#nicolasrhe

[nc-t-blog]

Final Project V2

[nc-t-blog]

v1

[nc-t-blog]

First draft

[nc-t-blog]

Since our group discussions (both small and large) in class, I’ve been thinking a lot about bias when talking about, writing about, and generally discussing such emotionally charged events. 

Bias is unavoidable. Every word written and spoken is a choice, and whether or not you’re able to admit it to others or even to yourself, that choice is affected by the way you think and what you think about. To me, the real question is how should we, Texans, Americans, Worlders, deal with this striking reality. There are, as I see it, two basic approaches: we can make a conscious effort to write and speak as neutrally as possible, or we can accept our biases and try to seek out and share as many differing points of view as possible. I have no idea which discourse is best, if there is a best. There are cases, such as this Wikipedia article, that seem to lend themselves to the neutral, cut and dry facts style, but there are many cases where the best decision is unclear. Should the news edge away from opinionated reporting or should they accept their bias and try to play a ten way split devil’s advocate. Every point of view can’t be accounted for, so should we try to talk about as many as we can or should we group similar points of view into a charicature resembling many opinions but matching relatively few. 

My opinion has yet to fully form. I do not know the answers. I probably will never “know” the answers, but hopefully through discussion and experience, we can all come a little closer to them. And if they don’t exist, maybe we can come closer to understanding as many differing points of view as is manageable. 

[nc-t-blog]

Infomercial footage vs stock photography

In an infomercial, the clips are not made to be used and then reused time and time again. Instead, the video is made with a specific product or service in mind and is tailored to sell such a product. Why then, do these video clips feel so similar to so many of the stock photographs that we see in our day to day lives. I’d say it’s probably because a stock photo is meant to sell itself and the video genre I’m talking about is meant to sell a product, but both texts aim to sell to the same public as best as they can: the general public. Though, the general public may be a myth in reality, it isn't a myth insofar as people can still /try/ to reach it. Yes, infomercials have an audience in mind that are more likely to buy their product, but the truth of the matter is that they still just want to sell a shitload of crap to as many people as they can find. It’s this search for the largest audience fueled by making small amounts of money made a million times over that lends itself to a stylistic overlap. Just like infomercials are usually selling an okay product that seemingly anyone can utilize, stock photography also sells okay photos that seemingly anyone can utilize. 

[nc-t-blog]

Visual Argument 1.2

Original by  

sarahmay-theblog.tumblr.com

[nc-t-blog]

Annotated Bibliography

Buczynski, Beth. "Is Meat The World's Most Inefficient Food?" Is Meat The World's Most Inefficient Food? Care2, 12 July 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. <http://www.care2.com/causes/is-meat-the-worlds-most-inefficient-food.html>.

The article and infographic are not extremely in depth, but cover the basics of several downsides to the production of meat. The article covers the meat industry’s effects on global warming, and inefficient land and water usage. The publisher of the article seems fairly left wing, having other tabs relating to women’s rights, LGBT rights and animal rights. From this it can be inferred that the audience will also be mostly liberal. Since the author and readers will for the most part be liberal, there is a lack of opposition which is going to lend itself to a clear liberal bias. Despite this bias, their argument is factual, compelling, and provides seemingly reputable sources. The source as a whole is making an argument similar to the one I will be making, but to an older and more liberal audience than I want to approach.

"Is Meat Sustainable?" Is Meat Sustainable? Worldwatch Institute, July-Aug. 2004. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. <http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549>.

This article, much more in depth than the previous one, is geared toward people, likely in or beyond college, that are already familiar with the issues being discussed. The article has in depth discussion of water waste, land usage, effects on global warming, deforestation as well as lifestyle improvements that come with switching away from a meat based diet, all of which are relevant to my argument. The article was originally published in Worldwatch Magazine, readers/subscribers of which are likely already informed on environmental issues having to do with sustainable food and so the article was written with such an audience in mind. The writer is clearly in favor of weaning the population off of meat in favor of more efficient food stuffs and argues their point effectively in a clear and detailed manner.

"U.S. Could Feed 800 Million People with Grain That Livestock Eat, Cornell Ecologist Advises Animal Scientists | Cornell Chronicle." U.S. Could Feed 800 Million People with Grain That Livestock Eat, Cornell Ecologist Advises Animal Scientists | Cornell Chronicle. Cornell Chronicle, 7 Aug. 1997. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. <http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat>.

This source focuses on the amount of grain wasted feeding livestock and posits that such an abundant amount of grain would be better used to feed people. The main argument is that the US currently grows enough food to end world hunger, but instead of doing so uses said food to feed livestock. There is a focus on comparative ratios between meat based and vegetarian diets that illustrate that vegetarianism is clearly more efficient. The article is written for a college publication and so is likely intended to be read by college students and others involved in collegiate academia. The article is older, from the late 90s, so the numbers are likely not up to date, but the essence of the argument should have held true and so yields valuable insight to be used for my final project.

Shah, Anup. “Beef.” Global Issues. 22 Aug. 2010. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. <http://www.globalissues.org/article/240/beef>.

This article is published on a website that focuses on global issues and is written toward an international audience seeking a global perspective. The source gives a number of statistics up front to contextualize the rest of the article. It then proceeds to curate a number of quotes from a variety of sources in order to give the reader a well-rounded view of the issue. While the sources are from a variety of publications, they all seem to be in favor of a lessened use of meat. The author is giving a less biased account that other articles of the same vein, confronting issues regarding positive outcomes from the meat industry including jobs creation, an important issue to much of America. This article will aid my efforts to reveal and confront opposing views in my final project.

Tina. "Global Hunger: The More Meat We Eat, the Fewer People We Can Feed." Global Hunger: The More Meat We Eat, the Fewer People We Can Feed | Earthoria. Earthoria, 25 Mar. 2008. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. <http://www.earthoria.com/global-hunger-the-more-meat-we-eat-the-fewer-people-we-can-feed.html>.

This article focuses on the idea mentioned in a previous source that the US grows enough food to end world hunger, but continues to not do so. The source has a brief and not-very-detailed overview of the statistics proving the vastly superior efficiency of vegetarian diets when compared to their meat based counterparts. The main relevance of the article to my final project is that is directly claims that the United States is capable of ending world hunger, introducing one of the most highly charged ethical dilemmas of my project- all other arguments aside, should not we stop eating meat just to save the hundreds of millions of hungry citizens of the world from dying of starvation?

I want to use my final project to argue against the use of meat as a source of food. Meat, especially beef, is extremely inefficient in its use of land, energy and water. Land and energy that can be better used to produce plant food and clean, fresh water that can be used to quench the thirst of those that go without a steady supply of water around the world every single day. The focus will be on conveying the inefficiency of the non-vegetarian/non-vegan diet, and illustrating alternative uses for wasted resources. I’m not sure which alternative uses I should mention, but I am interested in talking about clean water being shared internationally with a focus on Africa, and land being used to grow some undetermined set of vegetables that will better utilize resources. Depending on the final direction of the project, I might propose alternatives myself, or I might leave the set of vegetables unspecified, taking the fact that there exists a better alternative for granted, though I would prefer to have a solution to offer. Overall, I will be targeting an uninformed population that perhaps doesn’t even know that meat is inefficient and unsustainable. I am considering a final product that aims to convince children of elementary school age that have not before had the opportunity to consider such issues.  

[nc-t-blog]

I was trying to use my mind map to illustrate connections between Warner's fundamental ideas. The solid, black lines were generally made to signify a stronger or more direct connection than the red, dotted lines which sometimes represent two ideas connected by virtue of being opposites. I started by moving from Warner to the right, so that side of the map has been considered more thoroughly. The left most portion is more an afterthought for completion's sake.