I’d like to request some help professor. My hypothesis is on how elimination of organic foods and adoption of food biotechnology proves as beneficial to the producer, consumer, and environment. I’d like to use the w causes x, y, and z format. I know I’d like to focus on the cause and affect of food technology on the subjects listed above (producer, consumer, environment) and probably even the economy, but I’d like to request assistance on forming the structure of my causal argument. I worry that my causal will be very similar to my definition. I intend to find sources on how food technology helps the producer in a multitude of ways, such as how farmers could cultivate produce in a much quicker fashion without taking much time with the introduction of modified food. I also still need to acquire sources on how these “new foods” help the consumer, because genetically and technologically manufactured food can solve illness or provide convenience. Same going for environmental effects, I intend to find sources that display how these new foods prove beneficial to solving issues such as depleting fossil fuels or saving energy.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Counterintuitive 
Hmmm.
I’ve read your Definition Argument, Alpaca, and I’ve made brief comments on it earlier this morning.
I also recall responding to your Strong Open with strenuous advice about clearly defining both Organic and GMO foods.
So we’re coming at this from several angles and meeting somewhere in the center of your dilemma. Please be comforted to know that you’re doing fine. This is an ordinary glitch.
Your uncertainty about what’s Definition and what’s Causal is understandable, as I indicated in those notes. But I think you have a different situation here that is not difficult to resolve.
Your thesis, that organic food should be eliminated, is a false one and counterproductive if I understand your overall attitude. You’re advocating FOR more diversity in food production techniques to take advantage of technological advances, greater yields, better pest- and drought-resistance, diversity of products, enhanced ecological stewardship . . . and on and on. That’s a pro-thesis, not an anti-thesis. You don’t have to rally against organic.
Your beef (haha!) with organic is that it has captured the loyalty of a segment of consumers who think it’s the only ethical approach to food. You want to argue in favor of open thinking while the “organic crowd” has decided to close its collective mind. Isn’t that it?
Shifting your focus a bit in the direction of greater acceptance of several alternatives will take the edge off your argument a bit and help you be a better guide toward a careful consideration of innovation, not so much an opponent of a perfectly reasonable position.
Supermarkets don’t need FEWER produce alternatives; they need BETTER EXPLAINED alternatives. That does appear to be your real thesis. Am I wrong?
LikeLike