely could not fathom how heavy the consumption
would be. Richard White, a history
professor, stated, “John Muir’s view that you can protect the
mountains while everything else is
opened up to development . . . global warming has finished that
. . . It’s all one world.” White goes
Pelayo 4
on to say, “It’s not that I’m against wilderness areas, it’s not
that I’m against national parks, but

essentially, we’ve now instituted a system of change that is
going to take over— the entire planet”
(Williams 358). Williams was stressing to readers that when a
population is open to the idea of
opening up resources for consumption, it is difficult to decipher
who will decide what lands,
monuments, or national parks are still sacred. “The preeminent
biologist E. O. Wilson is saying that
if we are to survive as a species, half the Earth must be set
aside as wilderness.” “Something is
happening,” “A real movement is occurring. Conservation is the
global response to the environmental
degradation we are witnessing. If we are to find ourselves on
the other side of this bottleneck we are
in, it must be. The health of the land is the health of the people”
(Williams 358). What makes
Williams’ argument a bit perplexing is that the idea/mentality of
conservation is open to interpretation
across the globe. Who will determine what the standard for
conversation should be? Williams cites
to the breakneck speed in which the population is moving
toward modernizing all aspects of life,
including, eliminating customary verbiage from the Oxford
Junior Dictionary.

“The following terms have been removed from the new version
Oxford
Junior Dictionary: acorn, adder, almond, apricot, ash, ass,
bacon, beaver,
beech, beetroot, blackberry, blacksmith, bloom, bluebell, boar,
bramble, bran,
bray, bridle, brook, budgerigar, bullock, buttercup, canary,
canter, carnation,
catkin, cauliflower, chestnut, clover, conker, county, cowslip,
crocus, cheetah, colt,
corgi, cygnet, dandelion, diesel, doe, drake, fern, ferret, fungus,
gerbil, goldfi sh,
gooseberry, gorse, guinea pig, hamster, hazel, hazelnut, heather,
heron, herring,
holly, horse chestnut, ivy, kingfisher, lark, lavender, leek,
leopard, liquorice,
lobster, magpie, manger, marzipan, melon, minnow, mint,
mistletoe, monarch,
mussel, nectar, nectarine, newt, oats, otter, ox, oyster, pansy,
panther, parsnip,
Pelayo 5
pasture, pelican, piglet, plaice, poodle, poppy, porcupine,

porpoise, porridge,
poultry, primrose, prune, radish, raven, rhubarb, sheaf, spaniel,
spinach,
starling, stoat, stork, sycamore, terrapin, thrush, tulip, turnip,
vine, violet,
walnut, weasel, willow, wren” (Williams 360).
Words that are eradicated from our past are robbing a future
generation from researching
and understanding prior generations. You cannot know where
you are going unless you know
where you have been.
After, assisting the poor and cultivating the (UFW) The Farm
Workers Association, Cesar
Chavez said, “That the two greatest aspirations of humankind
are equality and participation”
(Williams 363). She appeals to the fact that when one person,
with so much gratitude and concern
for the earth and society can achieve. Williams provides a very
compelling and intimate account
of how she and other scholars and activists have advocated for
preservation and equality for the
earth and individuals. Williams is genuinely concerned about
humanitarian and environmental

issues. This article appears to be a good reference for general
readers, students, and those
interested in conversation and humanitarian efforts.
Pelayo 6
Works Cited
Williams, Terry Tempest, "Cesar E. Chavez National
Monument, California, and the Future" in The
Hour of Land, pp.351-367
Argument Analysis Revision Memo

Instructor Comments/Questions
My word count fell short of the required minimum 1,200 –
1,500.
My overall similarity score on the final draft was 33%, which
indicates too much quotation.
For the rewrite in final portfolio, try to develop some of these
ideas more. What else seems
problematic about the author's argument? (you can bring in
more quotations or specifics
as well)
My revision plan is to paraphrase and possibly limit the amount
of quotations used in
future drafts. I can be a bit more precise when utilizing
quotations so that my essay is
effective and flows. In this instance, I may have felt the author
expressed the segment
of the story much better than I could have, but I do believe I can
paraphrase so that my
similarity score is diminished. I also plan to develop ideas and
word count, where
possible, and diving into issues associated with the author’s
argument.
The areas I believe I need assistance with are: 1) How do I
effectively project an argument
without personally involving myself in the story?; 2) How and
when should I use quotations
to effectively project what the author’s point of view or my
point of view is?; and 3) How
do I provide detail within the essay without making it sound
repetitive?

Argument Analysis Revision Memo
Pelayo 1
Andrew Pelayo
ENGL 1310.101
November 14, 2018
Argument Analysis of "Cesar E. Chavez National Monument,
In July of 2015, my family and I took a vacation to Seattle,
Washington to visit a family
friend. While in Seattle, we took a quick trip to Mount Rainier
National Park and rode the Mount
Rainier Gondola. As the gondola traveled to the next
destination, I observed the breathtaking
skyline and was in complete admiration of nature’s architecture.
In The Hour of Land , published

May 31, 2016, author Terry Tempest Williams (“Williams”),
begins with a personal story of she and
a friend visiting the Cesar Chavez National Monument, which
leads to her bringing forth her
arguments as to why it is important for people to participate in
conservation and why others may
choose not to participate in conservation efforts. Williams
focuses on the negative effects when
conservation is ignored in support of capital gain. Williams also
implores the importance of human
beings collaborating as a whole to better society, and
overlooking cultural differences, can achieve
equality and conserve the earth. The main argument and ethical
issues I plan to address are: 1)
Who actually decides what is ethical in pursuit of conservation
efforts?; and 2) Who do we entrust
to appoint people who will follow protocol with what is
considered ethical? While the author
provides a personal account and history of the detriment that
people and industrialization have
affected earth, the author fails to provide any probable solutions
or suggestions for the readers to
follow. I plan to provide potential solutions in an effort to
obtain a sustainable conservation goal.

Pelayo 2
We have an environment where monetary and environmental
objects do not always meet
in the middle. Value(s) would need to be internalized and
assessed by all, but this more than likely
will be on a personal basis. “Our institutions and agencies are
no longer working for us. It is time
to reimagine the wilderness movement as a movement of direct
action, time to reimagine our public
lands as sanctuaries, refuges, and sacred lands. Time to rethink
what is acceptable and what is not.”
I would explain that they want people to change their ways of
viewing nature/national monuments
(that is, they don’t give a call to action which is easy to fulfill,
rather, they seem to try to open our
eyes and wake us up to something. Before you get into why this
is not a good way to go about the
argument, or lacking somehow, you have to first establish what
the argument is and how they go
about doing this. That is what this paragraph should be focusing
on, as opposed to a whole other
source

The real issue at hand is how do we decide whom decides what
is ethical and who
determines what is beneficial for the future when it comes to
preserving national parks and
monuments. Several personal suggestions would be: 1) confirm
how much expansion and
industrialization of earth’s resources is actually required and
safe for the environment; 2) How
much does one person really need?; and 3) Is the
overconsumption of resources really a need or
just greed? Environmental surveys could be assessed in order
to determine yearly consumption
and place a cap on the percentage required to sustain
recommended consumption. After these
surveys, a panel of global environmentalists could assist with
advising corporations and
communities on energy conversation and proper disposal of
waste.
Humans tend to be reactive and not proactive for the most part
and do not foresee any
issues until it is necessary. There was a recent report by the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change that states the planet will reach the crucial
threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/10/08/climate-change-
ipcc-report-changes-needed-cabrera-live-vpx.cnn
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/10/08/climate-change-
ipcc-report-changes-needed-cabrera-live-vpx.cnn
Pelayo 3
degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as
2030, precipitating the risk of
extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for
hundreds of millions of people (Miller
& Croft, 2018). While this statement would be sufficient to
motivate some individuals in
conservation, this may not be enough to motivate others. I
believe some people simply will not
participate in conservation due to their disbelief in conservation
efforts, or they do not have the
time to participate.
Ultimately, my plan is to address what is necessary versus
industrialization for political

could be sent requesting that the community donate a minimal
amount or petition their
congressman in an effort to secure and financially support
national parks. While I believe opening
up a reader to all that the author has expressed in her article, I
believe that action is necessary.
Small campaigns concerning conservation can be started, small
community meetings on how to
conserve at home and in the community, and monthly
neighborhood litter collection. My youngest
sister’s school has a community garden that encourages the
students and parents to grow their own
vegetables and fruit in an effort to inspire them to eat a healthy
diet and to respect their
surroundings. My parents’ neighborhood has a yearly
community outreach wherein volunteers
gather and plant trees in parts of the neighborhood. I do believe
starting the conservation effort(s)
while children are young has a tremendous impact on their
perception of what their surroundings
should be and how much they actually need. When time and
effort is put into a particular project,
I do believe it leaves a lasting impact.
After remembering how I felt when I looked out over the

gondola and observed Mount
Rainier’s skyline, I could not help but wonder, how much longer
will we have such landscapes if
Pelayo 4
people refuse to support conservation. What will happen if
people turn a blind eye and do nothing
to push forward with legislation to fund the protection of
national parks? If all national parks were
to slowly disappear, future generations would have to read
about prior landscapes and could only
admire these landscapes in photographs. Neither of my
suggestions force people to participate,
they only spread information and provide a type action for those
that do want to participate. Small
efforts can be made be a portion of the population and this
could make an impact, but this is truly
a deep ethical question that individuals will have to make.
Unfortunately, the downfall for the
human race and past behavior is an overwhelming need to
expand, dominate, and increase
resources. Those that would benefit from conservation would
be the entire planet. Opinions on

conservation, values, and ethics will always vary, but the final
goal should be to reach common
ground. What can be a downfall is assuming a good majority of
people will be sympathetic to the
author’s personal account versus the earth’s current condition.
The consequence(s) for not
conserving could be damaging for all, but only time will tell.
Pelayo 5
Works Cited
Miller, Brandon and Jay Croft. “Climate Change. New IPCC
Report.” October 8, 2018.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-
ipcc-report-wxc/index.html.
Access October 16, 2018.
Tempest, Terry Williams. “"Cesar E. Chavez National
Monument, California, and the Future"
The Hour of Land. Sarah Crichton, 2016.
ipcc-report-wxc/index.htmlMiller, Brandon and Jay Croft.
“Climate Change. New IPCC Report.” October 8,
2018.https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-
new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html. Access October 16, 2018.
HOUSEKEEPING DG3
Andrew Pelayo
Oct 31, 2018Oct 31 at 11:56pm
Manage Discussion Entry
(Monday, 29)
The author is pondering an alternate reality and not necessarily,
what is an actual
event. The author trails into a “what if” event in the
character’s lives in which in an
instance, the characters realize their mother’s suicidal

intentions and alter the course of
events. I believe the author is shedding light on the fact that
the characters chose to alter
their reality and resent their upbringing. Ruthie and her sibling
are raised by relatives and
have a deep seeded history with regard to past deaths in their
family and lack of a male
authority figure. Ruthie and Lucille are eventually raised by an
aunt after their mother’s
passing, but only to be exposed to their aunt’s eccentricities and
vagrant lifestyle. As the
community begins to take notice of the family’s alternate
lifestyle, Ruthie and Lucille prefer
to burn their home down and hide on the other side of the lake.
The author is shedding
light on Ruthie and Lucille dictating their own destinies. This
story does not bring many
questions to mind, just the fact that the characters dictated their
own future and preferred
not to live in a community that judged their alternate lifestyle.
I believe the author was
shedding light on an individual’s ability to choose their own
lifestyle versus succumbing
to society’s perception of what a lifestyle should be.
•
o Jason McCarley
Jason McCarley
Nov 1, 2018Nov 1 at 7:36pm
This is an interesting take on how the characters are reacting to

pressure presented
by the women in town and the sheriff. The attempt by Ruthie to
retreat to an alternate
reality where her mother never commits suicide speaks to the
reaction she had not
only to their tumultuous upbringing, but to the reaction the town
had to their unstable
aunt. The irresponsible way their aunt lived drew lots of
attention by the town's people
and that had a major affect on both Ruthie and Lucille, but in
drastically different ways.
Ultimately Sylvie and Ruth chose to sever their ties with the
town and remove
themselves from public judgement altogether. I think that
Robinson is also making the
case that the threat of judgement by the public can have a very
dramatic affect on
people, and that not all people have the skills to cope with the
scrutiny of the public
eye.
ReplyReply to Comment
Collapse SubdiscussionAndrew Pelayo
Andrew Pelayo
Nov 2, 2018Nov 2 at 9:53pm

Unfortunately, at times society's perception of what a "normal"
lifestyle should be has
an impact on an individual's upbringing and sense of self worth.
The judgment from
the community seems to have been multiplied and determined
Ruthie and Sylvie's
path in life and ultimately led to their seclusion from society.
Either way, the hope is
in the story, they found peace in their solitude.
Collapse SubdiscussionJason McCarley
Jason McCarley
Nov 4, 2018Nov 4 at 4:28pm
In Housekeeping, you chose the passages that describes Ruthie's
vision of an
alternate reality where her mother did not commit suicide.
Given that both Ruthie and
Lucille took such different paths in life, how do you think
Ruthie and Lucille's life would
have turned out had their mother never committed suicide?

Collapse SubdiscussionAndrew Pelayo
Andrew Pelayo
Nov 4, 2018Nov 4 at 11:32pm
While one person cannot claim that having a specific individual
in their life could or
could not have a significant impact in their life, a mother’s love
could have an impact
on a child’s upbringing. There may have been an aloof sense of
continuing their
existence with chores and day to day activities, but without
affection, they may have
just “maintained” their existence. There is no true way of
knowing the significance of
whether a family member’s or members’ departure may have
impacted Ruthie or
Lucille, but it has to be taken into account when contemplating
their state of
mind. There is no comparison as to whether the Ruthie or
Lucille would have chosen
a different path given a different option in life, but the family
chain could not be
avoided. In this instance, Ruthie and Lucille became dependent
on each other versus
the family members that “abandoned” them.
•
Collapse SubdiscussionJason McCarley

Jason McCarley
Nov 1, 2018Nov 1 at 6:47pm
"Sylvie stood in the door, looking over the lake. 'It's pretty
today,' she said. Portly white
clouds, bellied like cherubs, sailed across the sky, and the sky
and the like were and
elegant azure. One can imagine that, at the apex of the Flood,
when the globe was a
ball of water, come the day of divine relenting, when Noah's
wife must have opened
the shutters upon a morning designed to reflect an enormous
good nature. We can
imagine that the Deluge rippled and glistened, and that the
clouds, under the altered
dispensation, were purely ornamental. True, the waters were full
of people-we knew
the story from out childhood. The lady at her window might
have wished to be with the
mothers and uncles, among the dance of bones, since this is
hardly a human world,
here in the fatuous light, admiring the plump clouds. Looking
out at the lake one could
believe that the Flood had never ended. If one is lost on the
water, and hill is Ararat.
And below is always the accumulated past, which vanishes but
does not vanish, which
perishes and remains"(172)
This passage is significant because it exemplifies Robinson's
point that memory

shapes the way her characters feel about public and private
spaces, namely
Fingerbone and the lake. She illustrates this theme by showing
how Ruthie and other
characters feel about Fingerbone throughout the novel because
of it's history. In this
example Robinson compares the feeling that Ruthie has when
viewing the lake to that
of Noahs wife as she viewed the flood from the Ark. Even
though the lake was beautiful
the memory of the railroad accident there had tainted it, in the
same way that Noahs
wife may have been relieved to know that the rains were over
with, the waters were
full of the people who had died during the flood. She even goes
on to say that looking
out over the lake she could just imagine that the flood never
ended and that the
catastrophe that happened there was simply part of that biblical
event.
“We had both become conscious of Fingerbone all around us, if
not watching, then
certainly aware of everything we did. Left to myself I would
have shrunk under all this
attention. I would have stayed in the house and read with a
flashlight under the covers
and have ventured out only for Wonder bread and batteries. But
Sylvie reacted to her
audience with a stage voice and large gestures. She kept saying,
’I don’t know why
we didn’t do this months ago,’ loudly, as if she thought there
were listeners beyond
the firelight, among the apple trees” (200)
This passage is an excellent example of Robinson’s attempt at

blurring the lines
between public and private spaces. Her comment being that
private spaces are never
truly private in that they are only deemed private by the
constructs of the public world.
In this passage Robinson illustrates this theme by showing how
the public eye of
Fingerbone had permeated the lives of her characters. The
people of Fingerbone
scrutinized the way Sylvie lived and that affected both Sylvie
and Ruthie in different
ways. Ruthie remembers that Sylvie often spoke in a way that
seemed as if the town’s
people were listening in on her. For Ruthie this feeling of
public scrutiny caused her
to want to retreat further into the solitude of her own mind. In a
broader way Robinson
is commenting on the erosion of privacy in an increasingly
public world.
•
Collapse SubdiscussionKristen Jackson
Kristen Jackson
Nov 3, 2018Nov 3 at 10:55am
Hi Jason and Andrew--You may be the only ones participating
in this group, so please
just do the best you can with the different aspects of this
assignment. You won't have

to vote on the best question, since there are only two of you.
Reply
A brief description of the ethical problem related to your topic,
as addressed by your
source (75-150 words): Why is this an ethical problem? Why
does this author think it's an
ethical problem? Who is being harmed? and how? how often?
under what circumstances?
A few ethical issues that I addressed in my argumentative essay
is the way we treat our
environment and continuously pollute and plummet our
resources, e.g., public parks, nature
reserves, national parks, forests, oceans and our overall
surroundings. Animals are impacted by
the expansion of humans encroaching on their territories in an
effort to expand on an industrial
scale and while humans do not feel an immediate impact, over
time the depletion of natural forest
and preserves has diminished air quality and landscape.
Another ethical issue is who decides when
humans have sufficient resources. One person’s opinion of

what is sufficient versus another is an
argument within itself.
The argumentative THESIS (25-50 words): This is a proposal
essay, so succinctly state
your PROPOSAL/PLAN for addressing the ethical
problem/issue.
A plan to address these ethical issues is to confirm the
expansion and industrialization of earth’s
resources in an effort to satisfy human consumption. How much
does one person really need?
How much industrialization is required? Is the
overconsumption of resources really a need or just
greed? Ultimately, my plan is to address what is necessary
versus industrialization for political
could be sent requesting that each member of a household only
use 15-20 minutes of water a day,
recycle, and as part of an exercise routine, take a garbage bag,
some gloves, and pick up litter.

Analysis (150 words minimum): How does the other author
suggest approaching/solving the
problem? What assumptions does that author make? What kinds
of concerns does the author's
treatment of this issue raise? What are the implications for that
way of thinking/approach to
problem solving? Address ALL FOUR of the stasis questions
for the other author's
argument.
The author’s approach is to provide a brief history of our
history’s consumption and possibly the
inability to stop. The author cites to several sources in an effort
to reflect how the earth has
changed since the Native American tribes originally resided on
the land. She also hints at the fact
that humans are degrading earth’s landscape and asks the
reader(s) to logically reflect on who we
are becoming as a species. Where will we be in the future if we
continue this path? The author’s
stasis questions reference human consumption, industrialization,
political and economic gain, and
basically greed. What can be a downfall to the author’s
approach is that she is assuming a good

majority of people will be sympathetic to the earth’s current
condition. Each individual has to
look deep inside and reflect on this ethical/moral issue of what
is best for them at the moment or
what is best for the future.
Your New Stance (75-150 words): Elaborate on the elements of
your plan. Why/how is
this a better plan than the other author offered? And because the
solutions to all complex
problems create additional issue, what are the concerns people
would have about your
solution? What are the potential negative implications of your
own plan?
I support the author in tying past and current events to open up
the reader’s perception of what can
be accomplished when one person spreads information. The
author touches on the subject of
political, economic, and industrial greed. The author also
empathizes with the earth and
organisms. While I believe opening up a reader to all that the
author has expressed, I believe that
action is necessary. Small campaigns concerning conservation
can be started, small community

meetings on how to conserve at home and in the community,
and monthly neighborhood litter
collection. The only issues I believe some people would have is
either they simply do not want to
participate, they do not believe in conservation, or they do not
have the time to participate. Neither
of my suggestions force people to participate, they only spread
information and have action for
those that do want to participate.
Pelayo: 1
Andrew Pelayo Pelayo:
ENGL 1310.101
November 19, 2018
Washington to visit a family friend. While in Seattle, we took a
quick trip to Mount Rainier National Park and rode the Mount
destination, I observed the breathtaking skyline and was in
complete admiration of nature’s architecture. In The Hour of
Land , published May 31, 2016, author Terry Tempest Williams
(“Williams”), begins with a personal story of she and a friend

visiting the Cesar Chavez National Monument, which leads to
her bringing forth her arguments as to why it is important for
people to participate in conservation and why others may
choose not to participate in conservation efforts. Williams
focuses on the negative effects when conservation is ignored in
support of capital gain. Williams also implores the importance
of human beings collaborating as a whole to better society, and
overlooking cultural differences, can achieve equality and
conserve the earth. Conserving the world is one of the most
critical aspects of ensuring healthy and sustained life.
However, there arise issues in the determination of what is
ethical in the process of conserving and who to follow in
conservation issues. The decision on what is moral and who to
follow has raised many arguments in trying to solve the
questions. This paper contains an argumentative essay
concerning ethical hurdles or what needs to be done to ensure
conservation achievement. While the author provides a
personal account and history of the detriment that people and
industrialization have affected earth, the author fails to provide
any probable solutions or suggestions for the readers to follow.
I plan to provide potential solutions in an effort to obtain a
sustainable conservation goal.
Williams describes the transformation of a 187-acre size land
from a mine-affected area into a site of Stony Brook Retreat and
a hospital for tuberculosis infected people (Williams). Williams
in the narration argues that among the people involved in
shaping the American conservation is the poor farm workers led
by Cesar Chavez. When Chavez hears of the intention to auction
the land he struggles to buy it and luckily by the help of a film
producer that he hires is able to make the purchase.. After
purchasing it, he sells a parcel to the UFW and the rest he
names Nuestra Senora Reina de La Paz. Chavez and makes the
land a sanctuary and a home for keeping the farm worker’s
dreams and rights alive. In honor of the Cesar Chavez efforts,
president Barrack Obama designates the La Paz monument as
one of America’s national monuments in 2015.

Williams also argues that the ancient knowledge in conjunction
with traditional management of the land serves as both a
revolution and a cure between the citizens and the conservation
(Williams). For example, in a case of a proposal for a
monument in America’s the southwestern region, the
chairperson of Utah Dine Bikeyah says that the different tribes
in the country demand to see their cultural values protected. The
people in the area bordering the Canyonlands National parks
would like to see their land protected through the Antiquities
Act. One of their elders in an interview with Williams says,
“We can still hear our ancestral songs being sung on the
mesas.”
In the struggle to generate the spirit of conservation, Williams
also argues in support to the ancient advocates of the protection
of the wild country and the national parks. Williams says in her
text that John Muir’s decisions and recommendations are both
noble and worth both admiration and respect. Other historians
also recognize the work of John Muir. For instance, Donald
Worster says that Muir started a new American religion
(Williams, 2016). The term new religion is used symbolically to
signify that the act of conservation that Muir initiated has many
followers and more will join. It was Muir’s vision that one
could protect a mountain while on the other hand; everything
else is wide open for development. It is evident from this
argument from Williams that Muir is a father of conservation of
the environment citing the transformation of Yosemite Valley
which Williams says looked like Eden.
However, the decision on who is to decide what is ethical for
environmental conservation develops some problems amongst
the citizens. For example, the case of a rancher Cliven Bundy
refusing to pay for grazing fee and offering death threats
(Williams, 2016). Williams argues that from the ranchers’ point
of view, the locking up of the federal lands poses a threat to
their living style and a violation of their values as Americans.
As a result of the risks offered the land management officials
and National Park Service are urged to avoid being in uniforms

in public for fear of being a target. The main argument of the
ranchers was that they were tired of the government telling
them what to do.
objects do not always meet in the middle. Value(s) would need
to be internalized and assessed by all, but this more than likely
will be on a personal basis. “Our institutions and agencies are
no longer working for us. It is time to reimagine the wilderness
movement as a movement of direct action, time to reimagine our
public lands as sanctuaries, refuges, and sacred lands. Time to
rethink what is acceptable and what is not.”
The real issue at hand is how do we decide whom decides what
is ethical and who determines what is beneficial for the future
when it comes to preserving national parks and monuments.
Several personal suggestions would be: 1) confirm how much
expansion and industrialization of earth’s resources is actually
required and safe for the environment; 2) how much does one
person really need?; and 3) is the overconsumption of resources
really a need or just greed? Humans typically tend to be
reactive and not proactive for the most part, and do not foresee
any issues until it is necessary. There was a recent report by
the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that states
the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius
(2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early
as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires,
floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people
(Miller & Croft, 2018). While this statement would be
sufficient to motivate some individuals to turn to conservation,
this may not be enough to motivate others. I believe some
people simply will not participate in conservation due to their
disbelief in conservation and/or climate change, or they do not
have the time to participate.
Ultimately, my goal is to address necessary industrialization
versus industrialization for political and economic gain. In a
true conservation effort, information could be gathered to
reflect the impact of over-consumption and diminishing

resources. In a grassroots fashion, flyers or emails could be
sent requesting that the community donate a minimal amount or
petition their congressman in an effort to secure and financially
support national parks. While I believe opening up a reader to
all that Williams has expressed in her article, I believe that
taking action is necessary. Small conservation campaigns can
be initiated in local communities and monthly community
meetings centered on how to conserve can also provide
preliminary information. I do believe starting the conservation
effort(s) while children are young has a tremendous impact on
their perception of what their surroundings should be and how
much they actually need. When time and effort are put into a
particular project, I do believe it leaves a lasting impact.
After remembering how I felt when I looked out over the
gondola and observed Mount Rainier’s skyline, I could not help
but wonder, how much longer will we have such landscapes if
people refuse to support conservation. What will happen if
people turn a blind eye and do nothing to push forward with
legislation to fund the protection of national parks? If all
national parks were to slowly disappear, future generations
would have to read about prior landscapes and could only
admire these landscapes in photographs. From the ancient
times, the conservation of the land in American has proven to
dig deep in the hearts of the Americans. With the case of Cesar
Chavez and John Muir acting as the basis, the motivations seem
to take a high notch head start to the formation of conservation
sites like national parks and national monuments. Some cases
such as the encounter of the rancher and the government prove
that the government had a say in what to be conserved and
termed ethical. While neither of my suggestions force society
to participate, they only provide information and types of action
for those that do want to participate. Unfortunately, the
downfall for the human race based upon past behavior is an
overwhelming need to expand, dominate, and increase
resources. Opinions on conservation, values, and ethics will
always vary, but the final goal should be to reach common

ground. What can be a downfall is assuming a good majority of
people will be sympathetic to the author’s personal account
versus the earth’s current condition. The consequence(s) for
not conserving could be damaging for all, but only time will
tell.
Works Cited
ipcc-report-wxc/index.html. Access October 16, 2018.
Tempest, Terry Williams. “"Cesar E. Chavez National
Monument, California, and the Future"
The Hour of Land. Sarah Crichton, 2016.
Pelayo 1
Andrew Pelayo
ENGL 1310.101
October 17, 2018
The main argument and/or ethical issue(s) I plan to address are:
1) Who actually decides what is ethical in pursuit of

conservation efforts?; and 2) Who do we entrust to appoint
people who will follow protocol with what is considered
ethical? While the author provides a personal account and
history of the detriment that people and industrialization have
affected earth, the author fails to provide any probable solutions
or suggestions for the reader to follow. I plan to provide
potential solutions in an effort to possibly reach a sustainable
conversation goal(s).
objects do not always meet in the middle. Value(s) would need
to be internalized and assessed by all, but this more than likely
will be on a personal basis. “The development of an ethic of
conservation faces another obstacle, which is the widespread
perception that ethics, and the question of values in general, are
beyond the reach of rational and critical discussion. It is an
illusion to suppose that ethical considerations can be sidelined.
Conservation objectives may indeed be defended on scientific or
utilitarian grounds, but to reach a decision on these grounds
presupposes an evaluative commitment to the view that these
considerations should hold sway. Value judgements are
involved in the decision as to which interests and considerations
are legitimate; and the question of legitimacy is a matter for
critical evaluation. A common and associated mistake is to
picture the values that we hold as immovable points of
departure, over which we have little control, and which dictate
and shape all our reasonings, so that, unless we happen to share
the same values, debate between us will be an empty charade. In
our view, this picture is hardly true to the facts” (Holland and
Rawles).
The real issue at hand is how do we decide whom makes decides
what is ethical and who determines what is beneficial for the
future. Several personal suggestions would be: 1) confirm how
much expansion and industrialization of earth’s resources is
actually required and safe for the environment; 2) How much
does one person really need?; and 3) Is the overconsumption of
resources really a need or just greed? Environmental surveys

could be assessed in order to determine yearly consumption and
place a cap on the percentage required to sustain recommended
consumption. After these surveys, a panel of global
environmentalists could assist with advising corporations and
communities on energy conversation and proper disposal of
waste.
Ultimately, my plan is to address what is necessary versus
industrialization for political and economic gain. In a true
conservation effort, information could be gathered to reflect the
grassroots fashion, flyers or emails could be sent requesting that
each member of a household only uses 15-20 minutes of water a
day, recycle, and as part of an exercise routine, take a garbage
bag, some gloves, and pick up litter. While I believe opening
up a reader to all that the author has expressed in her article, I
believe that action is necessary. Small campaigns concerning
conservation can be started, small community meetings on how
to conserve at home and in the community, and monthly
neighborhood litter collection. My youngest sister’s school has
a community garden that encourages the students and parents to
grow their own vegetables and fruit in an effort to inspire them
to eat a healthy diet and to respect their surroundings. My
parents’ neighborhood has a yearly community outreach wherein
volunteers gather and plant trees in parts of the neighborhood. I
do believe starting the conservation effort(s) while children are
young has a tremendous impact on their perception of what their
surroundings should be and how much they actually need.
When time and effort is put into a particular project, I do
believe it leaves a lasting impact.
Humans tend to be reactive and not proactive for the most part
and do not foresee any issues until it is necessary. There was a
recent report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change that states the planet will reach the crucial threshold of
1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-
industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of
extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for

hundreds of millions of people (Miller & Croft, 2018). While
this statement would be sufficient to motivate some individuals
in conservation, this may not be enough to motivate others. I
believe some people simply will not participate in conservation
due to their disbelief in conservation efforts, or they do not
have the time to participate.
Neither of my suggestions force people to participate, they only
spread information and provide a type action for those that do
want to participate. Small efforts can be made be a portion of
the population and this could make an impact, but this is truly a
deep ethical question that individuals will have to make.
Unfortunately, the downfall for the human race and past
behavior is an overwhelming need to expand, dominate, and
increase resources. Those that would benefit from conservation
would be the entire planet. Opinions on conservation, values,
and ethics will always vary, but the final goal should be to
reach common ground. What can be a downfall is assuming a
good majority of people will be sympathetic to the author’s
personal account versus the earth’s current condition. The
consequence(s) for not conserving could be damaging for all,
but only time will tell.
Works Cited
ipcc-report-wxc/index.html. Access October 16, 2018.Holland,
Alan and Kate Rawles. “The Ethics of Conservation.” British
Association of Nature
Conservationists.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbf8/9280433
484bc971a60e294b9be1de70fbfa0.pdf.

Andrew Pelayo
ENGL 1310.101
Terry Tempest Williams, "Cesar E. Chavez National Monument,
California, and the Future" in The Hour of Land, pp.351-367
Thesis:
Williams uses historical and current events in an effort to
validate why an individual would feel a connection to “utopian
based” group and celebrate their successes. Human beings
collaborating as a whole to better society, and overlooking
cultural differences, can achieve equality and conserve the
earth.
First Body Paragraph:
The author, Terry Tempest Williams (“Williams”), begins with
a personal story of him and a friend visiting the Cesar Chavez
National monument, which leads to the author’s primary claim:
he has helped understand why it is important for people to
participate in these movements and why might someone leave
one. Williams highlights Cesar Chavez’s achievements and
quotes, “Together with Dolores Huerta, he founded the National
Farm Workers Association (pp.351)” This ultimately developed
the United Farm Workers Association (UFW). Williams seems
to be directing his comments toward possible students,
individuals who care about equality, also individuals who are
active in politics and could possibly be conservationists or
naturalists.

Andrew Pelayo
ENGL 1310.101
December 5, 2018
Executive Summary
Over the course of the semester, I have analyzed my
writing samples and have identified areas in which I have
improved upon. I chose to write an argumentative essay on
"Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, California, and the
Future" in The Hour of Land. As samples have progressed, I
have been able to improve the story line, which follows my
claims with specific suggestions and introduce an anecdote to
identify with the audience and story. I removed information
that did not support my claims and developed information that
supported my claims. I removed the following paragraph,
which did not support my argumentative essay:
In a grassroots fashion, flyers or emails could be sent
requesting that each member of a household only uses 15-20
minutes of water a day, recycle, and as part of an exercise
routine, take a garbage bag, some gloves, and pick up litter.
My essay primarily focuses on the trials and tribulations of
ethical behavior that pertains to conversation efforts. Through
my efforts to improve my argumentative essay, I learned how to
include an anecdote to introduce my essay and for it to provide
a personal introduction for the audience. I utilized the
following paragraph to introduce my essay:

Washington to visit a family friend. While in Seattle, we took a
quick trip to Mount Rainier National Park and rode the Mount
destination, I observed the breathtaking skyline and was in
complete admiration of nature’s architecture.
During the course I have enhanced developing and organizing
the structure of my writing samples. My Argument Description
Preview Assignment clearly indicates that my initial structure
of my memo was not well organized and needed to improve on
my intro, persuasion, primary arguments, explanation of how
the author arranges their ideas and evidence, how the author
words and tone attempt to persuade the audience, and the final
implications of the argument. Also, during a group assignment,
Housekeeping DG 3, the need to clarify the material that should
be referenced was an initial challenge. The participant and I
referenced specific events that occurred and structured how
these specific details impacted the argument and analysis.

Addressing Ethical Issues of Overconsumption and Resource Depletion

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Addressing Ethical Issues of Overconsumption and Resource Depletion

Similar to Addressing Ethical Issues of Overconsumption and Resource Depletion (8)

More from makdul

More from makdul (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Addressing Ethical Issues of Overconsumption and Resource Depletion