Ack! I posted this to the wrong blog originally. Oh, well. Better late than never - I think most of you work on the last day anyway. However, this serves as a reminder: if you ever need/want the assignment and it isn't posted yet, harass me!
Option 1: This is the same as the prompt from last week (what are people for?). Expectations will rise for you, though; you should, at the least, read and think about what other people had to say, and show that you've finished Enough. You should also be focused - more focused than some of the people last week may have been.
Option 2: Reading the last chapter of Enough, I'm reminded of a quote from the environmental writer and novelist Edward Abbey, who was presumably a major influence on McKibben. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." McKibben waffles a little on this issue -- does he have a problem with growth, period, or just a problem with growth in certain directions? Here's your actual prompt (the last sentence was background): referring to far-flung parts of McKibben's book (remember our discussion of the network!) make an argument which answers two questions. First, does McKibben agree with the Edward Abbey quote? Second, using that answer as a springboard, respond to McKibben's views on growth. In other words, you should both pin down and respond to McKibben's views on growth, demonstrating an understanding of the book as a whole in the process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
First off, I can clearly see where you are going with McKibben's views. He is very half and half about whether we as a society should progress or not. However, looking at it in this way made the paper a little weak as far as where you think McKibben stands. You stress that he believes in somatic gene therapy but not germiline, which is true. But should somatic therapy be looked at as growth, or should it be just a way of curing certain diseases. In a way, somatic therapy is either progressive or not, and I think if you took a firmer stand on what you think Mckibben thinks of it, the paper would make more sense.
Im not too sure where you got the idea that Mckibben was Christian but you might be right I just don't remember him ever admitting to that so I think in that regard if you left the whole religious aspect out, it would make your paper stronger. Also, a stronger analysis of the original quote that growth is a cancer could have made it better.
Overall the essay was good and had a high level of though in it. I just think if you took a more direct view of Mckibben and then tied that into what you believe it would be a more convincing arguement.
Or I might be completely wrong and may have misunderstood what your getting at. My bad. Hope this helps
Post a Comment