Friday, September 14, 2012

Man: Perfectible or Poor

Although the educated man is perfectible, the poor man is unable to recognize the need for both natural and preventative checks which prevent an unsustainable ratio between the population and its resources. There are two things that will always be true about the nature of man: man needs food to survive, and a passion between the sexes, producing offspring, is necessary. These are fixed laws of nature and will never change. While resources increase their amount linearly, population increases in a curve. Therefore, there will be some point in time in which the population has surpassed its available resources and will be in an unstable ratio. While there are already natural checks that keep the population down, men have to recognize the need for preventative checks on their own accord. There are natural checks such as disease, war, and famine which keep the population down. In addition to these positive checks, people must control themselves and their urges with preventative checks. While a passion between the sexes is a law of nature and will always occur, people must control their urges so that the population does not spike out of control. If a man has more children than he can provide for, and he becomes poor, it is his fault. He has lived beyond with means and he has not checked himself; therefore, it is his fault that he is now in poverty and it is not the job of the government nor of fellow citizens to help him. Once one is impoverished, he cannot escape it and he has wrought it upon himself. In conclusion, the poor are responsible for their poverty and will eventually be responsible for overpopulation because they cannot control their urges and have lived beyond their means.


  1. To start, your thesis is really strong. You have a lot of strong, specific evidence to support the thesis. However, the analysis doesn't thoroughly explain each part of the evidence. Maybe you could break down the evidence into smaller chunks, with analysis, just so it's easier to follow along.

    1. Thanks Lamia! Clear analysis is definitely a weakness of mine so I'll definitely try and focus on that in my revisions..

  2. I like how you use a lot of your evidence to help support your analysis but I think you could explain a little bit more

  3. Your thesis is really good, but your evidence could use a little more explanation. :)

  4. This is a good paragraph but you could make some small changes. For example you presented your first piece of evidence about the ratio but you didn't quite mention its effects on food sortage ("so what"). You might want clearer transitions. I liked your conclusion, it was a good wrap up.
    -Evan Megan