\magnification=\magstep1
\overfullrule=0pt
\centerline{MONT 100N -- Modeling the Environment}
\centerline{First Writing Assignment -- Stage 2}
\centerline{September 13, 2017}
\bigskip
The first of the larger paper assignments this semester will deal with 
one of two particular points from the Papal Encyclical Letter {\it Laudato Si'}.  
You will have a choice which of these passages you want to address.  
\medskip
\noindent
For the second stage of the assignment, the idea is to 
\medskip
\item{1.}  Revise your ``they say'' section taking Prof. Little's comments
into account, {\it then}
\item{2.}  Add an ``I say'' section where you respond to the ideas 
Pope Francis discussed in the passage you chose and present your own opinion
about those issues.  Try as much as possible to make this {\it not a general
response to the topics we discussed in Laudato Si', but rather a response
to the point of view Francis expressed in the quotation you chose.}
\medskip
\noindent
The final grade recorded for this assignment will be computed using a 
breakdown (``rubric'') like the one I mentioned in my email from Tuesday, September 12.
But it will be based {\it only on the revised version of your ``they say'' and 
the added ``I say'' response.}  If you have any questions about this, please
feel free to ask me.  

Your whole paper should be about 3 to 4 pages in length (double-spaced, single-sided).
Please submit as a MS Word .doc or .docx or Google Docs file to {\tt jlittle@holycross.edu} by 
5:00pm on Wednesday, September 20.

\bigskip
\noindent
{\it The passages -- Choose one of these.}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  (From \S\S 183 and 186.)
We  need  to  stop  thinking  in  terms  of ``interventions'' 
to save the environment in favour of policies developed and 
debated by all interested parties. The participation of  the 
latter also entails being  fully  informed  about  such  projects  and  
their different risks and possibilities; this includes 
not  just  preliminary  decisions  but  also  various  
follow-up  activities  and  continued  monitoring.  
Honesty and truth are needed in scientific and 
political discussions; these should not be limited 
to the issue of  whether or not a particular project 
is permitted by law. $\ldots$ 
The Rio Declaration of 1992 states that `where there are threats of serious or 
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a pretext for 
postponing cost-effective measures' which prevent environmental degradation. This precautionary
principle makes it possible to protect those who are most vulnerable and whose ability to
defend their interests and to assemble incontrovertible evidence is limited. If objective 
information suggests that serious and irreversible damage may result, a project should be
halted or modified, even in the absence of indisputable proof. Here the burden of proof is
effectively reversed, since in such cases objective and conclusive demonstrations will have
to be brought forward to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not cause serious harm
to the environment or to those who inhabit it.
\item{2.}  (\S 116. Note: This one is more challenging.)
Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism 
which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the 
way of shared understanding  and of any  effort  to  strengthen  
social bonds. The time has come to pay renewed attention to 
reality and the limits it imposes; this in turn is the  
condition for a more sound and fruitful  development of 
individuals and society.  An inadequate presentation of 
Christian anthropology  gave  rise  to  a  wrong  understanding  
of the  relationship  between  human  beings  and  the  
world.  Often,  what  was  handed  on  was  a  Promethean 
vision of  mastery over the world, which gave  the  impression  
that  the  protection  of nature  was  something  that  only  
the  faint-hearted cared  about.  Instead,  our  ``dominion''  
over the universe should be understood more properly in 
the sense of responsible stewardship.

\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Guidelines for this assignment}
\bigskip
\noindent
Follow these specifications:
\bigskip
\item{1.} For the purposes of this assignment, imagine that you 
are a newspaper or website news reporter who has been assigned to 
write a short article about the issues raised by Francis in your passage from
{\it Laudato Si'}.  Your job is {\it not} to ``editorialize;'' it is
to report what Francis is trying to say, to the best of your understanding
and to the best of your ability, but {\it in your own words}.  (In other words,
you cannot just quote whole chunks of your passage -- you need to paraphrase
and synthesize!)  The readership of your paper or website consists of educated 
adults, but they are not necessarily experts on the details of the Rio Declaration (topic 1) 
and they might not know immediately what Francis means by ``excessive anthropocentrism'' or
what it means to have a ``Promethean vision of mastery over the world'' (topic 2).
So your job is in large part to explain, fill in details, and present the ideas
Francis is discussing in a way that is more down-to-earth and less theoretical.
\bigskip
\item{2.} However, your presentation of Pope Francis's statement
should be specific, detailed, and correct.  
\bigskip
\item{3.}  If you use direct quotations from other sections of {\it Laudato Si'}, 
give the page and/or paragraph number(s) to identify the source.  Here's an 
example of what I'm looking for:
\bigskip
\item{} Francis clearly believes that companies should seek out sustainable uses of resources
rather than pursuing only short-term profits, saying 
in \S 191 on page 140 of {\it Laudato Si'} that, ``efforts to promote 
a sustainable use of natural resources  are  not  a  waste  of   money,  but  rather  
an  investment  capable  of providing  other  economic 
benefits in the medium term.'' 
\bigskip
\item{4.}  {\it If you consult any other sources -- this means other books, web sites, etc. 
-- and make use of direct quotations or ideas presented there but not in the passage, 
then provide enough information for an interested reader
to find and check the source you are using.  For books, give the author, title, publisher, year of
publication, and page where your information is coming from.  For web sites, give the full URL,
an author if you can identify one, and the date you consulted the site.} 
\bigskip  
\item{5.}  The article (paper) as a whole should be well-organized and ``flow'' 
from one point to the next.  You can start out with a few sentences about the
general background of when this Encyclical Letter was written and what it
is about in general terms.  But do not spend more than two or three sentences on 
that.   Do not repeat points unless
there is a very good reason for doing so.  Do not get ahead of yourself.
Say one thing at a time.  If you decide you want to add something, 
do not just tack it on somewhere.  Instead, figure out where it fits in the overall
scheme of your argument and put it where it belongs.
\bigskip
\item{6.}  Your sentences should be clear, readable, and
not overly wordy.  You should aim for a lively style and the 
writing should be in your own voice.  But please
think twice before using very colloquial ways of saying things.
If they contribute to the point you are trying to make, that is fine.  
But do it for a reason.   
Also, {\it please do not use a thesaurus to find impressive-sounding words} 
when simpler alternatives are available. 
An important lesson to learn for writing in college is that thesauri 
do not capture the {\it nuances in meanings} that underlie good writing.  
If you must use a thesaurus, also look up any words you select in a 
dictionary to make sure they mean exactly what you think they do!
\bigskip
\item{10.} Errors in mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar) and usage should 
not annoy the reader (your editor).  (A word of warning: 
Your editor tend to be {\it easily annoyed by this 
sort of thing!}) Try as much as possible to avoid those mistakes.
\bye
