Analyze

Youth's brilliance and their fascination with the wickedness of plastic pollution are forming shoals of abundant possibility and collective futurity amid the rising tides of environmental destruction hitting Bahía de los Ángeles, México. Working in an entangled community with professional scientists, government conservationists, traditional outdoor educators, store owners, school principals, chefs, artists, and family this group of youth (ages 7-17) labor and dream as scientists and cartographers of the future. They voice unpopular questions and concerns, embody lives they mourn leaving behind but understand can't persist, demand more from adults and tourists, labor for imperfect data that they hope will hold community accountability, and (re)map community infrastructure, tracts of refuse, flows of water, chains of fossil fuel transport, food systems, and fishing practices. Despite these undeniable contributions, often adult partners in this work are still slow to take youth thinking and resistance seriously---it is easier to mediate on shortcomings or flaws in youths' epistemologies. Ignoring these sophisticated shoals is a flagrant dismissal of the pluralist thought and perspective required to attend, nonetheless halt, environmental injustices. As adults labor on/for youths' futures there should be a constant disruption of who holds expertise and why and rigorous attention given to youth voice.

Fowler, Kelsie. 2023. "Youth and Community Knowledges Create Thick Shoals of Abundance Amid the Plastiocene." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

In the article, the authors used data from the 2011-2015 American Community 5-Year Estimates by the U.S. Census, 2010 U.S Census, and George C. Galster, “The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications.”. They looked at data follwing children under 18,  and followed poverty trends such as census tracts for concentrated areas of high poverty. They used the number of children in Essex County Cities and compared it to the the amount of children in poverty in those cities, for the years of 2000 and 2015. Henceforth, they created an arguement stating that Child Poverty rates have risen within those 15 years, and even by 50% in some areas. The only issue I have with some of this data is that in some cities, we see a decrease in child population - and while there is an increase in child poverty in those areas, I feel like the reduced number of children in that area plays a big part in the so called "Increased Child Poverty Rates".

The main argument in this artical is children poverty in newark has  increased by 19 percent  in the last 15 years. In newark over 40% of chlidren live in poverty. 

Vulnerability and resilience in this artifact are defined by the high concentration of child poverty in Essex County. They are measured using the Census from 2000 and 2015 which show how there is a trend in the percentage of children who expereince poverty within the county. Majority of the children living in poverty are currently living in heavilyu concentrated poverty neighborhoods like Newark, Irvington, and the Oranges. Although the affluent town of Milburn is nearby, it is unclear how these children continue to live below the poverty line in Newark even though the towns are only 6 miles apart. 

As a sesearch from the Rotgers University, the students or researchers support:

- The child poverty in becoming more concentrated. With the numbers next to us, we can say that a 52.5% of the poorest childs live in census were the concentration is above a 40%

- Inner-ring suburbs of Orange, East Orange, and Irvington have seen the largest increases in child poverty.

- Essex County’s smallest municipalities have very low child poverty, although many have seen their child poverty rates increase by more than 50 percent since 2000