Download E1AH_Sample_Answers_Quiz_2

Sample Essay Quiz #2 Answers on Gates vs. Martinez
ESSAY QUESTION (worth up to 50 points): Imagine youth activist Xiuhtezcatl
Martinez conversing with Bill Gates. Would they agree, disagree, or both agree-anddisagree? Whose side would you take? Why? In other words, as an “indigenous”
citizen of high-tech Silicon Valley, do you agree, disagree, or both-agree-anddisagree with Martinez’s point of view in this context? Use direct quotes and
examples from either the Bioneers video or the Indian Country article (or both) to
support your own answer.
SAMPLE ANSWER ONE:
Note—good clear well-organized answer but points deducted for lack of sufficient
supporting quotes. Also could use an even stronger naysayer.
Gates would agree-and-disagree, as would I. Although Martinez and Gates are both
passionate about the environment, Gates does not call for a cessation of
consumption and expansion to the same extent as Martinez does. I, therefore, see
Gates' argument as a fuller, better-educated position than Martinez's article, which I
take as a cry for attention and recognition rather than a viable plan for saving the
earth. That being said, Martinez does have his reasons for being upset about the
state of indigenous people around the world, but the solution for his contention is
contained in Gate's argument.
To be fair, Gates does not have an answer to our energy issue, but does make the call
for a solution to be found. In contrast, Martinez mostly disregards the global climate
issue and instead decides to make a point about traditionally indigenous people. He
claims that "...despite the injustice and oppression, the Native people are claiming
their rights and taking back their land and their honor. They are defending their
sacred homes, and fighting for justice and equality. The movement is building and
many indigenous people will no longer stand idly by" (Martinez), which he directly
contradicts earlier by claiming that "we are all connected, and we all depend on each
other and the Earth for the survival of humanity, we will continue down this path of
separation and disconnect" (Martinez). Martinez's argument, then, comes off as
insidious as he argues that we're all in this together, yet pushes the adoption of
indigenous values as the best solution to mutual issue shared by advanced and
undeveloped societies alike.
Returning to Gates. Gates, on the other hand, pushes for a viable energy solution. He
sees access to energy, which people can consume, to be an empowering force in the
world. This concept of making the world a place with more opportunities, as
opposed to Martinez's call for a self-flagellating world where advanced societies are
bound to stay down for the undeveloped world, would actually make sense to
Martinez and his indigenous-centric world. Although Gates would not entirely agree
with Martinez, I think Martinez would wholly agree with Gates given a little
persuasion. As previously stated, Gates' model calls for an unbeatable source of
clean energy and a means to provide that energy to the vast expanses of our world.
With this in mind, many aboriginal people stand to gain from this, as they are able to
fight for their rights with the proper linguistic, societal, and educational tools to
directly speak to the world they accuse of abusing them. With energy
aboriginal/indigenous peoples of all ages would be able to "restore their ancient
culture" (Martinez) and eventually propel themselves into prosperity.
As Bill and I see it, giving "...about 1.3 billion people—18 percent of the world’s
population" (Gates)" an option for a better life and more of a voice is a good thing
for the world. Cutting back on "consumptive lifestyles that are supporting the
corporate industries and fueling our climate and environmental crises" (Martinez) is
impossible. In fact, such "corporate industries" like Microsoft and even Royal Dutch
Shell will most likely create that both energy-dense and clean source of energy that
Gates considers a to be a miracle.
Sample Answer #2
A dialogue between youth activist Xiuhtezcatl Martinez and Bill Gates would
certainly be full of activist ideas and hopes for the future of both people and the
planet. I believe Gates would agree with Martinez's statement that "This is a human
rights issue. And it is the defining issue of our time." Both view climate change as a
major focus for activism and our future, although they approach it through different
lenses. Gates' letter looked at the impact on poor people and especially the effects
farming and quality of life in third world countries. Whereas Martinez took a much
more passionate approach, trying to connect with his audience emotionally by
talking about how "[His] own home town, [his] own community was being impacted
by climate change, by rising C02 levels, by rising methane levels, greenhouse gases."
They clearly agree that climate change is the most important issue, but each goes
about it his own way. Gates is renowned for his success and skill in the modern
world, so he writes in that style using facts and numbers as evidence. Martinez is
young, passionate and a talented speaker who can empower people from a stage.
Both are equally valid approaches to gain attention for an issue they are passionate
about.
Despite both being activists for the same issue, Gates and Martinez are trying to
change the world entirely differently. Gates is asking for technological advancement
to solve one of the largest underlying problems that is contributing to climate
change. He is asking for an "Energy Miracle." On the other hand Martinez is working
to stop damages that are being done already. He encourages the filing of lawsuits to
force the government's hand in protecting the natural world. He is clearly proud of
the progress that he has helped initiate. "We starting taking action in our
communities. We got pesticides banned. We got coal ash regulated." Martinez
describes a multifaceted problem and work on all sides of it to protect the
environment. Gates is describing a long-term solution and Martinez is trying to
protect things now. I believe that Gates would appreciate the work being done by
Martinez, but would consider it largely irrelevant if an "Energy Miracle" cannot be
found. While Martinez would acknowledge Gates' idea of needed a revolution in
energy, but he also wants the youth of the world to "Show them that the solutions
are here now." He believes that we have the tools we need to solve things now, it
just needs to be done.
Gates and Martinez agree that action needs to be taken by the government, however
they each want entirely different actions to be taken. Gates write that "Governments
have a big role to play in sparking new advances," and so wants the U.S. government
to contribute more to the funding of research into energy. Martinez worked to pass
lawsuits against the government and incorporate environmental recovery plans into
legislation. I see the wisdom in both approaches, but again, this shows the longterm/short-term difference in their methods. Gates is trying to get a new boat built,
and Martinez is trying to stop the current one from sinking. Given the dire
predictions for the future, we will probably need both of their approaches working
in conjunction to repair the damage to the planet and ensure a survivable future.
The issue of climate change could seem insurmountable and the future a bleak
dissent into chaos, but both Martinez and Gates are optimistic about the future.
Gates believes that the "energy miracle" will happen in the 15 years. A "miracle" that
will drastically reduce our carbon emissions and set us down the path of
sustainability. Martinez is primarily optimistic as well, asking "What better time to
be born that now?" Because now is when we can change the world and create our
own future. Although he also presents a bleak view of the current state of the world.
He states that "The earth is collapsing. Every living system that we see is
unraveling." This is largely true when the world is looked at on a geological timescale. The changes happening right now are too fast for evolution and survivability.
Biodiversity is rapidly decreasing. Climate change is an an enormous issue, but they
both have hope for our ability to change the world and develop a sustainable future.
We need to believe that we can find a solution to it. If we don't believe in our future,
then there is no activism, no action taken. We need to act and believe in the future
we are trying to create.
Sample Answer #3
While both Bill Gates and Xiuhtezcatl Martinez would agree that climate
change is a problem that needs to be addressed, their solutions to the problem take
different approaches that might cause disagreement as to what to focus on first. If
Bill Gates could choose a super power, he would want more energy, specifically an
alternative type of energy that produces no greenhouse gases that are contributing
to the climate change problem. While that is ideal, this may encourage a trend of
more consumerism and consumption in different ways that are just as destructive, if
not more so, to our environment. Though an alternative type of clean energy would
be great, more consumption means depleting a resource somewhere else, which is
something we need to cut back on in general. Xiuhtezcatl’s approach is more holistic
and is more conservative than Gates’ “miracle.” Martinez calls for us to become
more connected to the planet and to recognize that we are part of something bigger
as ancient cultures believed and respected. Instead of consuming more, which
according to Martinez is only “supporting the corporate industries and fueling our
climate and environmental crisis,” we should cut back on our consumption and
conserve our resources.
Being connected to the Earth is nothing new for Martinez. As a descendant of
the Aztec people, he has grown up with a sense of deep respect for the Earth that he
fears is fading from the new generation. He explains that “Throughout history, the
indigenous people of the world have carried a deep respect and connection for the
Earth, but this connection has disappeared over time because of our changing social
structures and severe oppression of the Native peoples.” While the elders try to pass
on their wisdom to the new generation, Martinez feels it falls on “deaf ears because
our social system has changed and youth are not encouraged to develop a
relationship with the Earth. Instead, the youth are spending hours on electronic
devices, consuming drugs and alcohol and taking them further and further away
from their cultures.” If people are not educated that there is a problem in the first
place, then there is little chance for the change that is needed to happen to occur.
As Martinez has traveled to meet with other leaders around the world, he has
met people that share his sense of concern regarding overconsumption and
connecting with the Earth. The concern here is that “‘Consumption in general is
devastating to our culture. It is directly going against our traditional teachings of not
having more than what we need,’” according to Gracy Horne who organizes World
Peace and Prayer Day runs. Overconsumption, especially frivolous and wasteful
overconsumption, only depletes our valuable resources faster, which uses more
energy. Without Gates’ “miracle,” this would only continue to contribute to our
climate change problem. Even if we did have this “miracle,” what use is having more
energy, or an alternative clean energy, when there are increasingly less and less
resources that can be used for our survival? Yes, finding an alternative energy that
does not contribute to climate change via production of greenhouse gases is
imperative, but it should not come at the cost of depleting the limited resources we
have.
Wherever there is energy, there is consumption. Where Martinez wants to
reduce consumption as a whole, Gates’ is only seeing as far as finding a clean
alternative to energy. What we also need to learn is that just because there are
resources that can be consumed, doesn’t necessarily mean that they should be
consumed. But our society, as Martinez explains, “does not accept this, and always
requires that the space be commodified, tamed, or changed to the fullest. In short,
we remain pillaged. Our territory (and resources) are stolen by the state and sold to
entrepreneurs.” While the technology will continue to play a large role in finding
solutions to problems, we should be careful about auctioning off our planet to the
highest bidder in exchange for goods and services we don’t really need. Connecting
and finding our roots on the Earth like the ancients did might help us see that we
don’t just need to stop climate change, we also need to take care of the Earth.
Sample Answer #4 (a few minor grammar/punctuation errors)
If youth activist Xiuhtezcatl Martinez spoke with Bill Gates, they would both agree
and disagree on certain points; agreeing that the people of the world need to band
together to fight climate change, but disagreeing on the specific methods of actually
fighting it. As a denizen of high-tech Silicon Valley, I would disagree with Martinez’s
point of view on the subject – technology is a valuable resource that can aid our
struggle with climate change, not inhibit it. [Good start!]
Martinez and Gates both raise a similar point: the future of the world is in the hands
of the people of this generation. Martinez begins his piece by addressing the root of
the problem immediately, the youth. This generation is “spending hours on
electronic devices, consuming drugs and alcohol” and thereby not getting involved
with the global issue. Martinez wants the youth to start taking responsibility for the
world, actively pursuing a solution to the crisis at large. Gates presents the same
point towards the end of his letter, emphasizing the fact that “we need to get started
now”. However, instead of antagonizing the youth, he praises them as “the most
globally minded in history, adept at looking at our world’s problems beyond
national borders.” Gates sends a more positive message than Martinez – with the
cosmopolitan nature of the Internet, people all over the globe can connect together.
In fact, it is this positive view of technology that I agree with as well, the idea that as
we progress further into the information age, technology will aid us in saving the
world.
However, Gates and Martinez both have different opinions on how to actually solve
the issues of climate change, with Martinez opting for a more culture
cultural, naturalistic view and Gates espousing the technological “miracle” view.
Martinez repeats the phrase “connection to the Earth” throughout his article and
argues that we are moving away from the nature-respecting ways of the past. While
this may be true, Martinez goes on to contend that we are continuing on a path of
“separation and disconnect”, living in our own isolated shells. He equates this
disconnect with technology and consumption, believing that we have to go “back to
our roots”, back to the ways of the indigenous people around the world. Gates
however, advocates for the “miracle” stance – the idea that the mental creativity of
the scientific community will eventually lead to a cure to climate change. While
Martinez wants the world to move back in time, Gates presses for a positive future.
In my opinion, Martinez is partially correct, partially wrong about his climate
change vision. Yes, the slaughter of the indigenous people was wrong and we should
honor the customs of those who lived on the land before us. However, to say that
technology is causing a disconnect in the world is quite ignorant. The Information
age has allowed us to connect with people everywhere – Martinez even talks about
how he has offshoots of his organization in Australia, India, and other countries.
That would never been possible without technology. Moreover, Martinez talks about
how climate change is a human rights issue. By living in the way of the indigenous
people, we would never have experienced the positive results of technology.
Decrease mortality rates, disease-prevention, pizza? All of these things would not be
available if we decided to live like the natives. Yes, it would be easier to revert to a
world like that, but the hope that new technologies will be available to solve the
issues of the world AND increase the standard of living – that’s the hope I will be
betting on.
Sample Answer #5
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez and Bill Gates, both influential advocators of climate change,
would surely concur that climate change is an urgent issue to address. In fact, I am
certain that they would agree that the only solution to our current predicament is
youth empowerment. Although Mr. Martinez and Mr. Gates have different
approaches in tackling the issue and may not see eye to eye on issues such as
consumerism, I believe that their strategies may complement each other. Mr.
Martinez's empowering words toward the youth and his inspiring actions in tackling
climate change, combined with Mr. Gates technical prowess and encouragement for
innovation might provide the world with a highly effective solution to this enigma.
Unlike Bill Gates, who narrowed down the gigantic problem of climate change into a
single equation, Mr. Martinez approaches the issue of climate change through a
humanistic lens. In both his speech and his essay, he repeatedly stressed the danger
of the loss of our connection with the Earth and claimed that the changing social
structure of our current society as detrimental to our both our lifestyles and our
environment. In the center of it, Mr. Martinez blamed the rise of consumerism and
capitalism for this deleterious shift. On the other hand, Bill Gates, a businessman
whom profited from consumerism and capitalism, is likely to deny that
consumerism has a direct link to climate change. On this subject, I would have to
agree with Mr. Martinez that consumerism and capitalism, both rooted from money,
are a huge factor in amplifying our tendency of being selfish, as it is written in the
bible, "The love of money is the root of all evil." This consumer culture, which
encourages excessive lifestyle, seems to give us the permission to focus not on the
society as a whole or the Earth but solely on ourselves. Thus, it promoted our rapid
disconnect from Earth and more importantly from each other. As David Saddington,
an influential climate change public speaker, once said in his TED Talk, "We now
look upon this world thorugh glass as if we are observing these changes from
another world." As we stop viewing ourselves as deeply connected to both one
another and to the world around us, we lost our capacity of sympathy toward our
environment and instead chose to look inwardly toward ourselves.
In response to climate change, Mr. Martinez focuses on raising awareness and
encouraging youth to speak up and let their voices be heard. In his Bioneer speech,
he strongly claimed that although people may think that power comes from political
leaders, the power in this world actually comes from ourselves. As Benjamin
Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, once said, "Justice will
not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are." The
general public's support and awareness of this issue is indeed crucial for our
progress in tackling this ominous issue.Conversely, Mr. Gates, whom is more
technology oriented, did not focus on the political side of climate change but instead
advocated the rise of innovations from youth all around the world. Although some
would argue that Mr. Martinez's approach is too ideological or impractical or Mr.
Gates' strategy is too inhumane or is oversimplified, I strongly believe that these
two contrasting solutions complement each other perfectly. Mr. Martinez's strategy
would get the word out and pushes politicians to create laws that addresses climate
change while Mr. Gates' would prepare the technology for us to move forward
beyond this predicament.
However, despite these differences, Mr. Martinez and Mr. Gates would agree that the
key to tackling climate change is the education and empowerment of youth. Both Mr.
Martinez and Mr. Gates directed their essays to the younger generations who will
inherit this planet and thus will suffer from the effects of climate change unless this
issue is solved. Education is a crucial part of this progress and we need our youth to
be thoroughly educated so that they are able to live sustainably. Furthermore, as we
have exhausted almost all possible ways to tackle this issue, new eyes are needed to
see the issue and hopefully provide us with a solution that can save humanity from
self-destructing.
Sample Answer #6 (note some proofreading problems)
Imagining Mr. Martinez and Mr. Gates conversing on climate change, I can only
predict that they would agree on principle, but disagree on certain key points. I find
myself both agreeing and disagreeing with the points they both have to offer. For
instance, while it is likely they agree that a certain standard of living should be
offered to every citizen of the world, the specific standard, and the amount we
would have to expend to obtain it, divides them, and I am similarly divided. Again,
they vociferously agree that something must be done about climate change, but
while Mr. Gates sees a solution in the power of industry and government to
innovate, and Mr. Martinez advocates for individuals to band together and demand
change, I find myself conflicted. The fact that the worldviews of both Mr. Gates and
Mr. Martinez have been shaped by their environments and experiences, as has mine
and this, I suspect, is the source of our very different hopes for the world and
humanity.
Mr. Gates is a 60-year-old white college educated business magnate, born into
wealth, and has managed great sums of money for most of his living life. He fully
admits to his privilege, but his trust in industry, a common theme of Western
culture, can be traced to this heritage. Translating the complex algebra of climate
change into math, he summarizes the complex problem of climate change: should
we wish to bring CO2 emissions down to the amounts suggested by scientists, we
must reduce either population, services, the energy cost to provide those services,
or the amount of CO2 the energy required creates. He places population and
services as increasing variables, barring catastrophe, population will only increase,
and a high standard of living is desirable for everyone. Thus, he claims, we must
reduce the energy cost and the CO2 created. Most importantly, he places our future
on a wager that, with proper funding, a miraculous solution will be found, bringing
CO2 emissions down precipitously.
Mr. Martinez might agree with this in theory, but I suspect he would protest that
he would declare that governments and private industry must not be trusted with
the decision to reduce carbon emissions. Instead, he advocates, we must take action:
he has organized rallies, protests, and lawsuits, intended to force governments to
regulate emissions and destructive industrial practices, like fracking. In his article
"We Are All Indigenous to Somewhere", he places the blame for our willfully selfdestructive activities on our disconnect with our heritage and our loss of connection
to the planet. Due to our social priorities, he says, " youth are not encouraged to
develop a relationship with the Earth." Mr. Martinez is young, at 14, he has
demonstrated an incredible drive to lead and demonstrate that we, as individuals,
can cause real and powerful change. As a minority, and raised in the ceremonial
ways of the Aztec people, he has learned through the harsh lessons the news has
offered that Western culture has little respect for native lifeways or opinions. This, I
imagine, has shaped his worldview, deeply suspicious of the corporate and colonial
interests that have reliably attacked indigenous interests world-wide, and are
currently causing enormous damage to our society.
As an individual, I can offer little disagreement from either viewpoint. It is
obviously true that, should we develop a means to create reliable, cheap, emissionless energy, we could guarantee a favorable lifestyle for everyone. However, I worry
even should this occur, government and corporation alike will continue to cause
major climate issues, either by refusal to adopt it due to economy of scale, or by
other forms of ecologically damaging practices. I agree with Mr. Martinez that we
must advocate for climate change, leaving no options for our governments to do the
right thing, but I worry that by constraining the entrepreneurial nature of
innovation, we might end up shooting ourselves in the foot and over-regulate
something that might save us. While it is perhaps the more cowardly option, I can
only admit to preferring a middle path, carefully watching industry and government
and acting when we have the best opportunity to restrain the worst offenses, while
eschewing tight controls that might adversely inhibit growth and economic
prosperity.