Anabel Maldonado
Ippolito C Even
Current Event Review
November 4th, 2018
Waldman, Scott. “Human Pressures Have Shrunk Wildlife Populations by 60 Percent.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 31 Oct. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-pressures-have-shrunk-wildlife-populations-by-60-percent/.
This year I have learned a lot about the problems our world faces with the environment. However, Scott Waldman article refreshed my memory on these topics. He clearly summarizes our problems with biodiversity and our land usage. He explains that our demand for food, medicine, land, energy and other resources, result in more environmental issues. This is proven, as he states “Humans have wiped out about 60 percent of the world’s wildlife populations in the last four decades, a new report has found.” His main purpose of this article is to explain how our human activity affects the wildlife around us. Waldman states that these events occur because of the deforestation, agricultural uses and overexploitation of animals. He later goes into much more in depth as to specific examples that have been affected such as “Shallow-water coral reefs have been cut in half in the last 30 years, and about 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has disappeared over the last 50 years, the authors found.” His explanations and examples are suppose to send the audience a message stating that these problems are increasing as more time passes.
Some may argue that our world already knows all of this information. However, Waldman's article reminds his readers about these severe problems - that need to be fixed. The issues our world faces with our environment are very significant. If this trend continues then our world’s rates of deforestation and endangered species will increase. As a result, our “desire for resources” will put more wildlife in danger; and as more time passes we will continue to spiral out of control. If these problems continue to occur then our ecosystem will change, which puts our lives at risk. Yet, this topic is, also, very fixable as he explains that we should stop hunting as much, cutting down more trees, and ultimately be much more respectful of our environment.
One thing that Waldman succeeded with was explaining the relationship between this topic and his audience. He made his audience feel as if they could make a change. Also, Waldman wrote in a very persuasive tone by presenting a lot of evidence. For instance he stated “The population of polar bears is expected to drop 30 percent by 2050 as global warming shrinks the ice they need to hunt for food.” However, he did not state the sources he used to find facts such as these. I believe this was his major weakness. In order to improve upon this, he should include all sources he found. In addition, I noticed that Waldman did not state his stance or opinion on the topic. If Waldman where to personalize his article, his audience would have been more convinced to make a change.
Layla Brinster
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Mr. Ippolito
11/7/18
Waldman, Scott. “Human Pressures Have Shrunk Wildlife Populations by 60 Percent.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 31 Oct. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-pressures-have-shrunk-wildlife-populations-by-60-percent/.
After reading Anabel’s review of Scott Waldman’s “Human Pressures Have Shrunk Wildlife Populations by 60 Percent,” I thought that she did a nice job of highlighting the main purpose of the article, emphasizing the growing problem of climate change and its effects, along with suggesting areas of improvements for Waldman. Anabel’s summary was concise and included all the key details listed in the article, supplying the reader with the necessary information to understand the severity of the situation and impact on the environment. She also supported her reasoning with direct quotes from the article, one about human population destruction, and another about shallow coral reefs. In my opinion, the most awakening part of the article was that humans have wiped out 60% of the environment, which Anabel included in her summary. Furthermore, Anabel strongly emphasized the effects we have on the environment and how the destructiveness of climate change. She listed the root of our problems and later offered solutions and ways to improve our environment. Her focus on our destructive habits inspires people to make changes in their lifestyle and think twice before they act. Lastly, I agree with Anabel’s suggested areas for improvement. Waldman’s statistics are very powerful, however, he does not site the majority of his sources; a citation backs up and validates the given information.
Two areas where Anabel could improve upon is over exaggerating and including her opinion. Anabel mentions that the problems Waldman states are “very fixable,” however, I do not believe that there is an easy solution to climate change. Sure, it may be somewhat fixable, but we have destroyed so much of our environment that it has become difficult to go back- we are too late. The second area of improvement is including why she chose the article/ her opinion of the article. Anabel does mention the effects humans have on the environment and how important changing our lifestyle is but she neglects to include her reason behind choosing the article. I would have liked to see how the article impacted Anabel’s perception of our environment and climate change as well.
This article has opened my eyes to how much humans are damaging our environment and how little we are doing to help save it. I do not think that we truly realize our impact on the environment and our ecological footprint. We are damaging the environment at a very fast rate, and are wiping out many species. Furthermore, in many instances, we are not experiencing the direct effects of our actions, which makes it easier to push them aside and forget about them. I believe it is important to start to conserve the environment, reduce our ecological footprint, and be more conscious of climate change and our effect.
Clara DeMagalhaes Current Event #8
ReplyDeleteWaldman, Scott. “Human Pressures Have Shrunk Wildlife Populations by 60 Percent.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 31 Oct. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-pressures-have-shrunk-wildlife-populations-by-60-percent/.
Anabel’s review was a refreshing one to read, and one of the aspects that I liked the most was how she incorporated the author’s intent and what messages the reader gets from the article into the summary. This expands more on the overall source than just listing what happened, and I believe that it was well implemented. Secondly, I liked how she included quotes into both her summary and critique paragraph. It makes both portions of her review more credible and gives the reader a taste of how the article is written. Finally, I appreciated the criticisms that she gave the author on his writing. I believe that they were fair and well addressed and Anabel also explained the problems and the solution to them in depth.
One of the problems that I found with the review was that I don’t think that the actual material of the article was summarized too much. There were a lot of specific details in the original article that were missed in favor of talking about the purpose of it. There were also a couple of sentences that didn’t add to the main point of the review, most notably the first couple of sentences in the first paragraph. To remedy these, I suggest deleting filler sentences and incorporating in more specific details from the article. However, these two minor issues pale in comparison to all of the positives.
Reading this gives me further insight on a major issue with our planet that is often talked about but is not nearly addressed enough. The statistics listed in the review, such as the fact that humans have wiped out around 60 percent of the world’s population in just four decades, are extremely impactful since it tells the reader exactly how severe this problem is. This further supports the need to take serious action, and after reading this I feel more motivated to research further into this topic and see what I could possibly do to help.
Caitlin Mooney
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
11/14/18
Waldman, Scott. “Human Pressures Have Shrunk Wildlife Populations by 60 Percent.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 31 Oct. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-pressures-have-shrunk-wildlife-populations-by-60-percent/.
This week, I read Anabel’s current event review on the article, “Human Pressures Have Shrunk Wildlife Populations by 60 Percent.” by Scott Waldman. This article gave me insight on the growing problems with biodiversity and our unsustainable land usage. I think that Anabel did a great job with her current event review. One thing I thought Anabel did especially well was that she used quotes from the article in her summary and critique paragraphs. I feel her usage of quotes adds credibility to her review and it gives the reader insight into the tone of the article. Another thing Anabel did well was that she was able to structure her review well. Anabel’s organized structure caused her review to flow nicely, therefore, it helped the reader understand her point better. Finally, I thought Anabel did a fantastic job with her critique paragraph. I agree with Anabel’s criticism of the author, and I feel she did in a constructive manner, rather than a rude one.
Although I thought that Anabel did a great job with her review, I still feel there was room for improvement. One thing I think Anabel could have done better is that she could have given a better summary of the article. While she did give background information I think she could have included more before adding so many statistics into her review. Another thing Anabel could have done better is that her review contains some grammatical errors, most notably that she wrote, “his explanations and examples are suppose to…” instead od are supposed to. While her article contains other grammatical errors, they are mostly minor and don’t really affect the reader’s take away.
After reading Anabel’s review, I was shocked to learn about how humans have been able to destroy so much, so quickly and even though this is happening, few are doing anything that really helps build back the world humans tore down. Although I often see facts like these in the news and in my other classmate's reviews, Waldman’s article was able to present these facts in such a way that I had become scared once more, and it has made me realize I should do more research on this topic. AlsoI have to shrink my ecological footprint and to get others to do the same or the population of wildlife will continue to decrease.
Jordan Hoang
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
AP Biology C Even
11/12/18
Waldman, Scott. “Human Pressures Have Shrunk Wildlife Populations by 60 Percent.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 31 Oct. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-pressures-have-shrunk-wildlife-populations-by-60-percent/.
Anabel’s review on “Human Pressures Have Shrunk Wildlife Populations by 60% Percent” started with a strong opening. She began with an appealing approach by talking about her personal knowledge regarding environmental issues, stating that she has “learned a lot about the problems our world faces with the environment” . She was able to tie this in nicely into her piece, along with some great statistics from the article. Specifically, she chose the quote “shallow-wall coral reefs have been cut in half in the last 30 years, and about 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has disappeared over the last 50 years” which I thought was a eye-opening and relevant point to make in her summary. Finally, I really enjoyed how insightful Anabel was in her second paragraph. She made very thoughtful comments on how human activity, such as cutting down trees or overhunting, need to be lowered in order to allow for rehabilitation of our environment. All of these factors made for an personalized and well-written review.
While I enjoyed many parts of Anabel’s work, I believe there are a few things she improve on. For one, although she included many quotes about on how humans are damaging the earth, she failed to elaborate on how these issues are specifically affecting humans themselves. For instance, she mentioned how our “desire for resources” are going to result in our ecosystem changing and “putting our lives at risk”. I would have liked if Anabel had talked more about these “risks” and what is specifically putting our lives in danger. In addition, there were a few places in her work where there was an unnecessary amount of commas and extra filler words. The sentence beginning with “Yet, this topic is, also, very fixable” was worded a bit peculiarly and could have been shorted to allow for a more concise statement. Other than that however, I believe Anabel was successful at summarizing the article and giving an appropriate opinion on the matter.
One statistic mentioned from the article that really shocked me was that “the population of polar bears is expected to drop 30 percent by 2050 as global warming shrinks the ice they need for food.” This further exemplifies the quick and catastrophic damage humans are having on our environment by exploiting plants and animals around us. Although I was aware of global warming and human impact on our environment, I never realized that we were damaging it to this extent. This article really opened my eyes to how careless we are being to our Earth and how we need to make strong efforts in order to fix these issues.
ReplyDeleteAlly Bruno
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology D Even
13 November 2018
Waldman, Scott. “Human Pressures Have Shrunk Wildlife Populations by 60 Percent.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 31 Oct. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-pressures-have-shrunk-wildlife-populations-by-60-percent/.
Anabel has crafted a well written and engaging review of an article with great worldly significance. I believe that Annabel's decision to include quotes followed by a detailed explanation was extremely helpful and informative. By using the author's voice to justify her claims, Anabel added validity to her arguments. Also, Anabel did an excellent job of connecting her topic to its modern significance. She identified that fact that her topic may be viewed as “overdone” and then disputed this claim. Lastly, Anabel had a very thorough and in depth explanation of Waldman’s shortcomings, that was clearly well investigated and explained.
While, I believe that Anabel’s current event was both enjoyable to read and full of insight, one area in which Anabel could have improved her review was her description of research. I felt that Anabel spent a lot of time justifying why the research presented in the article was important but not enough time epaining the research itself. Also, Anabel could have gone into more detail when discussing the technique of the author that she liked. She claimed to have liked the why Waldman connected with his audience, but she didn't not have any examples or evidence to back this up.
One thing I learned from reading Waldman’s article and Anabel's analysis was how extensively habitat loss has affected coral reefs and rainforest. A whopping 20 percent of rainforests and 50 percent of coral reefs have been gradual disappearing. While I was aware of the fact that habitat loss was the most significant ecological problem facing today's ecosystems, I was not fully aware of the repercussions coral reefs and rainforest were facing until reading Anabel’s current event.