In the article ‘Fewer people would mean fewer worries’, (Geer 2008, p.1) biologist Allen Geer contended that 1. technological solutions to environmental problems are inadequate, and 2. that stabilizing the population at present or lower levels is a durable and easy solution to implement. Therefore, stabilizing the population should be implemented as a solution to environmental problems such as climate change, either in tandem with, or in place of technological solutions.
1.1
In support of main premise 1 that proposed technological solutions to environmental problems are inadequate. The author contends that with each new advance in technology it becomes increasingly difficult to return to earlier technologies that were once effective. Because …show more content…
The author’s inductive reasoning contains a hasty generalization fallacy as he commits too strongly by stating that technological solutions are “never permanent” after only having one example from the supporting premise. The supporting premise provides weak grounds as it only gives one example of a technological solution that was not long lasting. Furthermore Geer fails to consider counter examples of how new technologies are relatively swift solution to immediate problems and that many people would have starved without this technology. There are many permanent technological solutions that that are not considered, such as dehydrating food, thus Geer’s claim that technology is “never permanent” easily refutable. Overall due to the premise being unacceptable and little grounds this argument offers only weak support for main premise …show more content…
However it only provides moderate grounds for main premise 1. As the author assumes that the potential collateral effects of new technologies have not been considered and that it may have been seen as an acceptable risk, in light of the benefits it produces. Also not taking action due to not knowing all of the consequence would be illogical and would almost always result in no action being taken, since we can only predict the outcome of events to a certain extent. The clean coal claim is acceptable as common knowledge that clean coal is not an effective solution. However, its grounds for supporting 1.3 are only moderately strong as it is misleading to suggest that clean coal is “most favoured solution” to global warming. The author fails to consider renewable energy, which would be more commonly viewed as the “most favoured solution”. The nuclear power claim is acceptable as it is common knowledge and provides strong grounds for the premise. This premise and the supporting claims provide moderate support for main premise
1.1
In support of main premise 1 that proposed technological solutions to environmental problems are inadequate. The author contends that with each new advance in technology it becomes increasingly difficult to return to earlier technologies that were once effective. Because …show more content…
The author’s inductive reasoning contains a hasty generalization fallacy as he commits too strongly by stating that technological solutions are “never permanent” after only having one example from the supporting premise. The supporting premise provides weak grounds as it only gives one example of a technological solution that was not long lasting. Furthermore Geer fails to consider counter examples of how new technologies are relatively swift solution to immediate problems and that many people would have starved without this technology. There are many permanent technological solutions that that are not considered, such as dehydrating food, thus Geer’s claim that technology is “never permanent” easily refutable. Overall due to the premise being unacceptable and little grounds this argument offers only weak support for main premise …show more content…
However it only provides moderate grounds for main premise 1. As the author assumes that the potential collateral effects of new technologies have not been considered and that it may have been seen as an acceptable risk, in light of the benefits it produces. Also not taking action due to not knowing all of the consequence would be illogical and would almost always result in no action being taken, since we can only predict the outcome of events to a certain extent. The clean coal claim is acceptable as common knowledge that clean coal is not an effective solution. However, its grounds for supporting 1.3 are only moderately strong as it is misleading to suggest that clean coal is “most favoured solution” to global warming. The author fails to consider renewable energy, which would be more commonly viewed as the “most favoured solution”. The nuclear power claim is acceptable as it is common knowledge and provides strong grounds for the premise. This premise and the supporting claims provide moderate support for main premise