In spite of the advances made in agriculture, many people around the world still go hungry.
Why is this the case?
What can be done about this problem?
People have different views about why a lot of humans across the globe remain hungry, although there have been a vast progress in agriculture. While experts may allude to many different justifications, I believe the original causes are population growth, unjust distribution and rising prices of food. Therefore, controlling population, devising development plans, and advancing technologies seem the most sensible solutions.
First, the countries are populated more today, in comparison to how much their population was in the past. For example, Iran has 80 million population today, whereas 100 years ago, this figure was about 10 million. As the population rises such huge amounts, the requirement for food will also be multiplied. Consecutively, all the modern agricultural achievements may not be sufficient to fulfill the desires of augmented populations.
Next, what we call agricultural advancements are note evenly distributed all over the world. As the modernity initiated from Western Europe, and Northern America, even today, continents like Africa, and regions like middle east, eastern Europe and south Asia do not enjoy the same level of scientific and technological progress. Besides, supposing some of these technologies be imported by these countries to redress the weakness of their nascent technology section, the money paid by the countries to import technology has been added to overall price, thereby depriving the pauper majority again from a reach source of food.
In order to address this crisis, a diverse set of policies must be strictly designed and abided by whether by these developing societies, or by the United Nations. The first thing is that population control actions should be taken over by governments. These plans will preclude the existing cultural motives that thrive increasing reproduction which by most was related to the eras that poor health conditions led to high death tolls. In addition, the United Nations relying on the aids of developed countries can design scientific and technological progression plans for new achievements more equal. At last, the universities and research centers should keep working on improving the current technics, to make agriculture even cheaper and more efficient.
In conclusion, although a lot of factors can be numbered why the agricultural advancements were abortive for mankind, I personally identify population growth, higher prices, and bad distribution as the main causes, and population control, development plans, and new research as the best solutions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | aghasaeed | 78 | view |
| 2020-01-27 | geforce | 61 | view |
| 2020-01-25 | Noah1997 | 78 | view |
| 2020-01-08 | yasinyucesan | 95 | view |
| 2020-01-02 | choco_fans | 11 | view |
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of arts. 83
- The chart below shows the percentage of households in owned and rented accommodation in England and Wales between 1918 and 2011. 67
- Young people enjoy life more than older people do. 73
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 70
- You have enough money to purchase either a house or a business. Which would you choose to buy? 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 112, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'vast progress'.
Suggestion: vast progress
...remain hungry, although there have been a vast progress in agriculture. While experts may allud...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 172, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...griculture. While experts may allude to many different justifications, I believe the original ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, if, may, so, therefore, whereas, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2180.0 1615.20841683 135% => OK
No of words: 388.0 315.596192385 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.61855670103 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02909839416 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 176.041082164 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.626288659794 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 670.5 506.74238477 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 0.809619238477 865% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.4798599855 49.4020404114 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.25 106.682146367 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.25 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.625 7.06120827912 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.13617675254 0.244688304435 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0418369915671 0.084324248473 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0392738127919 0.0667982634062 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0727140058979 0.151304729494 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0242605300106 0.056905535591 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.4159519038 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.04 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 78.4519038076 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.