Pamela Ronald a plant geneticist is trying to persuade her audience to take a second look at genetically modified organization (GMO) specific to food. Pamela's talk compares the use of GMO's with the great need of good food in order to nourish the growing population without destroying the world. Pamela is using the process premise of needs, specifically Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs with regards to the safety of the human population. Pamela is attempting to show that the human populations safety need is in reducing the use of harmful expensive pesticides, and naturally reducing pests with a final goal of overcoming malnutrition.
Pamela attempts to motivate the audience into persuasion through discussing widely know facts about the children who have malnutrition in third world countries. Pamela wants to motivate the audience to have a greater acceptance of GMO food so that these foods can be used to solve their food needs. The speaker is also using this information to play on the human emotions of the audience, which is the second process premise. Using the first process premise to discuss the need for the basic human need of safety. These individuals do not have enough food to guard the safety of their health due to the use of pesticides or pests destroying their crops, causing malnutrition. Pamela also uses the second process premise to motivate the audience on an emotional level through sadness for the situations that these people find themselves. Fear of the outcomes is also a part of this process premise, fear that if a resolution cannot be found and agreed upon to solve the problems that the negative statistics will continue to be prevalent. Pamela is trying to move the feeling about the use GMO's from low motivation to high motivation.
Pamela addresses the abilities that we have to help this situation. We now can genetically engineer plants that can withstand the harsh conditions of the areas where individuals live. This will allow the local farmers the ability to grow the plants necessary to feed their families. Modifying these plants will allow the plant to grow and thrive in the environments where farmers have struggled to feed their families due to the loss of their crop. There is currently high ability that will allow geneticists to modify plants to feed the growing population. Geneticists are growing in ability to continue to modify plants to help communities thrive instead of die. She explains that the problem with the ability is that there are individuals standing in the way with lack of information. These individuals arguing against GMO's, and are preventing the farmers the ability of growing the modified plants.
Pamela is triggering the emotions of the audience by talking through the tragedies that are occurring in other countries due to the lack of good foods. She uses triggers of the success of GMO foods in other countries that will help lower the negative statistics due to the causes of malnutrition. However Pamela misses an opportunity to encourage the audience to action. She does not invite them to get involved with supporting the cause nor does she explain how they can become involved. She talks about our general responsibility in needing to get involved and to scientific innovation. I feel she missed an opportunity to get specific about how individuals can get onboard and help the cause. She failed to trigger into action the audience but rather gave them information that they may or may not know how to use.
I feel the speaker did reach the audience on an emotional level, tugging at the heartstrings for the needs of the children in third world countries. I feel the two process premises she used helped open the door to a better understanding of her cause to gain a wider acceptance for GMO foods especially for those who are going without. Further triggers will be needed to get the audience out of their seats to plant the seeds to move the work forward.
Pamela addresses the abilities that we have to help this situation. We now can genetically engineer plants that can withstand the harsh conditions of the areas where individuals live. This will allow the local farmers the ability to grow the plants necessary to feed their families. Modifying these plants will allow the plant to grow and thrive in the environments where farmers have struggled to feed their families due to the loss of their crop. There is currently high ability that will allow geneticists to modify plants to feed the growing population. Geneticists are growing in ability to continue to modify plants to help communities thrive instead of die. She explains that the problem with the ability is that there are individuals standing in the way with lack of information. These individuals arguing against GMO's, and are preventing the farmers the ability of growing the modified plants.
Pamela is triggering the emotions of the audience by talking through the tragedies that are occurring in other countries due to the lack of good foods. She uses triggers of the success of GMO foods in other countries that will help lower the negative statistics due to the causes of malnutrition. However Pamela misses an opportunity to encourage the audience to action. She does not invite them to get involved with supporting the cause nor does she explain how they can become involved. She talks about our general responsibility in needing to get involved and to scientific innovation. I feel she missed an opportunity to get specific about how individuals can get onboard and help the cause. She failed to trigger into action the audience but rather gave them information that they may or may not know how to use.
I feel the speaker did reach the audience on an emotional level, tugging at the heartstrings for the needs of the children in third world countries. I feel the two process premises she used helped open the door to a better understanding of her cause to gain a wider acceptance for GMO foods especially for those who are going without. Further triggers will be needed to get the audience out of their seats to plant the seeds to move the work forward.
Such a strange debate, one that seems to devolve back to the evils of science. Thanks for the analysis.
ReplyDeletePamela's speech brings up a lot of interesting points about GMO. Nowadays, people have very negative prospective about Gene Modification. However, Pamela explains how science can be helpful in growing foods, and that we should get educated on the goodness it could bring to our lives. Mixing genes creates new products, adding bacteria to the vegetables and fruits can help save them from dying. But even after this great speech I stayed skeptical to GMO. Next time I am at the store my choice still will be organic food :)
ReplyDeleteThank you Spencer for interesting topic!
Great topic. You seemed to nail the analysis. The debate on this is fake. The science trying to debunk GMO foods has not been proven. Yet the science to make better foods works. She is right, but being right doesn't always invoke action in people. The emotional tie in was good, but I don't believe it is enough to change peoples minds.
ReplyDeleteI have seen farmers in other countries that grow crops because they were paid by the government to do so, but then they allow it all to rot in the fields because there is no one willing to harvest it. I believe that a social change must happen before we will be able to really feed the world.
First off, I don't like the format of your blog. Too skinny and that background is trippy haha. However this was a well written analysis of your topic. Like Sean said you nailed it. I think that most talks people to get you motivated are through emotions trying to bring you to action. If they can get you to picture it in your mind, like Pamela did with the children showing the picture of the 2 boys it makes you feel sorry. I think it would matter though if she creates that trigger to get people to do something. Interesting topic, good job.
ReplyDeleteCome on Doug its still English. :) I will change it for you.
ReplyDeleteCan you say spot on. Pamela used strong emptions and tragedy to capture her audience and tried to motivate them to understand the GMO. But , the non believers are that way because of lack of information and unwillingness for change. This specific process will help the world not just the local farmer.
ReplyDelete