In the 2000 article, “Goal Replace Risk Assessment With Alternative Assessment”, author Mary O’Brien poses many strengths in comparison to the article, “The Pleasure of eating”, by author Wendell Berry. Throughout “Goal Replace Risk Assessment with Alternative Assessment”, Mary O’Brien informs readers about the provincial approach of risk assessment and how, as a society, we should take a more open alternative method towards estimating damages. O’brien delineates the flaw when conducting risk assessment because assessors do not tend to not think about all the costs added up when it comes time to making decisions. In other words, we do not take all factors into consideration thus leading to poor decision making. However, O’Brien elaborates on how we must use a different method of analysis by using a group of individuals who are knowledgeable in a variety of backgrounds. Furthermore, we must create a baseline of principles to what are acceptable alternatives to difficult situations. With this, O’Brien’s approach allows the reader to re-think the decisions they make everyday and always consider other options when in a quandary. On the contrary, “The Pleasure of Eating” portrays how the pleasure of eating should be controlled by the natural world of free species and not manipulated by human beings.
…show more content…
Furthermore, Berry suggests that even though we are not knowledgeable of how our food is produced, we have the ability to change our pleasure through free-will with exceptions to economic conditions. Berry puts forth several alternatives to change our lifestyle such as growing our own food, buying locally, and knowing how and where food is produced. As a result, Berry establishes an optimistic tone of the decisions we make on a daily basis, in order for the everyday individual to rethink about how they can change the way they eat for better health reasons and and overall experience.
With this, “Goal Replace Risk Assessment With Alternative Assessment” delivers a stronger message to the reader about how change can be possible due to addressing conflicts we as a society can approach and value, its use of pathos, and the importance of life and death. O’Brien justifies larger scale conflicts that man faces with regards to the environment. O’Brien provides a hypothetical example of a woman crossing a river. Different risk assessors took a cost benefit analysis test which takes into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of an alternative or situation. As a result, the assessors concluded her chances to cross the river and not die was 1 in 40 million. Nevertheless, the woman refused to cross because of a bridge upstream. Despite the fact that this example is hypothetical, it creates a parallelism to real life of how people do not take into considerations of all costs or benefits in different situations. A prime example which causes readers to see how this hypothetical example relates to everyday conflicts would be how environmental costs are not part of the total cost when humans neglect the environment through driving cars, smoking, or any activity that harms the natural world. Despite our advancements in society, we fail to incorporate all the total costs within our alternatives and O’Brien’s understanding is strengthened due to the exploitation of the assessors. Specifically, O’Brien makes clear that risk assessors only examined only one risk, which was to cross the river, but they failed to see the alternative options. Furthermore, O’Brien makes clear that assessors are, “Standing by”, which means it is acceptable to companies who are conducting risk assessment that death, disease, and harm are potential consequences if the benefits outweigh the costs. In simpler terms, O’Brien poses the question of where we should draw the line so living organisms and the environment are not affected. By reiterating the risk assessor’s provincial mindset, it undermines their reputation because they all failed …show more content…
It states, “The incinerator managers can manually send 9,400 pounds of lead, 2560 pounds of mercury, and 157,400 pounds of fine particles out of the 150- foot incinerator.” The use of children and human health in general are used to describe the vulnerability that risk assessments do not often take into considerations. By mentioning that human health is in jeopardy, the audience tends to believe the author that we must use alternative assessments and becomes persuaded to set limitations on appropriate levels of various
Furthermore, Berry suggests that even though we are not knowledgeable of how our food is produced, we have the ability to change our pleasure through free-will with exceptions to economic conditions. Berry puts forth several alternatives to change our lifestyle such as growing our own food, buying locally, and knowing how and where food is produced. As a result, Berry establishes an optimistic tone of the decisions we make on a daily basis, in order for the everyday individual to rethink about how they can change the way they eat for better health reasons and and overall experience.
With this, “Goal Replace Risk Assessment With Alternative Assessment” delivers a stronger message to the reader about how change can be possible due to addressing conflicts we as a society can approach and value, its use of pathos, and the importance of life and death. O’Brien justifies larger scale conflicts that man faces with regards to the environment. O’Brien provides a hypothetical example of a woman crossing a river. Different risk assessors took a cost benefit analysis test which takes into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of an alternative or situation. As a result, the assessors concluded her chances to cross the river and not die was 1 in 40 million. Nevertheless, the woman refused to cross because of a bridge upstream. Despite the fact that this example is hypothetical, it creates a parallelism to real life of how people do not take into considerations of all costs or benefits in different situations. A prime example which causes readers to see how this hypothetical example relates to everyday conflicts would be how environmental costs are not part of the total cost when humans neglect the environment through driving cars, smoking, or any activity that harms the natural world. Despite our advancements in society, we fail to incorporate all the total costs within our alternatives and O’Brien’s understanding is strengthened due to the exploitation of the assessors. Specifically, O’Brien makes clear that risk assessors only examined only one risk, which was to cross the river, but they failed to see the alternative options. Furthermore, O’Brien makes clear that assessors are, “Standing by”, which means it is acceptable to companies who are conducting risk assessment that death, disease, and harm are potential consequences if the benefits outweigh the costs. In simpler terms, O’Brien poses the question of where we should draw the line so living organisms and the environment are not affected. By reiterating the risk assessor’s provincial mindset, it undermines their reputation because they all failed …show more content…
It states, “The incinerator managers can manually send 9,400 pounds of lead, 2560 pounds of mercury, and 157,400 pounds of fine particles out of the 150- foot incinerator.” The use of children and human health in general are used to describe the vulnerability that risk assessments do not often take into considerations. By mentioning that human health is in jeopardy, the audience tends to believe the author that we must use alternative assessments and becomes persuaded to set limitations on appropriate levels of various