Underutilized And Unexploited Plants Sample Essay

Since common food sources for humans and animals may undergo shortages, it is important to find alternative plants that can be consumed instead of the usual edible species. Certain plants may be such replacement candidates. The criteria used to locate and evaluate underutilized plants should be standard and include the analyses of their contribution. The goals are the improvement of food security (no risks of shortage), enhancement of nutritional balances (proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, minerals), sustainability in agriculture and alleviation of poverty through income generation, and genetic diversity potential.

Therefore, the contribution of the species should be assessed against their present. Vigna unguiculata or cow peas was an unutilized plant after it was replaced by green peas in the US. This pea was especially used in Spain, but it has not been sold in many years due to the export of other peas from the US into Spain. It grows especially well in sub-Saharan Africa where it was found to be an alternative leaf crop to feed people and animals. Since its reintroduction in the economy, the plant has been exported to many countries for study and cultivation.

Its main qualities are : its growing seasons are spring and summer with fruit and seeds; high nitrogen fixation; no toxicity; 3600 seeds per pound; high seedling vigor; palatable for browse and graze animals as well as humans; high protein content. (United States, 2006) I chose V. unguiculata because it is a good example of how a plant can be forgotten and rediscovered, not only as a pea, but also as a leafy crop that can be studied to establish nutritional contents and new uses by farmers, especially in poor African countries.

What is interesting about this plant is its good yield (3,600 seeds/pound), the high protein content, and the nitrogen fixation, which makes it useful for enriching soil. (Balogun, 1986)

References

Balogun, A. M. (1986). Chemical Composition of Some Underexploited Leguminous Crop Seeds. Journal of Agriculture, Food, and Chemistry, 34, 189-192. United States Department of Agriculture. (2006). Vigna unguiculata [Plant information]. Available from http://plants. nrcs. usda. gov/cgi_bin/topics. cgi? earl=plant_attribute. cgi&symbol=VIUN

Economic Inequality

The focal point of this paper is to summarize the article by Clive Crook titled Read the article by Titles The Height of Inequality and write 5 page paper in which you do the following: and write John Locke`s and John Rawl`s approach to this issue. Then a position would be taken on this issue determining the most favorable author. The article begins with a parade scene from Dutch economist Jan Pen’s book named Income Distribution published in1971. This parade is arranged in size in accordance to the income difference of the total mass of Britain.

Here the first lot is made up with people who are loss makers followed by elderly people and youth, part time workers and soon they are followed by unskilled labors, clerical workers and shop. Up till this point the size is miniature. The size increases with “trades people, skilled labors and office staffs. But the last 10 percent comprises of gigantic population comprising of civil servants, lawyers and doctors and stockbrokers, bankers and corporate executives followed by bigger giants like entrepreneurs, movie stars and pop stars.

Thus a total distribution or inequality of British economics is defined. Next Crook mentions Garrison Keillor who stated that the average income group yields a less than average future. In American economy it has been found that over the last four decades the income section of the middle income group has raised by 11 percent but on the other hand it was found that within that same time period the top level income ascended to 617 percent. It is determined that this rise is mainly due to the increase of share of the top income groups over that of the labors share.

It has been estimated that the best of the national income growth is continuously been curved away by the top order and thus a fair share of the increased production is taken away from the labors. At the same point it also discussed in the article that this phenomenon was not prevailing in historical sense. For this purpose the income structure of post Second World War is incorporated where we find that the rise of income in the middle level also developed at par the income of the top level.

Alongside it is seen that workers in rich countries are getting paid more than that of the workers of the poorer countries even though the nature of the work is basically the same. However, the more recent the history, i. e. 1990 or 2000, it is found the rise of the top order is more rapid and thus creating economic inequality among the population. Thus it is conclusive enough that the gain of production is going to the handful employers and not penetrates the lower group. The study of Sherwin Rosen’s superstar theory published in 1981 is taken into consideration to determine the nature of modern economics and the span of modern economics.

Thus the attitudes of the CEOs are dealt and the opportunities and the parameters of this group are analyzed to formulate a theory that can explain the paradox of inequality of economics within the population. It is suggested that a line should be drawn between the top officials and the availability of resources and the opportunity to use the resource at the limit. More importantly it is needed to ascertain the limit and understand that there is a margin within which the income resources should be kept else it is certain that the lower income group would surely revolt at a point of time. Crook, 2006, 1-2) Crooks point of view is extremely clear in this article. According to him that the society is deem to become unstable if there are inequalities of income in the society. He provides ample data and statistics to prove the inequalities of the economic society. He even goes to the extent of being the measures of a satirist to mention the parade imagery. Crook is quite anxious that if the inequality goes on beyond the parameters of the sustainability of the lower income groups it is sure to yield political turmoil in terms of ultimate fiscal disaster.

John Locke`s approach to this issue of economic inequality is based on the contradiction of values of his time and economic methods available in his era (1632 – 1704). He “was directed against the principles of Sir Robert Filmer, whose books, asserting the divine authority of kings and denying any right of resistance, were thought by Locke and his fellow Whigs to be too influential among the gentry to be left unchallenged by those who held that resistance to an arbitrary monarch might be justified. (Locke, 1993, viii) Thus it is certain that John Locke believed in the human rights if man and that man should be paid his dues whereby there should be equalities in terms of economy in the society. John Locke’s approach to finance and economy is in this way very modern in nature and reading his text Second Treatise of Government yields a romantic approach towards different economic consequences. This is basically because he was more of a political philosopher than an economist.

Thus a philosophical justification comes forward with his view of forceful equality. An ardent empiricist by nature John Locke is always in favor of revolution. He conveys every opportunity to practice this approach and he feels that economic equality is possible only by revolution. In a way John Locke is at par with Crook but Crook’s approach is more fiscal oriented and data base where as Locke’s outlook is more assumption based and romance is added to it enthusiastically.

His views were based on the faith that human nature is the best judge of identifying right and wrong and that it is obvious that the population would determine correctly what is ultimately right and economic inequality would eradicated in the process. John Rawls’ view on the issue of economic inequality is mostly based on the theory of justice where he indicated the two basic principals that are accommodated in the basic Justice as Fairness that is formulated on methodical and logical approach towards human rights. According to John Rawls economic inequality is “injustice” (Rawls, 65).

To defend the views the author incorporates the two basic principals where first principal suggests that each person must have and must employ equal rights and the second principal states that even if there are inequality of economics in the society it should be overlooked that this inequality is not disadvantageous to anyone in the society. (Rawls, 65) In a way the views presented by John Rawls is more organized and socially attached but it is, like John Locke, based on the specific assumptions and not on hard data.

The absence of statistical data and economic justification in a formulated manner might be detrimental in suggesting the true outcome of the principals of John Rawls but it is certainly a stated fact that the author is a follower and believer of economic equality. He provides his principals for the defense of equality and he approaches a logical format to prove the bliss of economic equality and disapprove the economic inequality in the society.

In the final phase it would be logical to mention that the view presented by Crook is extremely methodical and systematic in nature and it supports the basic views of all the three authors, John Rawls, John Locke and Clive Crook, to its core. All these authors support the need of economic equality in the society and condemn the existing inequality enthusiastically. It should be mentioned the approach of John Rawls to this issue of inequality is more sociological in nature whereas the view of John Locke is more political and Clive Crook presented his views in a specified fiscal manner thus criticized the issue through the eyes of an economist.

It is true that economic inequalities in the society is a curse and is reminiscent of the imbalance of the society. The possible argument presented in this context would be that of Clive Crooks because he actually indicated the faults of the society with hard proofs where as the others simply approached the issue in a philosophic manner. However, it should also be stated that the economic inequalities of a society is basically a need in a way.

This is because the nature of wealth is to constantly accumulate. The moment there is a forceful equality of economy wealth would start to accumulate in one way or the other resulting a minute economic inequalities in the initial stages and distinctive and gigantic economic inequalities in the long run. Thus it could be stated that economic inequality is inevitable, if not essential, for any society as long as it is within the boundaries and parameters that society is able to sustain.

References:

Crook, Clive; Sep 1, 2006; The Height of Inequality; KeepMedia; The Atlantic Monthly Group; retrieved on 09. 02. 2007 from http://www. keepmedia. com/pubs/TheAtlantic/2006/09/01/1817706? extID=10037&oliID=229 and http://www. keepmedia. com/pubs/TheAtlantic/2006/09/01/1817706? page=2&emaId= Locke, John; 1993; Second Treatise of Government; National Book Trust Rawls, John; Justice as Fairness – A theory of justice

Death, Family And The Virtues Of Titus Andronicus

 IntroductionTitus Andronicus was one of Shakespeare’s earliest plays.

It is also part of his collection of so-called Roman plays, which include Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. As such, it contains elements of an Elizabethan understanding of Roman virtues and Roman vices. This paper will attempt to prove that the play Titus Andronicus can be used as a tool to examine the differences in humane behavior as conceived by the Romans and the Greeks.What is “humane behavior”? Humane behavior is often associated with compassion.

However, compassion can have different meanings in different contexts. Compassion is tied directly to human virtue, and thus concepts of human virtue will give us an idea as how each culture defines compassion.In this case, one must compare the nature of virtue in both Roman and Greek contexts. Since Titus Andronicus is a “Roman” play, it would be interesting to determine if there are any parallels between the play and the works of Roman thinkers and philosophers.

MethodologyThis paper will examine the play Titus Andronicus by Shakespeare, concentrating on two themes that occur throughout the play that relate well to the question of humane behavior. These themes are the perception of death and the importance of family ties. These themes also recur many times in the works of the classical philosophers when it came to the subject of virtue.What the play contains in relation to those themes will then be analyzed alongside writings of Roman philosophers and historians on the same themes.

The purpose of this is to discover if what is written in the play would be a reliable guide to Roman ideas of morality, justice and humane behavior.The next step is to consider the writings of Greek philosophers. Their works will be compared with the play along the same themes in order to compare their similarities and differences. This is to determine if the play can be a reliable guide to the distinctions between Greek and Roman conceptions of morality, justice and humane behavior.

AnalysisDeathDeath abounds in Titus Andronicus. It is rightly considered Shakespeare’s most gore-laden play. In matters pertaining to Roman virtue, there are two scenes of particular interest. The first scene of interest occurs when the Goth queen pleads with Titus for the life of her son after he is singled out for sacrifice to the fallen Roman brethren.

TITUS. Patient yourself, madam, and pardon me.These are their brethren, whom your Goths beheldAlive and dead; and for their brethren slainReligiously they ask a sacrifice.To this your son is mark’d, and die he mustT’ appease their groaning shadows that are gone.

LUCIUS. Away with him, and make a fire straight;And with our swords, upon a pile of wood,Let’s hew his limbs till they be clean consum’d. (I, i, 125-133) In this excerpt, the reader already has a glimpse of old Roman pagan traditions, as known to the Elizabethans of Shakespeare’s time. Why is Titus so eager to deal out death, even in the face of a defeated queen’s pleas? Is it reflective of Roman attitudes towards death? What place does a practice have in the Roman conscience? From the Stoics, we have Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius:It were indeed more happy and comfortable, for a man to depart out of this world, having lived all his life long clear from all falsehood, dissimulation, voluptuousness, and pride.

But if this cannot be, yet it is some comfort for a man joyfully to depart as weary, and out of love with those; rather than to desire to live, and to continue long in those wicked courses. Hath not yet experience taught thee to fly from the plague? For a far greater plague is the corruption of the mind, than any certain change and distemper of the common air can be. This is a plague of creatures, as they are living creatures; but that of men as they are men or reasonable. (Meditations, IX, ii)Death, while something to be feared, was not seen as a dreadful fate.

Inflicting death, therefore, presented a lesser moral conundrum than the appeasement of the immortal soul. The play, then, can be said to portray a semblance of Roman logic in the matter of death. The second scene of interest in the play would bear out this notion that death is not the greatest of evils. The scene is between Lavinia, whose husband has just been murdered by Tamora’s sons and who herself faces the prospect of rape, and Tamora herself.

LAVINIA. O Tamora, be call’d a gentle queen,And with thine own hands kill me in this place!For ’tis not life that I have begg’d so long;Poor I was slain when Bassianus died.TAMORA. What beg’st thou, then? Fond woman, let me go.

LAVINIA. ‘Tis present death I beg; and one thing more,That womanhood denies my tongue to tell:O, keep me from their worse than killing lust,And tumble me into some loathsome pit,Where never man’s eye may behold my body;Do this, and be a charitable murderer. (II, iii, 176-187) The great Roman orator and senator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, in his Tusculan Disputations, elaborates on this while asking if an early death would have been beneficial for his old friend Pompey Magnus.But the question is, had he died, would he have been taken from good, or from evil? Certainly from evil.

He would not have been engaged in a war with his father-in-law; he would not have taken up arms before he was prepared; he would not have left his own house, nor fled from Italy; he would not, after the loss of his army, have fallen unarmed into the hands of slaves, and been put to death by them; his children would not have been destroyed; nor would his whole fortune have come into the possession of the conquerors. Did not he, then, who, if he had died at that time, would have died in all his glory, owe all the great and terrible misfortunes into which he subsequently fell to the prolongation of his life at that time? (Tusculan Disputations, XXXV)The Romans, therefore, can be said to believe that death is not an entirely unjust fate. Death is an escape from evil, and can be a good thing whether it befall friend or foe. The virtuous would rather face death than dishonor, and the compassionate man would rather let another person die than be disgraced.

. In this, the play is faithfully Roman.On the same subject of death, the Greek philosopher Aristotle had this to say:If then we may say the same of Courage, of course death and wounds must be painful to the Brave man and against his will: still he endures these because it is honourable so to do or because it is dishonourable not to do so. And the more complete his virtue and his happiness so much the more will he be pained at the notion of death: since to such a man as he is it is best worthwhile to live, and he with full consciousness is deprived of the greatest goods by death, and this is a painful idea.

But he is not the less Brave for feeling it to be so, nay rather it may be he is shown to be more so because he chooses the honour that may be reaped in war in preference to retaining safe possession of these other goods. (Ethics, III, viii) Here, one can detect a difference with Roman attitudes on death on the part of the Greeks. For the Greeks, death is the most terrible thing to befall a man. Unlike with Cicero (and in the play, Lavinia), death is not an escape hatch from all the misery that could possibly befall one in the world, but an end to all good things, for the dead cannot be virtuous.

  FamilyA second theme that recurs throughout Titus Andronicus is the relationship between family members. Titus Andronicus spends most of the play slowly losing family members, and enduring great anguish while he does. One incident involves Titus Andronicus being offered information on his missing sons for the price of a mutilated hand. He immediately offers his, but one of his sons and his brother raise their hands in offering instead.

AARON. Nay, come, agree whose hand shall go along,For fear they die before their pardon come.MARCUS. My hand shall go.

LUCIUS. By heaven, it shall not go!TITUS. Sirs, strive no more; such with’red herbs as theseAre meet for plucking up, and therefore mine.LUCIUS.

Sweet father, if I shall be thought thy son,Let me redeem my brothers both from death.MARCUS. And for our father’s sake and mother’s care,Now let me show a brother’s love to thee.TITUS.

Agree between you; I will spare my hand.LUCIUS. Then I’ll go fetch an axe.MARCUS.

But I will use the axe.Exeunt LUCIUS and MARCUSTITUS. Come hither, Aaron, I’ll deceive them both;Lend me thy hand, and I will give thee mine. (III, i, 178-193)Love of family is a common Roman sentiment.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, described such virtues approvingly in Germans, reflecting Roman favor for such virtues.Children are holden in the same estimation with their mother’s brother, as with their father. Some hold this tie of blood to be most inviolable and binding, and in receiving of hostages, such pledges are most considered and claimed, as they who at once possess affections the most unalienable, and the most diffuse interest in their family. To every man, however, his own children are heirs and successors: wills they make none: for want of children his next akin inherits; his own brothers, those of his father, or those of his mother.

To ancient men, the more they abound in descendants, in relations and affinities, so much the more favour and reverence accrues. From being childless, no advantage nor estimation is derived. (Tacitus on Germany)During the troubled aftermath of his consulship, Cicero expressed in a letter to his brother that his greatest regret was that he was deprived of time with his own family.I to be angry with you! Is it possible for me to be angry with you? Why, one would think that it was you that brought me low! Your enemies, your unpopularity, that miserably ruined me, and not I that unhappily ruined you! The fact is, the much-praised consulate of mine has deprived me of you, of children, country, fortune; from you I should hope it will have taken nothing but myself.

Certainly on your side I have experienced nothing but what was honourable and gratifying: on mine you have grief for my fall and fear for your own, regret, mourning, desertion. I not wish to see you? The truth is rather that I was unwilling to be seen by you. For you would not have seen your brother—not the brother you had left, not the brother you knew, not him to whom you had with mutual tears bidden farewell as he followed you on your departure for your province: not a trace even or faint image of him, but rather what I may call the likeness of a living corpse. (To Quintus, 15 June 58 BC)It can be seen that love for family is an important aspect of Roman virtue, and that humane behavior towards family was expected.

The character of Titus reflects this love, even if his actions in its name are flawed and lead to further tragedy.Among the Greeks, Plato had this to say about family ties in his masterwork, The Republic:Capital, I said; but let me ask you once more: Shall they be a family in name only; or shall they in all their actions be true to the name? For example, in the use of the word ‘father,’ would the care of a father be implied and the filial reverence and duty and obedience to him which the law commands; and is the violator of these duties to be regarded as an impious and unrighteous person who is not likely to receive much good either at the hands of God or of man? Are these to be or not to be the strains which the children will hear repeated in their ears by all the citizens about those who are intimated to them to be their parents and the rest of their kinsfolk?These, he said, and none other; for what can be more ridiculous than for them to utter the names of family ties with the lips only and not to act in the spirit of them?  (Book V)The Greeks held the same assumptions about reverence owed between members of the family. To desecrate these ties would have been considered impious and unrighteous. In this there is no immediately discernable difference between the Greek and Roman concepts of family sacredness and reverence.

When it comes to this theme, Titus Andronicus is a poor indicator of Greek and Roman difference, if only because there seems little to begin with.ConclusionBased on the works presented, only on the theme of death can Titus Andronicus be of any good use in discerning Greek and Roman differences in matters of virtuous and humane action. When it comes to family, the play’s other great theme, the play is of little use as a tool for discerning difference.The dealing of death within the play can be contextualized through Roman conceptions of death, in which death itself was not so much a grave end as it is a means to escape evil and corruption.

In this, the play can be used as a tool to discern the difference between this Roman concept with that of the Greeks, who viewed death as a great evil that ends the capacity for virtue.When it comes to family ties, the play is not a very good tool to discern Greek and Roman differences, if only because the differences held between the two cultures are either non-existent or too subtle to be immediately discernible. Thus, what is humane amongst the Romans when it came to family seems similar to the Greeks.;;BibliographyAristotle.

Ethics (trans. by T. Taylor). 1933.

Aurelius, M. Meditations (translated by J. Jackson). 1906.

Cicero, M. T. The Letters of Cicero Vol. 1 (trans.

by E. S. Shuckburgh). London: George Bell and Sons, 1899.

—. Tusculan Disputations (trans. by C. D.

Yonge). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1877.Plato. The Republic (trans.

by B. Jowett). 2008.Shakespeare, W.

Titus Andronicus (ed. by Louis Wright). New York: Simon ; Schuster, 1967.Tacitus, C.

Tacitus on Germany (trans. by Thomas Gordon). New York: P. F.

Collier ; Son, 1910.;;;

error: Content is protected !!