IDH4000 Rhetorics of Rhythm

 

SM-2-14-07

Page history last edited by sarah mae 2 yrs ago

Sarah Mae - Assignment Five 2-14-07

 

 

Prompt one:

 

If you decide to read the articles, I would appreciate your insight on the issue of rabbit extermination in Australia...essentially, what, if anything, do you think of the Australian approach?

 

I have reviewed a variety of the articles that Cory generously linked for us about the rabbit overpopulation problem in Australia. I was somewhat familiar with the issues before hand as I watch a great deal of public television and have seen a number of programs on the subject as a result. It is a difficult dilemma to be sure. I, like Cory, am an animal lover. I have always had a special affinity for them. However, I understand the issues in regard to the wild rabbits in Australia and although it is a difficult thing for an animal lover to say, they do need to be eradicated. Not unlike the invasive non-native snakes in Guam the rabbits in Australia are responsible for the extinction of a number of native species that were vital to the ecology of the continent. It is a complex issue and I wouldn't presume to know how to solve it as I am not a wildlife biologist but, somehow, the rabbits need to be removed. Since they reproduce so rapidly perhaps rendering them sterile would be a better option, although I realize it would have to be done on too wide a scale to be done physically. Perhaps a chemical could be introduced to the population that would cause sterility or render them non-productive (a kind of bunny birth-control) until the population could be removed. Regardless, I don't think that using disease to control them is an answer. It endangers the humans who are exposed to it as well as native populations of animals. All in all, there is no simple solution - or perhaps there is and we just need to encourage scientists to look outside the box.

 

 

Prompt two:

 

What is worse, a child who breaks 15 glasses on accident or a child who breaks one glass while reaching for a jar while his parents aren’t home?

 

I'm not certain that this statement can be qualified without more data, but as a parent it seems to me that if, for instance, the child was instructed not to reach for or touch the jar and did so anyway, then that is worse than a child who has an accident. Children have accidents, it's a part of being a child. However, if this statement is implying that the child has been left unattended while the parents are gone, then that would be the worst case scenario and the child wouldn't be at fault at all - the parents would be.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.