Dr. Vandana Shiva is a nuclear physicist, environmental and social activist who agrees that Globalization increases poverty and inequity. Her primary example is the country of India and how global corporations produce and extract resources causing hardworking individuals, specifically farmers or agricultural professionals, to be forced out of labor and into poverty. She discusses the injustice these farmers and hardworking class face by being ignored as well as the significance of globalization reform in regards to food and agriculture.
In contrast, Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz, from the Brooking Institution, believes globalization does not increase poverty and inequity. Their claim is based on statistical data pertaining to the decrease …show more content…
Vandana Shiva includes statistical facts in her argument, a vast majority of them are supplied by the interviewer Gary Null, but she does state some of the facts. Examples include, India’s economic growth rate being 9% and it is considered “one of the fastest growing economies” (p. 199). This statistical fact, shows the effect of globalization on the country of India. However, Dr. Vandana Shiva uses it to her advantage by also mentioning the fact that “India has the largest number of hungry people in the world” (p. 199). The paring of the two facts shows the readers that there is a flaw or issue with the system because a country with a strong economy should not that large of population that are in hunger or poverty. Using facts Gary Null shows the same unusual scheme in other countries such as China and even the United States. In regards to China, there is a “9.1 percent growth rate and still 66 million hungry and unemployed people” (p. 199). Here in the United States, there are “36 million who go to bed hungry, 12 million children who don’t have enough to eat [and] 27 thousand who die each year” (p. 199).
Lastly, Dr. Vandana Shiva uses environmental facts to support her argument on reforming globalized practices on agriculture and food. One example includes “Nitrogen fertilizers are a major cause of global warming because the nitrogen oxides emitted are 300 times more lethal in global warming than carbon dioxide” (p. 202). The fact that Nitrogen emission from fertilizers …show more content…
Vandana Shiva’s argument contain the most propaganda, I agree with her position that globalization increases inequity. I disagree with the opposing side’s approach to the issue which was using statistical data to make globalization appear reputable. The use of statistical data on poverty rates excludes marginal errors. The opposing side does not explore in depth the issues occurring within the individual countries as a result of globalization or acknowledges the countries still affected with high rates of poverty. Lastly, even though the poverty rates were reduced, it does not mean globalization narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor. Looking solely at poverty rates cannot determine
In contrast, Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz, from the Brooking Institution, believes globalization does not increase poverty and inequity. Their claim is based on statistical data pertaining to the decrease …show more content…
Vandana Shiva includes statistical facts in her argument, a vast majority of them are supplied by the interviewer Gary Null, but she does state some of the facts. Examples include, India’s economic growth rate being 9% and it is considered “one of the fastest growing economies” (p. 199). This statistical fact, shows the effect of globalization on the country of India. However, Dr. Vandana Shiva uses it to her advantage by also mentioning the fact that “India has the largest number of hungry people in the world” (p. 199). The paring of the two facts shows the readers that there is a flaw or issue with the system because a country with a strong economy should not that large of population that are in hunger or poverty. Using facts Gary Null shows the same unusual scheme in other countries such as China and even the United States. In regards to China, there is a “9.1 percent growth rate and still 66 million hungry and unemployed people” (p. 199). Here in the United States, there are “36 million who go to bed hungry, 12 million children who don’t have enough to eat [and] 27 thousand who die each year” (p. 199).
Lastly, Dr. Vandana Shiva uses environmental facts to support her argument on reforming globalized practices on agriculture and food. One example includes “Nitrogen fertilizers are a major cause of global warming because the nitrogen oxides emitted are 300 times more lethal in global warming than carbon dioxide” (p. 202). The fact that Nitrogen emission from fertilizers …show more content…
Vandana Shiva’s argument contain the most propaganda, I agree with her position that globalization increases inequity. I disagree with the opposing side’s approach to the issue which was using statistical data to make globalization appear reputable. The use of statistical data on poverty rates excludes marginal errors. The opposing side does not explore in depth the issues occurring within the individual countries as a result of globalization or acknowledges the countries still affected with high rates of poverty. Lastly, even though the poverty rates were reduced, it does not mean globalization narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor. Looking solely at poverty rates cannot determine