Close Reading 9/15

Overpopulation Is Not The Problem

(editorial by Erle C. Ellis)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html?src=me&ref=general

      This article describes a new take on the issue of overpopulation. Ellis carefully uses cold imagery, specific details, and deliberate syntax to actually create a motivating and hopeful take on this issue.

      Throughout his editorial, Ellis creatively compares and contrasts humans to “bacteria in a petri dish,” and this visual allows us to picture his main idea, how “our exploding numbers are reaching the limits of a finite planet.” It is much easier to picture bacteria filling up a small disc than to picture the complexities of humans consuming more resources than are produced. His main idea is actually to refute this image as a common misconception, as he explains that people have always been able to use technology to stretch what Earth can support. This is a great persuasive technique, because a petri dish calls to mind very cold, scientific, impersonal images and connotations.

       Ellis describes the history of humans' overcoming carrying capacity in great scientific detail. He gives textbook-like descriptions such as: “The evidence from archaeology is clear. Our predecessors in the genus Homo used social hunting strategies and tools of stone and fire to extract more sustenance from landscapes than would otherwise be possible.” Very detailed! And this goes on and on. However, when it comes to describing the present to future problems humans are facing, Ellis becomes far less descriptive, and actually very vague. Comparing that last quote to this one: “The only limits to creating a planet that future generations will be proud of are our imaginations and our social systems,” this portion is significantly less detailed. Why is this part left out? My guess is that the purpose of the editorial is simply to get people thinking differently, not to inform them of any new developments on overpopulation. Essentially he's saying the situation isn't hopeless, but we don't actually have the solution yet. 

       With regard to syntax, Ellis has a specific pattern of using “being” verbs or active/transitive verbs. “Being” verbs don't bring a lot of energy or impact to the statements, and he uses these most of thet time. Sentencees like “The science of human sustenance is inherently a social science. Neither physics nor chemistry nor even biology is adequate to understand how it has been possible...” These are not very strong statements. Ellis switches to active verbs only when talking specifically about humans' abilities to overcome natural obstacles. For example,“the idea that humans must live within the natural environmental limits of our planet denies the realities of our entire history, and most likely the future” or simply “we transform ecosystems to sustain ourselves.” These pack more of a punch with active verbs, to create almost a sort of pep-talk for humans. A sort of “We can do it!” kind of speech. This syntax really emphasizes humanity's success, while drearily trudging through the necessary background information.

     Using the literary techniques above, Ellis conveys a very interesting voice in his writing! He informs us of the commonly accepted idea, and then gives us his own take on the issue, and all the while gets everyone pumped up to be a human and capable of overcoming nature's obstacles.