In this article Mr. Rosling debates the demensions of development, labeling certain aspects as superior to others. While he does make a strong arguemnt, do you believe certain aspects of his argument contain flaws? Such as the minimal importance of education compared to the evniornment as a final goal? Within the Means of achieveing the goal, Rosling puts Human Rights as having minimal influence on achieving other goals. Do you agree? It could be claimed that in the past, having some human rights in a society has led to the desire for even more therefore inciting societal changes etc. And which parts of his argument do you believe are accurate and strong in facts?
I went back took look over the chart he gives and I think I agree with most of it. I definitely think that Economic growth is definitely a means and not a goal. The others I find are a little bit more up in the air. I feel that education is both a very important means and a very important goal. Education drives other forms of development like economic growth but also governace and culture, culture is taught by the community and the family, it is education. How to take care of the environment and why the environment is important is taught and learned. Education is just always an important part of life. So I disagree with him there. I don't know if I agree or disagree with him on Human Rights, I definitely think that it is an important end goal, along with culture but is it necessary as a means? I don't think so, look at the United States, white males ruled everything and we developed pretty okay and now we have a lot more human rights because we've "developed" and so we are achieving these other goals. Governance is my final one that I disagree on, I think it is more necessary as a means and isn't really a goal. I feel government is the development, it helps the underdogs, it balances people and keeps laws and peace but in the end if people are educated and the economy is good there shouldn't be as much of a need for government.
Well, he said, health is important but not as important as the environment because of future generations to come. Health is extremely important because it is the drive of life. Some of his arguments can be flawed but they are all connected in some way. I do disagree about education being of minimal importance because of the value of education. I guess in way we can live without education, but that is not as possible. Education is a universal need because without it, we would not be able to learn about the environment!
And which parts of his argument do you believe are accurate and strong in facts?
To Top