Best Paragraph SMACKDOWN!!!

OPTION A

The capitalist structure Merchant so despises can actually be the reason the world adopts eco-friendly behaviors by 2064. The competition that thrives in this system has not only led to remarkable technological innovations, but also policy shifts. We are already seeing countries investing heavily in alternative energy sources and diversifying their economy. Oil-rich places like Brunei and Dubai are no longer dependent on oil, as they have reinvested their money to generate new sources of income. Countries are concerned with the depletion of oil and are now turning to other more renewable sources. High energy prices have affected both producers and consumers. Manufacturers are investing more in research and development to come up with energy efficient technologies. Consumers are buying more energy efficient products to save money in the long-run. You might ask, like Nordhaus and Shellenberger, what will make the poor interested in preserving the environment? All three authors worry that the development of countries will come at the environment’s expense. However, I believe that emerging economies will not industrialize the same way the United Sates and Europe did. With new technology, they can leap forward. We are already seeing this effect in Africa. In a matter of years, counties like Kenya have developed an entire communication infrastructure with cheap cell phones, and without a single landline. Many of the cost effective technology out there is also friendly to the environment. Nordhaus and shellenberger would agree that the developed world now has the huge responsibility of helping third-world countries develop in eco-friendly ways, especially their infrastructures. This will be the challenge by 2064.

OPTION B

As I watch the earth rise from the Lunar Sands Casino, various scenarios of the future storm my mind. They differ greatly; one shows cities in ruins under a perpetually gray sky caused by a nuclear winter, while another depicts humans existing with one another and nature in perfect harmony. While these two visions are on opposite ends of the prophetic spectrum, they are both possible outcomes for the human race. I agree with both Nye and Carson in that there is not one single, definite future; there are far too many choices that lie ahead to accurately prophesize what the next fifty years will bring. However, regardless of whether the world of 2064 will lay in ruins or prosperity, it will be technology that leads us to our fate. Technology has always been a part of being human; nature gave us no other way to survive. We do not have sharp claws or teeth to hunt prey; we are not particularly powerful or fast; we do not have fur to keep us warm or a thick hide to protect us from predators; but what we do have, and what has been the only thing that has kept our species alive and dominant for tens of thousands of years, sits between our ears. We have sharpened spears to hunt prey; we have worked as a team to overcome our individual weakness; we have sewn furs together into clothing so we do not freeze during the winter. Our ability to create objects to solve the issues of survival is our greatest, and possibly our only gift. Therefore, it really is impossible to envision a future society of humans in the absence of technology. Even if we exaggerate Merchant’s wishes of returning to the ways of our primitive ancestors, science would still be present; bows and arrows and teepees were still considered modern technology at one point. As Robert Frost would agree, we stand where two roads diverge; both end in drastically different places, however it is science and technology that will bring us to the either destination.

Michael Park's Choice of Best Paragraph

What will happen to our earth in fifty years? What would the future of human civilization and life on earth be like in fifty years? Many things in the future may be different from the world we live now. Oil and gases that run our automotive technologies may run out in fifty years. More animals may be endangered or extinct from the mess that we create with our technologies to the ecological chain. If we continue to use technologies as how we do now, all these events may be worse than our expectations. David E. Nye, the author of Technology Matters, Carolyn Merchant, the author of Ecological Revolution, and Leo Murray, the short animated film producer of “Wake Up, Freak Out- then Get a Grip”, warn people to stop using technologies in a way that accelerate global warming, causes huge amounts of pollution and many other problems. They express their points of views and predictions of human civilization and life on earth fifty years from now. David E. Nye predicts that the future is determined by the demand and cultures of human beings, which limited resources will not satisfy different cultures’ wants. Carolyn Merchant thinks that the ecological chains of the world would be ruined. Leo Murray thinks that humanity will survive, but will live miserably. He believes that global warming will cause many countries to become inhabitable and many people to starve. Habitable countries will use their remaining resources to fight to keep out the starving people from inhabitable countries. I believe that the pollution we produce from using technology and global warming will continue, and they will have serious impacts in the future. Understanding that natural resources are limited, I think that the way of how we consume oil and gases will lead to a shortage in fifty years, which people will not be able to use fuelled-run automotive technologies.

Josh Kraskin's choice for best paragraph

When it comes down to it, humans think in terms of economics, and always will think that way. It is nice to be optimistic like Rachel Carson, to think that humans will sacrifice production or wealth for the safety of the environment. But in reality, making this sort of sacrifice simply goes against human nature. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the needs that have to do with our safety such as financial security are far more important to us than moral needs such as protecting our environment. The only way that that we as a society would voluntarily give up wealth for the sake of the environment, is if everyone is the community were so economically well off that everyone volunteered to give away some of their disposable income towards this cause. Unfortunately in a capitalistic society, this case is so unrealistic, it could be classified as impossible. Instead of relying on individuals to save our environment, the government could step in. Pollution is a negative externality caused by the way that we produce goods. People do not notice it, because it does not directly affect them. If the government were to put higher taxes on natural resources such as gas and oil, it would in effect internalize the externality, making consumers and companies pay for their use of pollutants and natural resources. For example, if the government were to double the current tax rate on gasoline, the economic benefit of driving a car would decrease. The “invisible hand” of the market would make people search for an alternative mode of transportation, one that was economically friendly and tax free. This trend occurred just over a year ago, when gas prices were reaching all time highs, and people were opting to buy more fuel efficient cars, or use fuel free modes of transport such as biking and even walking. The government could also raise corporate taxes on pollutants. Once taxes reached a high enough level, it would become more economically profitable to switch to a greener mode of production. Only then will corporations stop polluting. If governments worldwide are willing to take these steps, than the future on earth will be green indeed.

Ben Holtzman's choice for best paragraph

As I watch the earth rise from the Lunar Sands Casino, various scenarios of the future storm my mind. They differ greatly; one shows cities in ruins under a perpetually gray sky caused by a nuclear winter, while another depicts humans existing with one another and nature in perfect harmony. While these two visions are on opposite ends of the prophetic spectrum, they are both possible outcomes for the human race. I agree with both Nye and Carson in that there is not one single, definite future; there are far too many choices that lie ahead to accurately prophesize what the next fifty years will bring. However, regardless of whether the world of 2064 will lay in ruins or prosperity, it will be technology that leads us to our fate. Technology has always been a part of being human; nature gave us no other way to survive. We do not have sharp claws or teeth to hunt prey; we are not particularly powerful or fast; we do not have fur to keep us warm or a thick hide to protect us from predators; but what we do have, and what has been the only thing that has kept our species alive and dominant for tens of thousands of years, sits between our ears. We have sharpened spears to hunt prey; we have worked as a team to overcome our individual weakness; we have sewn furs together into clothing so we do not freeze during the winter. Our ability to create objects to solve the issues of survival is our greatest, and possibly our only gift. Therefore, it really is impossible to envision a future society of humans in the absence of technology. Even if we exaggerate Merchant’s wishes of returning to the ways of our primitive ancestors, science would still be present; bows and arrows and teepees were still considered modern technology at one point. As Robert Frost would agree, we stand where two roads diverge; both end in drastically different places, however it is science and technology that will bring us to the either destination.

Choice for best paragraph

The capitalist structure Merchant so despises can actually be the reason the world adopts eco-friendly behaviors by 2064. The competition that thrives in this system has not only led to remarkable technological innovations, but also policy shifts. We are already seeing countries investing heavily in alternative energy sources and diversifying their economy. Oil-rich places like Brunei and Dubai are no longer dependent on oil, as they have reinvested their money to generate new sources of income. Countries are concerned with the depletion of oil and are now turning to other more renewable sources. High energy prices have affected both producers and consumers. Manufacturers are investing more in research and development to come up with energy efficient technologies. Consumers are buying more energy efficient products to save money in the long-run. You might ask, like Nordhaus and Shellenberger, what will make the poor interested in preserving the environment? All three authors worry that the development of countries will come at the environment’s expense. However, I believe that emerging economies will not industrialize the same way the United Sates and Europe did. With new technology, they can leap forward. We are already seeing this effect in Africa. In a matter of years, counties like Kenya have developed an entire communication infrastructure with cheap cell phones, and without a single landline. Many of the cost effective technology out there is also friendly to the environment. Nordhaus and shellenberger would agree that the developed world now has the huge responsibility of helping third-world countries develop in eco-friendly ways, especially their infrastructures. This will be the challenge by 2064.

By: Santiago Roel

"Aimee's for BEST PARAGRAPH"

The capitalist structure Merchant so despises can actually be the reason the world adopts eco-friendly behaviors by 2064. The competition that thrives in this system has not only led to remarkable technological innovations, but also policy shifts. We are already seeing countries investing heavily in alternative energy sources and diversifying their economy. Oil-rich places like Brunei and Dubai are no longer dependent on oil, as they have reinvested their money to generate new sources of income. Countries are concerned with the depletion of oil and are now turning to other more renewable sources. High energy prices have affected both producers and consumers. Manufacturers are investing more in research and development to come up with energy efficient technologies. Consumers are buying more energy efficient products to save money in the long-run. You might ask, like Nordhaus and Shellenberger, what will make the poor interested in preserving the environment? All three authors worry that the development of countries will come at the environment’s expense. However, I believe that emerging economies will not industrialize the same way the United Sates and Europe did. With new technology, they can leap forward. We are already seeing this effect in Africa. In a matter of years, counties like Kenya have developed an entire communication infrastructure with cheap cell phones, and without a single landline. Many of the cost effective technology out there is also friendly to the environment. Nordhaus and shellenberger would agree that the developed world now has the huge responsibility of helping third-world countries develop in eco-friendly ways, especially their infrastructures. This will be the challenge by 2064.

Conor Glover's Choice for Best Paragraph

As I watch the earth rise from the Lunar Sands Casino, various scenarios of the future storm my mind. They differ greatly; one shows cities in ruins under a perpetually gray sky caused by a nuclear winter, while another depicts humans existing with one another and nature in perfect harmony. While these two visions are on opposite ends of the prophetic spectrum, they are both possible outcomes for the human race. I agree with both Nye and Carson in that there is not one single, definite future; there are far too many choices that lie ahead to accurately prophesize what the next fifty years will bring. However, regardless of whether the world of 2064 will lay in ruins or prosperity, it will be technology that leads us to our fate. Technology has always been a part of being human; nature gave us no other way to survive. We do not have sharp claws or teeth to hunt prey; we are not particularly powerful or fast; we do not have fur to keep us warm or a thick hide to protect us from predators; but what we do have, and what has been the only thing that has kept our species alive and dominant for tens of thousands of years, sits between our ears. We have sharpened spears to hunt prey; we have worked as a team to overcome our individual weakness; we have sewn furs together into clothing so we do not freeze during the winter. Our ability to create objects to solve the issues of survival is our greatest, and possibly our only gift. Therefore, it really is impossible to envision a future society of humans in the absence of technology. Even if we exaggerate Merchant’s wishes of returning to the ways of our primitive ancestors, science would still be present; bows and arrows and teepees were still considered modern technology at one point. As Robert Frost would agree, we stand where two roads diverge; both end in drastically different places, however it is science and technology that will bring us to the either destination.