Violent Borders, Chapters 7

Peer post1

I think that the most important aspect of this chapter was that these borders don't just affect immigration, but also the Environment. It affects the ability of animals to move around between countries, the survivability of marine life in the ocean, and the ability to end climate change. As proven, the UN is ineffective in ending climate change. Also, border walls affect animals' path of migration, rainwater drain off, and also the exploitation of resources.

I think that the most effective evidence that Jones provides in this chapter was from experts in the case of the "tragedy of the commons" (Jones, 143). This tragedy that he refers to how our earth only has a set number of resources, but the population keeps growing. He references 2 specific specialists Garrett Hardin and Elinor Ostrom. Hardin states that this is due to how people "put their individual needs above those of the group" and that this is what leads to a lack of natural resources (Jones, 143). He also provides the counter-arguments provided by Ostrom about this subject. She argues that these resources are protected and that it is human-error and common-based assumptions that are drawing these conclusions (Jones, 144).

The author makes sure to provide both sides of the argument. While the author is trying to convince you that Borders are bad and they have negative effects on so many aspects of the world, he makes sure to provide information about their benefits/outcomes that are viewed as benefits. A greater example of this was in the area where Jones was discussing the UN. The author makes the claims about how the UN is basically useless because all fo the powers lie in the hands of 5 countries. This organization cannot reach agreements on how to end climate change, nor does it contain the power to do so. He counters this by stating what President Obama said in regards to how successful this climate change conference was and how the countries around the world will respond. This is all found from page 153-159.

Peer post2

1. Share one of the more compelling or significant points the author made in this chapter

One of the more compelling points that Jones makes in chapter 7 is that borders have a huge affect on environmental factors and climate change. Even though these issues have been raised because of construction of borders, the U.N. has not taken any actions to attack these problems and counteract the damage that borders have caused. Jones really points out that although meetings do occur pertaining to issues such as climate change, the result is never a solution, more of a recognition of the issue itself.

2. Share what you believe to be the most important or effective form of evidence Jones draws on in this chapter (Personal Experience, Outside Authorities, Statistics, or Factual References and Examples). Explain your reasoning.

I believe the most effective form of evidence that Jones draws on in this chapter to illustrate his point is evidence pertaining to factual references. Jones states that in 2015 the Paris Round discussed climate change and yet the "global agreement... lacks any enforcement mechanism and does not even mention the term fossil fuels" (153). Jones uses this fact to show that although the U.N. is used to discuss global issues and create solutions, solutions are never enforced which contributes to the rapid increase in climate change now. Jones continues to present factual references and statistics throughout this chapter to illustrate his point even further that borders have contributed to environmental issues that the U.N. discusses but never acts upon.

3. Share the different perspectives the author draws on to illustrate the issue discussed

The different perspectives that Jones draws on to illustrate the issues he discussed within chapter 7 are the perspectives of based on the facts about the U.N. conferences. It's not so much a perspective as it is more about presenting the facts of the past U.N. conferences such as the Paris Round or the Climate Conference. Jones takes the facts from each of these conferences and others and presents them in an argument that demonstrates the U.N.'s failure to take action on issues, especially those that borders have contributed to. Jones also presents James Hansen's perspective to show that the agreements at these conferences have "very little substance in the resulting document" (159). All of these help persuade and demonstrate the argument Jones has made in chapter 7.