Month: March 2020

The issue discussed in this issue brief will address the impact Southeast Asia has on the global plastic waste crisis as well as how actions directed toward Southeast Asia from western countries exacerbate the problem.

This is an intervention in policy discussion because it confronts the current reality of the problem by providing relevant information, analyzing multiple facets of the situation, and then using that analysis to generate multiple viable solutions and policy plans to remedy the situation.

To open my issue brief, I will provide commentary on how this is a relevant issue that affects virtually every person due to its global nature as well as how this is an important issue to confront sooner rather than later because of the affect plastic waste has on our global economy, international relations, and the environment.

The rhetorical situation focusing on the purpose and message of this issue brief will be established in the opening of the brief and will center around how there are key actions and policy instruments that can be pursued by both southeastern countries and western countries that can potentially significantly reduce the amount of plastic waste and its negative global impact.

The audience of this issue brief is state and federal governments who have political clout and influence policy making that contributes to U.S. waste being shipped and dumped onto Southeast Asian countries.

Additionally, the audience is local citizens and governments both in the west and in Southeast Asian countries who can individually help reduce the negative impact by educating themselves on responsible and practical waste management and reduction solutions in their own households.

As far as causes of the issue are considered, there are really two main causes: intentional and inadvertent.

Certain western countries, such as the United States, are intentionally dumping their plastic waste and recycling on Southeast Asian countries and creating more waste that needs to be dealt with and accounted for by Southeast Asia.

Concurrently, Southeast Asian countries are inadvertently worsening the issue by dumping waste into rivers and public areas due to lack of infrastructure and waste management education.

To make a clarification, many, if not all, Southeast Asian countries governments’ are extremely aware of the issue and are working diligently to find solutions, so when referring to “waste management education,” this pertains to the overall education provided to the citizens of these countries and their ability to use this awareness to make an impact, which relies also on improving public infrastructure.

Regarding policy instruments, I believe a combination of inducement and capacity builders would be the most appropriate.

Inducements can function to incentivize individual action, and if implemented correctly, it can be applied to both Western and Southeast Asian countries so that citizens of multiple countries receive reward for improving waste management within their own community level. This is critically important on the western end because less generation of waste on this end leads to less waste that gets shipped over to Southeast Asia.

Capacity builders are also instrumental because they function to educate members of the public and influence attitude and cultural norms. These can occur on the community and statewide level, by raising awareness through workshops and educational programs put on by invested community members or funded by the state. Nationally, PSAs or public TV advertisements could even be shown that advocate for personal waste accountability or proper waste disposal.

The deliberation I facilitated was called “Babies R Us: Morality and Modifying Humans’ Genetic Code” and it was centered on the idea of modifying the human genetic code to prevent certain genetic disorders and the health, safety, and socio-economic effects resulting from such modification.

Overall, the deliberation went exceptionally well mostly due to the willingness of the participants to contribute, the diversity of information provided by the issue guide, and the general level of respect each participant had for one another’s ideas.

My individual role was to act as moderator for the third approach concerning the economic impact of gene manipulation. Because everyone had such great enthusiasm and ideas, the hardest part of moderating was not so much encouraging people to speak, but instead making sure everyone stayed on topic and the conversation didn’t hover on one aspect of the issue for too long.

Even during my own deliberation when I wasn’t moderating, I was impressed with how my classmates navigated the discussion and how I was able to contribute my own thoughts on the topic in a new, fresh way even when I already knew the topic itself well.

The deliberation felt successful in part due to the success of the group’s ability to follow Gastil’s deliberative criteria, particularly weighing the pros and cons of the issue as well as the ability to prioritize the key values at stake. Even when a participant was asserting their own opinion on the matter, they were still able to acknowledge the shortcomings of their own viewpoint and make certain concessions.

Because we had such a diverse group of individuals attending our deliberation, the personal values and moral codes of each individual really shone through in the process of the discussion. However, the respect component of the social process was evident too, because even when a participant made an assertive claim that reflected their unique values, they were quick to acknowledge that other’s may not feel the same way and that was okay.

One of the topics I noticed had a particularly strong moral response for my deliberation was the idea that genetic editing acting as a purchasable commodity presents classist issues. Some people were very passionate about this and asserted that it should never be a free market while others said they believed if people could pay for it, then they earned the advantage. Either way, both opinions agreed that there was no easy solution or “right answer” which enabled civil discourse to occur.

Since the topic of genetic manipulation can be somewhat didactic and scientific, Gastil’s criteria of ensuring mutual comprehension played a big role in the deliberation. Often participants would ask for clarification of the premise or what the meaning of certain scientific language was, and this helped the flow of the discussion and allowed everyone to confidently contribute.

The deliberation that I attended as a participant was called “How Can We Change the Perception that Penn State is simply a ‘Party School’?” This deliberation was set up in a slightly different manner than my group’s, with the three approaches each having different circles of people talking and the moderators periodically switching tables. This different format didn’t permit the same level of intermixing between all the participants, but it was very effective at exploring a broad range of solutions to the issue, a lot of which seemed feasible.

The “Party School” deliberation also did a good job of creating a solid information base; however, because the approaches were all slightly similar in terms of the steps that could be taken to combat this perception, the discussion felt repetitive at times and it was hard to find fresh material to discuss. Regardless, the speaking opportunities were very evenly distributed so even when the content felt repetitive, it was still refreshing to hear everyone’s take on it.

On the whole, I would say I enjoyed both deliberations I attended, and even though they were different in terms of style and amount of content to dissect, I gain a new perspective for both. This new perspective was made possible with these three characteristics that were present at both deliberations, and I think are key ingredients to good discussion: credible information, honesty, and respect.