Reflection 1 - Language is not the true barrier in writing

It was only during these days that the idea, which was only a vaguely looming shade, finally grew clear to me. Writing in english is not really the difficult part in writing english compositions, neither for me nor for the other students. The challenge in writing and living one's life, in fact, share a lot in common. A writer who wishes to wield a pen should first possess the ability to appreciate and respond to the intricate and aesthetic influences of nature or human emotions, which will will become the ‘input’ of one’s material. Second, a writer would need to be able to think logically, thereby writing logically valid and sound arguments. Otherwise the ‘input’ can never be transformed and ‘output’ into words, and words into sentences, and eventually a composition.


For the past three months I have been reading, writing and thinking extensively. I have been reading students' articles as I am a teaching assistant in the course of second year english. About 90% or higher, of the compositions are flawed in terms of grammar, few really write sentences that don’t sound odd; however, if asked to re-write the flawed sentence in chinese, about one third of them find it difficult to write it in comprehensive chinese. On the surface, it seems as if they don’t write good english, but the fact actually lies in the ability of transforming idea one’s mind into written words. Again, for about one third of the assignments, the sentences are written in chinglish. As a native chinese speaker like me, I should be able to understand, while in fact I couldn’t. It indicates that the problem in writing does not have that much to do with bad english, at least not as much as I thought. To conclude my idea, for most students who attempts to write, the problem is in semantics rather in syntax, that is, sometimes people just haven’t mastered their own language


In the past, I have written various articles and short essays, but I do not yet have experience in writing a long research paper, with the only exception of a scientific review paper which is about 1500 words long. But this is the first time that I try to put four different annotations in one research paper with a clearly-oriented thesis statement. Finding the logical connection is one challenge, i.e. input (logical thinking), and having that written on the paper is another, i.e. the output. What’s more interesting is the correlation I again found between writing and working in a microbiology laboratory. The requirement of the ‘input’ and ‘output’ ability is indeed the skill that I hone in the laboratory when we design experiments. For a biologist, she must observe, i.e. the input, so she can raise questions about life and science. And she must think logically, i.e. the output, when she designs and conducts experiments.


The above summarizes the reflection after writing the issue paper and annotations 1 & 2. However, I do not mean that language acquisition does not play a role in writing, it only comes after one can master his own language.

Annotation 4 (Draft.)- A Nature photographer's journey across Taiwan from 1973-1987

Hsu, Jen-Shiu. (1988). A Nature photographer's journey across Taiwan from 1973-1987. Taipei, Taiwan: n.d.

The fourth annotation in my research paper is a photo album with a ‘A nature photographer's, 徐仁修's journey across Taiwan from 1973-1987, which is also the title of this photo album. It is one of the photo records of Mr. 徐仁修 which represented Taiwan through natural scenery from the ocean surrounding us to the myriads of great mountains towering over 3000m above sea level. This photo album has over 70 sceneries, including the well-known queen's head of the northern coast of Taiwan (p. 30-31), the awe-inspiring one tree forest in 恆春 (p. 182 ), and a tranquilly beautiful scene taken on the island of Maoyu (貓嶼、澎湖).

徐's album demonstrate the nature's two ways of creating non-animate and animate things. One is the top-down method, and the other the bottom-up method. These two methods offer a solution to the problem posed in the thesis statement by giving being natural a new definition.

First I would take the queen's head as an example, it demonstrates the nature's creation of non-animate things through the top down method; the 'top-down' method works like this, the unnecessary parts are removed to create what is finally there. In the contrary, the awe-inspiring fig (白榕) is an example of the bottom-up method. The bottom up method is unique to all living life forms on earth. For example, we can always sculpt a flower from a piece of wood, which is the top-down method, but only living things such as seeds whose diameter is no more than a centimeter can develop and grow into a towering tree as high as 50 meters, taking the pines as example. And this is the bottom-up method. Both of the two examples given in 徐's photo album gives the true definition of being natural.

This photo album reminds us what Nature once used to be and serves as a warning if we were to carefully examine our present state of the environment and the definition we have for being 'Natural.' It is from here that we can derive a new definition of being natural, giving a new alternative to the presently practiced horticulture which harms the environment.

Annotation 3 (draft)- A sand county almanac

Ruby and Iris: this is the first draft that you can edit. :)

Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac: with essays on conservation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

A sand county almanac is the masterpiece by Aldo Leopold, a must-read for people who cares about the environment in which we live. From the Foreword of this book we can see the philosophy which gives the reason why land cannot be treated as a commodity, rather, we should think of it as a community to which we belong. Because we use, exploit and eventually abuse land if it is treated as resources that can be claimed private. This book is written in the 1940s and was published very unfortunately after one year Leopold passed away. In this book, Leopold gave accounts of the monthly changes of the scenery of the neighborhood where he lived in Sauk county, Wisconsin.

In total there are 14 chapters in the book. Apart from the twelve chapters on each month in a year, there are two additional chapters, the marshland elegy and a closing chapter on the land ethic.

Here I quote one paragraph of the chapter on October:

By us I mean the birds, the stream, the dog, and myself. The stream is a lazy one. He winds through the alder as if he would rather stay here than reach the river. So would I.

It is here that he brings out a key point, that "Nature and we humans are one." Because he says "By us we mean....and my self! "

For the other two chapters, Marshland elegy explains why saving cranes was an ecological and moral imperative. The closing chapter elaborates the concept of value judgement in the context of land ethic which reiterates the fallacy resulting from making value judgement base on pure economic motives.

Here I quote another sentence of this chapter:

Of the 22,000 higher plants and animals native to Wisconsin, it is doubtful whether more than 5 percent can be sold, fed, eaten, or otherwise put to economic use.


And now you should have a rough image of the content of this book, so I am going to tell you why I choose this book. In my issue paper I have choose to approach my issue through two perspectives, but I now want to add one more, the biophilia perspective where it is suggested that there is an instinctive bond between human beings and other living systems. By reestablishing the bond, I will be able to make my argument more complete.

Peer Response for Annotation 1

Response 1 (For both Ruby Chen and Angel)

Link to Angel's Annotation 1
Link to Ruby Chen's Annotation 1

The following is the response for Ruby Chen and Angel's Annotation 1 because those two annotations are revolving on the same subject.

I view this issue from perspectives other than whether the they are mature enough to take the decision. Matureness, stable income and financial support may not be key to teenage marriage. For the same reason, whether decriminalized or not may not be key to the issue of seemingly mutually exclusive role played by prostitution in one specific society, e.g. Taiwan.

Take Ruby's annotation as an example, I would start by looking at the definition of matureness, a term defined by a group of people, mostly adults in the middle or higher class in the society. It defines a set of behavior and manners that help a person fit in one specific society, e.g. the modern Taipei city or a traditional small british village, just to name a few. One who gains success in learning or acting in accordance with these rules will be considered mature in that society. Nevertheless, it does not guarantee that people's doing will be morally righteous; it only guarantees that you will fit in the society. Looting and killing during a war is unrighteous, yet it happens since those in a war have grown numb to taking other people's lives and possessions and they have to do so to obtain peer recognition.

Back to the subject, we may give some thought to this issue from the following points so we can identify the real issue:

1. (Ruby Chen) What does it mean to be mature?
2. (Ruby Chen) What does it mean to get married? Is it necessary to get married if two people love each other? Is the laws related to marriage a shackle on love or one way to protect love?
3. (Angel) Are women freed from establishment of red light district or are they freed from beginning thinking of themselves as 'sex workers' rather than 'prostitutes?'

The idea to manage dispersed sex workers by establishing red light district, as written by Angel, share the very same idea which you can find in laws that put regulations on marriage. Why do we need laws telling you how you should love someone and what you should pay if you stop loving her/him? Why do we need to manage 'dispersed' sex workers?

In conclusion, the perspectives provided herein are meant to provoke discussion that may lead to a deeper understanding of the true issue underlying management of prostitution or teenage marriage. I do not suggest management of sex workers or laws related to marriage should be abolished. Thank you for spending time reading through my lengthy response.

---------

Response 2 (For Annie)

Link to Annie's Annotation 1


I have some humble feedback after watching this video.

The uneasiness or sorrow felt by you after you learn the truth of euthanasia is a very important part of humanity that is known as compassion. Compassion literally means the sympathetic pity and concern for the suffering or misfortune of others. A great portion of people, especially in the modernized society, has ceased to possess this crucial element of humanity since we are separated from the environment and other human being. Ironically, Our lives are ever more interdependent on the others when advancement of technology and the wheels of commerce bring us closer yet we are ever more separated from the others when we are connected by the increasingly immense network of the internet and cellphone.

When we could still feel sorry for the misery of the stray animals, we have to think of other animals that are being consumed, or more close to the truth, eaten. Here I give my humble message that I think everyone should re-think this question. Why do we feel bad for the stray dogs while we can eat some other animals? If we despise the dog-eating people on main land China, what is so different eating a pig or cow?

Thank you for reading till the end.



Jim

Annotation 2 (draft + rev. ed.)- Reasons of hygiene

Annotation 2 (rev.)- Reasons of hygiene

Changes in the rev. ed.:

1. I amended the citation format in accordance with APA (American Psychological Association) style, both the reference list and in-text citation.
2. Most of the annotation is left untouched.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mennell, S. (1989). Nobert Elias: Civilization and the human self-image. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell

With the published works of the german sociologist Nobert Elias (1897-1990), Mennell discusses Elias' opinions and thoughts toward the process of civilization: from what had we came to be the modernized people and by what means and reasons were we 'transformed' to be civilized beings.

In this article, Reasons of health and hygiene (p. 46-47), Mennell cited Elias's work 'The Civilizing Process' (Elias, 1939, vol. 1, p. 150) to elaborate that civilization was seemingly caused by the reasons of health and hygiene, while it was not. In this 700-hundred-word article Mennell first explains how the reasons of health and hygiene is in itself irrationale and could not serve as the true reason of the civilizing process, e.g. advancement of the threshold of shame and repugnance toward feces. Mennell also compares Elias with Freud and Max Weber at the end of the article on their opinions toward reasons that transform uncivilized men to civilized men.

The author’s ideas are well-presented in that examples are quoted to ensure reader’s comprehension to the main points. And those examples all revolves around one specific topic, “Reasons of health and hygiene.” However, beside the simple reason of health, this article provides little clues to any other potential reasons that may truly result in the advancement of civilization except for the last sentence “middle-class feelings of repugnance toward their inferiors’ smelling and lack of cleanliness seems to have motivated a concern with sanitation even before it was clearly understood how cholera was spread” (p. 47). Additional sources that provide or discuss the true reasons of the advancement of civilization may be added to further clarify this unanswered question at the end of this article.

As for my thesis statement where I disagree with the employment of horticulture that is unsoundly justified by ecological, sociological and aesthetic reasons, this article provide a very simple yet academically sound reason that may shed light on the true reason why horticulture has came to be. It could also show that the emergence of horticulture is not rational and advocates of which should not use it as justification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annotation 2 (draft)- Reasons of hygiene

Mennell, S. (1989). Reasons of health and hygiene, Nobert Elias: Civilization and the human self-image (pp. 46-47). UK: Black well

With the published works of the german sociologist Nobert Elias (1897-1990), Mennell discusses Elias' opinions and thoughts toward the process of civilization: from what had we came to be the modernized people and by what means and reasons were we 'transformed' to be civilized beings.

In this article, Reasons of health and hygiene, Mennell cited Elias's work 'The Civilizing Process' to elaborate that civilization was seemingly caused by the reasons of health and hygiene, while it was not. In this 700-hundred-word article Mennell first explains how the reasons of health and hygiene is in itself irrationale and could not serve as the true reason of the civilizing process, e.g. advancement of the threshold of shame and repugnance toward feces. Mennell also compares Elias with Freud and Max Weber at the end of the article on their opinions toward reasons that transform uncivilized men to civilized men.

The author’s ideas are well-presented in that examples are quoted to ensure reader’s comprehension to the main points. And those examples all revolves around one specific topic, “Reasons of health and hygiene.” However, beside the simple reason of health, this article provides little clues to any other potential reasons that may truly result in the advancement of civilization except for the last sentence “middle-class feelings of repugnance toward their inferiors’ smelling and lack of cleanliness seems to have motivated a concern with sanitation even before it was clearly understood how cholera was spread.” (p. 47). Additional sources that provide or discuss the true reasons of the advancement of civilization may be added to further clarify this unanswered question at the end of this article.

As for my thesis statement where I disagree with the employment of horticulture that is unsoundly justified by ecological, sociological and aesthetic reasons, this article provide a very simple yet academically sound reason that may shed light on the true reason why horticulture has came to be. It could also show that the emergence of horticulture is not rational and advocates of which should not use it as justification.

Annotation 1(draft + rev. ed.)- The cost of using alien ornamentals

Annotation 1(rev.)- The cost of using alien ornamentals

Changes in the rev. ed.:

1. I removed unnecessary words which makes the sentences lengthy and pointless, such as “This article you see here today is originally a chapter from this book...” to “The article is a chapter from this book...”
2. I amended the citation format in accordance with APA(American Psychological Association) style, both the reference list and in-text citation.
3. One paragraph is added at the end of the annotation to make it more complete.
4. The scientific name of the fungus in paragraph three is italicized. (In the biology field, all scientific names should be either italicized or underlined.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tallamy, D.W. (2009). Bringing nature home: How you can sustain wildlife with native plants. London: Timber Press

The article is a chapter from this book written by Douglas W. Tallamy. Douglas is professor and chair of the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology at the university of Delaware in Newark, Delaware. The aim of his book is as simple as is stated on the title, i.e. how you can sustain wildlife with native plants. And chapter 7, “The cost of using alien plants” (pp. 72-92), further explains the cost of using alien plants which is included in the practice of horticulture.

In addition to the aforementioned point in the previous chapter, there are three consequences resulted from bringing alien plant species, e.g. ornamentals, that serve as supporting evidence for the appeal present in this chapter. First, loss of native food sources. Second, introduction of harmful disease and insects. Third, alien plants places our eco-system in risk.

The author gave numerous examples for the latter two points that further strengthen his cause. He takes the Chestnut tree and its accompanying fungus as the first example (pp. 73-74). The Japanese chestnut and the fungus Cryphonectria parasitica were together introduced to the Northeast of the U.S. in 1876. This is used as an example to elaborate how a functional wipe-out of the native American chestnut was carried out by the fungus, and how it can reduced food source for other native second consumer in terms of trophic level or, food chain. From cause to effect, this example clearly explained how it happens and why it is unwise to support the horticulture industry if alien species is their products.

After reading this chapter, I think the two points offered by the author are actually only one. They are two events in one series that happens one after another. One is the cause and the other the effect. However, beside this, this chapter really shed light on the “alien ornamentals: good or bad ?” debate because it gives real world example, explaining why and how alien plants becomes invasive. It is crystal clear when I compare this to the analogies in Taiwan. The pine wood nematode which wiped out literally one third pine tress in taiwan and the brown rot disease that plague trees in places where horticultural activity is high all testifies to the author’s course and my appeal, supporting the use of alien plant species is unwise and should be stopped.

In general, this chapter provide adequate examples which serve as reasons why we cannot cultivate alien plants. Though it may provoke a feeling which might be interpreted as racial discrimination, the stereotyped hate or dislike to aliens, or people with which we were not originally familiar, we could not blame alien plants for the harms since it is we human that bring them to places where they were not naturally born to be.

Annotation 1(draft)- The cost of using alien ornamentals

CHAPTER 7: The cost of using alien ornamentals. In Bringing Nature Home: How you can sustain wildlife with native plants
Douglas W. Tallamy

This article you see here today is originally a chapter from this book written by Douglas W. Tallamy. Douglas is professor and chair of the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology at the university of Delaware in Newark, Delaware. The aim of his book is as simple as is stated on the title, i.e. how you can sustain wildlife with native plants. And chapter 7, which is of interest in terms of my issue paper, further explains the cost of using alien plants which is included in the practice of horticulture.

In addition to the aforementioned point in the previous chapter, there are three consequences resulted from bringing alien plant species, e.g. ornamentals, that serve as supporting evidence for the appeal present in this chapter. First, loss of native food sources. Second, introduction of harmful disease and insects. Third, alien plants places our eco-system in risk.

The author gave numerous examples for the latter two points that further strengthen his cause. He takes the Chestnut tree and its accompanying fungus as the first example. The Japanese chestnut and the fungus Cryphonectria parasitica were together introduced to the Northeast of the U.S. in 1876. This is used as an example to elaborate how a functional wipe-out of the native American chestnut was carried out by the fungus, and how it can reduced food source for other native second consumer in terms of trophic level or, food chain. From cause to effect, this example clearly explained how it happens and why it is unwise to support the horticulture industry if alien species is their products.

After reading this chapter, I think the two points are actually only one. They are two events in one series that happens one after another. One is the cause and the other the effect. However, beside this, this chapter really shed light on the “alien ornamentals: good or bad ?” debate. It is crystal clear when I compare this to the analogies in Taiwan. The pine wood nematode which wiped out literally one third pine tress in taiwan and the brown rot disease that plague trees in places where horticultural activity is high all testifies to the author’s course and my appeal, supporting the use of alien plant species is unwise and should be stopped.

Issue paper - 2nd Rewritten version

 --------------
This article is rewritten from the first draft. The following four points are changes I made to my article and they are listed for your convenience:

1. The title is changed so it is less ambiguous, although it is less specific on the other hand.

2.  I change the word historical to sociological since what I what to discuss is fundamentally a sociological issue, although it will eventually resort to the knowledge of the history, e.g. history of manner formation in the middle age. In response to this change, I added few sentences to elaborate this idea in paragraph 1 and 3, which would be of help for people who never touched this issue before. Paragraph is largely left unmodified since I think this point is clear for most of you. The word civilization is also changed to civilizing, because the on-going process of civilizing is emphasized.

3. I modified the opening of the issue paper by removing sentences irrelevant to my issue, i.e. I was dropped out of school..., etc. Therefore paragraph 1 is almost all rewritten.

4. I have corrected all spelling error by spelling check function of my text editor.

 ---------------

An examination of the use of horticulture from an biological and sociological perspective

I have begun to have the chance to look into this wonderful world more deeply after I finished my military service two years ago, where I am no longer placed under anyone but my parents' jurisdiction. From the observation spanning almost three years on the 'environmentally-friendly' and 'civilized' metropolitan city Taipei, I have noticed one intriguing practice of men, the use of horticulture, that seems to go hand in hand with the the formation of society, which in a broader sense, the process of civilizing. So, there came an idea, or an unanswered question that I have been turning over in my mind ever since, 'Is this pursuit in itself contradictory?' That is, the employment of horticulture does not bring us closer to a greener environment and chances are high that it does quite the opposite.

To elaborate this idea, examples have to be given. For instance, few people would know that planting more tree might has a harmful effects on the ecosystem. Let us ask why? What's the harm if we plant more trees, doesn't a forest provide a carbon deposit in terms of global warming? Yes, the answers to the above questions will be  Yes; however, this world is never so easy as can be examined by such a dichotomy view. Whether the consequence resulting from planting more trees is good or bad depends on how many trees are planted, where they are planted and what species of trees are planted. In addition, the energy expenditure, pollution, and degradation of biodiversity that came with the nursery and plantation have to be taken into account. Are all negative effects offset by their positive counterparts? There is no answers to those questions, but I can, through this research, make out a clearer contour of this issue.

In this research, the practice of horticulture will be first described and the ill-effects brought about by horticulture from a biological and ecological aspect explained later. Then I will examine this issue from a sociological viewpoint, i.e. the changes we human society have taken on in the process of civilizing and its relationship with the use of horticulture. This is because, the change of human behavior toward how we restrict our 'natural functions' such as spitting and blowing noses, and the advancement of our threshold for shame, i.e. people are becoming sensitive for what we wouldn't before, does shed light on why we humans would adopt such, if contradictory, practices of horticulture to pursue a greener environment.

All in all, this research aims to deal with the long-accepted norm that the use of horticulture is good and making everything in order and neat is good also. I hope, that this research paper can bring forth a gradual awakening that using horticulture in the name of obtaining a greener environment is not environmentally sound and socially just.

Issue paper - 1st draft

The contradicting nature and conflicts of pursuing greener environment by horticulture:

From an biological and historical perspective

I was dropped out of school four years ago, and it was when I began to have the chance to look at this wonderful world from a different point of view. I have become aware of the practice of horticulture by men that seems to go hand in hand with the process of civilization. However, there was an idea turning over in my mind ever since, that this pursuit is in itself contradictory. That is, the employment of horticulture does not bring us closer to a greener or better environment and chances are high that it does quite the opposite.

To elaborate this idea, examples have to be given. For instance, few people would know that planting more tree might has a harmful effects on the ecosystem. Let us ask why? What's the harm if we plant more trees, doesn't a forest provide a carbon deposit in terms of global warming? Yes, the answers to the above questions will be a Yes; however, this world is never so easy as can be examined by such a dichotomy view. Whether the consequence resulting from planting more trees is good or bad depends on how many trees are planted, where they are planted and what species of trees are planted. In addition, the energy expenditure, pollution, and degradation of biodiversity that came with the nursery and plantation have to be taken into account. Are all negative effects offset by their positive counterparts? There is no answers to those questions, but I can, through this research, make out a clearer contour of this issue.

In this research, the practice of horticulture will be first described and the ill-effects brought about by horticulture from a biological and ecological aspect explained later. Then I will examine this issue from a historical viewpoint, i.e. the changes we human society have taken on in the process of civilizing and its relationship with the use of horticulture. And I do this in hope of finding out what made humans to adopt such, if contradictory, practices of horticulture to pursue a greener environment.

All in all, this research aims to deal with the long-accepted norm that horticulture is good and making everything in order and neat is good also. I, as an environmentalist, hope, that this research paper can bring fourth a gradual awakening that we have been doing something wrong.