The Island Of Plenty Johnson Montgomery Analysis
Share Your Plenty
Helping out suffering countries around the world is the right thing to do. "The Island of
Plenty" by Johnson Montgomery explains what he thinks would become of mankind if the
United States helped people in suffering countries. Montgomery was born in the year 1934, and grew to become a California attorney after attending Harvard University and Stanford University
Law School. Montgomery is wrong because his article states that the United States should have a
‘blind eye’ to worldwide sufferers so that we can keep ourselves fed. Montgomery is a hypocrite, he believes that the resources that America has are limited and should be kept for ourselves and for the sake of our future generations, even though the U.S. relies on other countries just as much …show more content…
as the United States relies on them. One of Montgomery 's main claims is that we should all follow the example set by the Zero Population Growth inc, we should avoid reproducing or helping impoverished countries, so that we can lower the population of earth, keeping America an "Island of plenty in a sea of destitution."
Montgomery states that the United States should not be the food provider of the world.
He compares how America is at the moment with the Garden of Eden, indicating that, just as
Eden was destroyed by mistakes made from humans, our world will eventually end up similarly we don’t start taking care of it. He says the problem is not the food supply but the population surplus. Montgomery feels that by feeding those who are hungry today, we are urging them to reproduce, and as a result causing more misery and hunger for the future generations. In a way,
Montgomery makes the reader indecisive between what the world should do and what the world could do to heal the hungry. If Americans were in a position of poverty right now, people would
be expecting the more developed countries to lend us a helping hand and would resent if they didn 't. Those in poverty countries lack the resources that we have plenty of in America such as food, clean water, medicine, clothing, and an education. It’s a terrible thought knowing that people in Southeast Asia, India, and Africa are starving and dying from diseases that can be treated here in the United States, and still nothing is being done to help them. Help can be sent their way, but some Americans don’t feel the need to do anything because we are giving away what could be used for our own generation and people in the future. Montgomery writes in his article that, "If we try to save the starving millions today we will simply destroy what is left of our Eden.” He’s implying that if we help people that are starving now, eventually the depletion of our nation 's resources will occur. It’s a given that the resources the U.S. has are limited, and
Montgomery seems to believe we shouldn’t give them away to support the lives of those who won’t live long anyway. He is wrong because if we send goods to those that are suffering, it will sustain their lives longer than he predicts because the care they will receive will nurture them to fullhealth over time. Leading them to have an education and an impact in the world.
Americans have a moral imperative, an ethical responsibility, s omething that must happen because it is the right thing . There are frequent commercials on television begging for our help to save starving children in poverty like those in Southeast Asia, India, and Africa. The commercials show filthy, hungry children that can put the viewer in a depressed mood because they can see and feel the pain through the young children’s miserable eyes looking through your soul from the television. Those types of commercials do a decent job at making people feel bad for the children, but very few of us actually take the time to donate. Families in different countries are just like families here in America, it shouldn’t matter where they come from, all
that should matter is that they’re needy for our help. Imagine what a difference we all could make if we contributed what we could, not necessarily give everything we have away, but enough to change their lives. Think about all the food America throws away each day without even thinking that leftovers could be the best gift the hungry could receive, and the clothes no longer worn could cloth those freezing. There are small actions people can and should do to make a difference. Every one of us has the power to help out, all we need is the empathy to do so. In Montgomery’s article he states that, “Yet we are being asked to share our resources with the hungry peoples of the world. But why should we share?” We should because we have a moral duty to. These three countries are having trouble getting by with no resources and have too many children. Even though it’s their “bad decision” and not our responsibility to feed another nations families, everyone should help because children are dying from starvation and we can be the reason they don’t. There is overpopulation on this planet and limited resources, but why not help out as many of these suffering people as possible while we have surplus at this very moment? Everyone is equal and deserve the same amount of care.
Statistics show that Americans have some resources to give to the sick and starving people in countries that are less fortunate than ours, but our selfishness is preventing us from doing so.
According to author Patrick James, the U.S. alone consumes enough resources to supply 4.1 Earth’s, but us Americans are too caught up in on our own needs to stop and really think about how life might be like for them, how it might feel to struggle. Yes, people have sympathy for those in poverty when we do think about their situation but realistically, people are glad it isn’t their situation.
When we are born into this world, no one has the option to choose which country or family they will be raised in. No one has a choice and that is why us
American’s shouldn’t be so stingy about the resources America has, because we could’ve been born in a third world country living in a dirt home, starving for a piece of bread, and a drop of water to hold over our thirst. It isn’t fair.
Montgomery is incorrect. If Americans were in their position right now, people would be expecting developed countries to help out. America isn’t struggling or lacking as many resources as Southeast Asia, India, and Africa are. We are capable of sharing food, water, medicine, etc.
It’s terrible letting people in third world countries suffer when America can do well for them.
We can save
lives.
Citations Montgomery, Johnson. “The Island of Plenty.” Newsweek (1974)
"What Would Happen If The Entire World Lived Like Americans?" Co.Exist. Ed. Patrick
James. 17 Aug. 2012. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. Krishnan, Sonia. "Politics Drove C. Montgomery Johnson, Brash Exhead of State
GOP."Local News. 2 June 2005. Web. 17 Oct. 2014.
<
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002296090_gummie02e.html
>.
Helping out suffering countries around the world is the right thing to do. "The Island of
Plenty" by Johnson Montgomery explains what he thinks would become of mankind if the
United States helped people in suffering countries. Montgomery was born in the year 1934, and grew to become a California attorney after attending Harvard University and Stanford University
Law School. Montgomery is wrong because his article states that the United States should have a
‘blind eye’ to worldwide sufferers so that we can keep ourselves fed. Montgomery is a hypocrite, he believes that the resources that America has are limited and should be kept for ourselves and for the sake of our future generations, even though the U.S. relies on other countries just as much …show more content…
as the United States relies on them. One of Montgomery 's main claims is that we should all follow the example set by the Zero Population Growth inc, we should avoid reproducing or helping impoverished countries, so that we can lower the population of earth, keeping America an "Island of plenty in a sea of destitution."
Montgomery states that the United States should not be the food provider of the world.
He compares how America is at the moment with the Garden of Eden, indicating that, just as
Eden was destroyed by mistakes made from humans, our world will eventually end up similarly we don’t start taking care of it. He says the problem is not the food supply but the population surplus. Montgomery feels that by feeding those who are hungry today, we are urging them to reproduce, and as a result causing more misery and hunger for the future generations. In a way,
Montgomery makes the reader indecisive between what the world should do and what the world could do to heal the hungry. If Americans were in a position of poverty right now, people would
be expecting the more developed countries to lend us a helping hand and would resent if they didn 't. Those in poverty countries lack the resources that we have plenty of in America such as food, clean water, medicine, clothing, and an education. It’s a terrible thought knowing that people in Southeast Asia, India, and Africa are starving and dying from diseases that can be treated here in the United States, and still nothing is being done to help them. Help can be sent their way, but some Americans don’t feel the need to do anything because we are giving away what could be used for our own generation and people in the future. Montgomery writes in his article that, "If we try to save the starving millions today we will simply destroy what is left of our Eden.” He’s implying that if we help people that are starving now, eventually the depletion of our nation 's resources will occur. It’s a given that the resources the U.S. has are limited, and
Montgomery seems to believe we shouldn’t give them away to support the lives of those who won’t live long anyway. He is wrong because if we send goods to those that are suffering, it will sustain their lives longer than he predicts because the care they will receive will nurture them to fullhealth over time. Leading them to have an education and an impact in the world.
Americans have a moral imperative, an ethical responsibility, s omething that must happen because it is the right thing . There are frequent commercials on television begging for our help to save starving children in poverty like those in Southeast Asia, India, and Africa. The commercials show filthy, hungry children that can put the viewer in a depressed mood because they can see and feel the pain through the young children’s miserable eyes looking through your soul from the television. Those types of commercials do a decent job at making people feel bad for the children, but very few of us actually take the time to donate. Families in different countries are just like families here in America, it shouldn’t matter where they come from, all
that should matter is that they’re needy for our help. Imagine what a difference we all could make if we contributed what we could, not necessarily give everything we have away, but enough to change their lives. Think about all the food America throws away each day without even thinking that leftovers could be the best gift the hungry could receive, and the clothes no longer worn could cloth those freezing. There are small actions people can and should do to make a difference. Every one of us has the power to help out, all we need is the empathy to do so. In Montgomery’s article he states that, “Yet we are being asked to share our resources with the hungry peoples of the world. But why should we share?” We should because we have a moral duty to. These three countries are having trouble getting by with no resources and have too many children. Even though it’s their “bad decision” and not our responsibility to feed another nations families, everyone should help because children are dying from starvation and we can be the reason they don’t. There is overpopulation on this planet and limited resources, but why not help out as many of these suffering people as possible while we have surplus at this very moment? Everyone is equal and deserve the same amount of care.
Statistics show that Americans have some resources to give to the sick and starving people in countries that are less fortunate than ours, but our selfishness is preventing us from doing so.
According to author Patrick James, the U.S. alone consumes enough resources to supply 4.1 Earth’s, but us Americans are too caught up in on our own needs to stop and really think about how life might be like for them, how it might feel to struggle. Yes, people have sympathy for those in poverty when we do think about their situation but realistically, people are glad it isn’t their situation.
When we are born into this world, no one has the option to choose which country or family they will be raised in. No one has a choice and that is why us
American’s shouldn’t be so stingy about the resources America has, because we could’ve been born in a third world country living in a dirt home, starving for a piece of bread, and a drop of water to hold over our thirst. It isn’t fair.
Montgomery is incorrect. If Americans were in their position right now, people would be expecting developed countries to help out. America isn’t struggling or lacking as many resources as Southeast Asia, India, and Africa are. We are capable of sharing food, water, medicine, etc.
It’s terrible letting people in third world countries suffer when America can do well for them.
We can save
lives.
Citations Montgomery, Johnson. “The Island of Plenty.” Newsweek (1974)
"What Would Happen If The Entire World Lived Like Americans?" Co.Exist. Ed. Patrick
James. 17 Aug. 2012. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. Krishnan, Sonia. "Politics Drove C. Montgomery Johnson, Brash Exhead of State
GOP."Local News. 2 June 2005. Web. 17 Oct. 2014.
<
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002296090_gummie02e.html
>.