"I Have A Dream"

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech was a turning point in history for the United States. As Megan states in her analysis of this speech Mr. King is certainly addressing those involved in the demonstration at Washington, but his primary target was white Americans. He appeals to other audiences throughout his delivery, but this was his primary audience. At the conclusion of his speech (or upon hearing it if they weren't present), I imagine that they knew it as well. Secondarily, he was attempting to motivate his fellow African-Americans to take up the cause and press it forward. These two general audiences can be broken into many sub-groups. The white audience consisted of white voters of all social climes, politicians and people in positions of influence, racists, civil rights activists, and most everyone in between. The African-American audience consisted of those who had seen more success in society, the despondent, the oppressed, those who had aggressed against their oppressors, the destitute, those present at the demonstration, and those who would surely hear of it.

He opens with some foreshadowing: "I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation." He is telling the ruling class in America at that time that he's about to open a rhetorical can of worms. And so he does.

Since his primary audience was the very people who held in their hands the power to reform current policy, Mr. King begins a long series of appeals to them. He begins with an allusion to Abraham Lincoln, both directly and indirectly. He uses "Five score years ago" and later "hallowed spot" to correlate with the Gettysburg Address. This appeal incorporates almost his entire audience. Abe Lincoln was championed by the African-Americans for obvious reasons, but he is and was also held in high regard by most white people who had affectionately referred to him as "Honest Abe". In 1963 the only people who might have felt that Abraham Lincoln did not deserve accolades would have been a small minority of whites who disagreed with the Emancipation Proclamation. Although racism was rampant in the 1960's, I doubt that the majority of whites then in the south really wanted slavery to have continued. Mr. King pulls out a few tricks to bring many of them on board as well. One of these was to use "manacles" and "chains" to remind the white population of the slavery they had inflicted upon his people.

I think one of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s best tactics was the allegory of an unpaid check. During a period in America where men did business on their word and a handshake, his allusion to the promise of freedom for slaves being defaulted upon probably made an impact on the conscience of many people. Putting it in terms of an unpaid debt made many people re-think their position on what should have been a clear premise in the 1860's.

Mr. King also does a good job of appealing to the patriots of the American ideal of freedom in these sections:

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

And,

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".

No self-respecting patriot in the USA would disparage these clauses from the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. King's passage of rhetoric also solidifies the guilt in those who believed in a moral obligation to pay one's debts.

Martin Luther King, Jr. definitely threw into his speech a lot of biblical reference. This afforded him some leverage with those of all races who valued the Bible. "[T]he dark and desolate valley of segregation...", "the valley of despair", and "...every valley shall be exalted" are probably all akin to Psalms 23:4. He quotes portions of Isaiah 40: 4-5 in concluding his "I have a dream" repetitions with, "I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together." He refers to Daniel 2:45 when he says, "With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope". The statement, "Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children" is in reference to Matthew 7:24-27.

In a couple of places in his speech, Mr. King indicates a pretty specific audience. He is direct and critical of Alabama and Mississippi especially. He mentions some other states but this sentence, "I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice" vilifies Mississippi, with "even" being the operative word. He rebukes the "vicious racists" of Alabama and directly reproves their governor "with... his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification."

I think Mr. King even attempted to appeal to those entangled in the arising drug culture. "This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" was most likely said to spark their interest. He makes no criticism of taking drugs, per se, only a criticism of taking the "drug of gradualism" in regards to his cause.

Mr. King directly addresses the African-American component of his audience further along in his speech. He redirects the speech at one point saying, "But there is something that I must say to my people". He then proceeds to appeal to both those who are feeling more hostile and those who are more passive. This is evident when he describes the movement among African-Americans this way: "[a] marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community..." Calling militancy "marvelous" lets those who are feeling hostile know that he does not condemn their feelings, yet he proceeds to promote peace. This is an effectively ambivalent statement.

King does not fail to acknowledge the struggles of his people and to put himself on par with them. At one point, he speaks to those who have been in jail. He describes their cells as "narrow", demonstrating his own experiences with being unjustly imprisoned. He continued to elucidate his understanding of his people's persecutions, calling their plight "redemptive".

Possibly, King's greatest appeal to the African-American portion of his audience was his use of phrases from the negro spiritual "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" Prior to this powerful conclusion he makes a final appeal that attempts to unify his entire audience, "that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands..."

This is just a thought, but I find it interesting that there is no reference in the "I have a dream" speech to people of Native American, Latino, or Asian heritage. These ethnic groups also had a pretty rough time in America throughout its history but there is no appeal to them as an audience. Nor is their any appeal to various religions other than those based on the Bible- no appeals to Buddhism, Islam or other prominent non-Judeao-Christian beliefs. Although Mr. King's rhetoric achieved widespread fame and recognition, I think it would have helped his cause even more to verbally reference these various groups rather than just leaving it to implication.

Stirring Them Up to Remembrance: Pathos in Alma's Preaching

Previously I had written about the way Alma presented himself to the people of Zarahemla and the people of Gideon. The people of Gideon in Alma 5 were not in as good of a spiritual condition as those of Zarahemla, so Alma focused on stirring them up to repentance with strong emotional pleas.

The Gideonites are a people who many of them knew about the Church previously, but had since departed from it and lost the blessings that came along, so they probably were familiar with church history up to that point. Alma exhorts them to remember the many ways the Lord has delivered both them and their ancestors, temporally and spiritually. He asks them to ponder upon what they might think at the day of judgment and if they think they could possibly be saved with all their sins. In v. 18:

"Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God with your souls filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that ye have set at defiance the commandments of God?”

By being direct in speaking of the ultimate consequences of wickedness, Alma paints a vivid picture of what the people can expect if they continue in wickedness and also attempts to dispel any illusions they may have had about escaping the consequences of sin.

The people may already know that Alma can speak of the guilt and remorse caused by sin from personal experience, as mentioned in Mosiah 27:29 after he had repented of trying to destroy the church and in Alma 36:21 when he was speaking to his son Helaman. Furthermore, it makes sense for Alma to ask this question because we can tell that he has already answered these questions to himself and pondered how he would feel being judged if all his sins were still on his head in Mosiah 27:31:

"Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye."

Due to the nature of Alma's conversion, it seems that he is particularly skilled at describing what we would feel being judged of God. Much of the beginning of Alma's preaching to the Gideonites is in the form of questions, which encourages them to imagine for themselves what consequences are in store, and their imagination could be more emotionally overpowering than what Alma could convey directly. V. 22 is a prime example of this:

"And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you?"

In addition to reminding them of the misery caused by sin, in v. 22 Alma invokes the emotions of spiritual rejoicing that they have likely felt before.

"If ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?"

Alma might be drawing on his own experiences here. Since he was the son of the man in charge of the Church previously, he may have felt this way about the gospel at some point before he set about trying to "destroy the church of God" and lost that feeling. But instead of relating his own emotions, Alma thought it would be more effective if he urged the people to remember how they had felt.

As a side note, one of my favorite passages in Alma is Alma 12:14:

"For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence. "

This was not in Alma's address to the Gideonites, but it is another example of Alma speaking about how we might feel at the day of judgment.

Lehi's Discourse on Everything (latest draft)

For my essay analyzing the use of logic, I will look at how Lehi's explanation of the plan of happiness has strong logical backing and how he follows principles of logical and ethical arguing that invite us to trust him as found in 2 Nephi 2.

Lehi makes sure that all of his assumptions are stated clearly. In v. 5, he gives his assumptions that "men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto them." Building upon these assumptions, because we have this knowledge and are liable for our actions, we would be cut off if we sinned even once were it not for the Atonement. "Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah." There is no attempt at deception by trying to hide assumptions.

When Lehi says in v. 10 that "the punishment that is affixed [to the law] is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement," he backs up his assertion with an explanation suitable for his son Jacob or others well versed in gospel doctrine. Because we believe a principle that Lehi talks about in v. 25, that "men are free according to the flesh," and we may choose between eternal life or eternal death, it follows that we must have at least two things to choose. Lehi's explanation in v. 11 that "all things must needs be a compound in one" makes sense in this context.

Building on this concept, Lehi makes a logical step in v. 22-23 to why the fall of Adam was necessary to the plan of happiness:

“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

“And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.”

If we followed Lehi when he said that "all things must needs be a compound in one," then we can conjecture that the existence of misery is necessary for joy and the existence of sin is necessary for good. This ties in neatly with our belief that God cannot sin, so our temptations to do evil and be miserable must come from another source, so the existence of Satan is necessary for us to grow.

In v. 25, Lehi makes an assumption that was particularly appealing to me: Men are that they might have joy." This fits in to one of my personal philosophies. I might as well assume that the purpose of life is for us to be happy. If I assumed otherwise, I might not be as happy.

To show that he has considered other possibilities as to the grand scheme of things and the purpose of our lives, Lehi offers a rebuttal to an opposing viewpoint that there is no grand scheme or purpose in v. 13. Perhaps Lehi does not bring up any more counterarguments because he thinks those whom he is addressing are not itching to refute his argument. Lehi concludes this rebuttal by saying, "I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things," and he concludes his argument by saying, "I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls."

I am comfortable trusting someone who asks me to make logical decisions and provides reasoning to back them up. So Lehi has my attention in v. 28-29 when he urges me to “choose eternal life...and not choose eternal death.”

Pride is Ugly as Sin (latest draft)

President Ezra Taft Benson's talk Beware of Pride is replete with examples of Benson's command of our language and his knowledge of how best to address a sensitive subject like pride. Brandon also wrote a post analyzing the talk here. I will focus on the way Benson's use of language helps his persuasive power, but I won't shy away from his use of other rhetorical devices.

From the start, President Benson shows respect to his audience even though he will later call us to repentance when he says, "May I commend you faithful Saints who are striving to flood the earth and your lives with the Book of Mormon." When he segues into speaking on pride, he tries not to offend anyone by saying he wants to help us avoid the destruction in the Book of Mormon instead of accusing us of being prideful.

He also establishes his choice to speak on this subject as divinely ordained when he says "This message has been weighing heavily on my soul for some time. I know the Lord wants this message delivered now." Brandon wrote about how this associates him with ancient prophets as well. President Benson wanted to target all Church members, so anyone who wants to avoid destruction or believes in heeding prophets today or in the past is exhorted to pay attention.

To make sure we know what President Benson and the scriptures are referring to, he gives a definition of pride. "The central feature of pride is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means “hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition.” It is the power by which Satan wishes to reign over us." We can see how enmity is a part of pride in the rest of the examples he gives, and how if we are humble instead of trying to compete, we can "conquer... enmity toward our brothers and sisters, esteem... them as ourselves, and lift... them as high or higher than we are."

When Benson gave examples of what proud people do, one struck me as particularly powerful. Because "the proud depend upon the world to tell them whether they have value or not, ... pride is ugly. It says, "If you succeed, I am a failure."" He is justified in calling pride ugly, with the implications that both pride and its results should be repulsive to us. The attitude of "If you succeed, I am a failure" entails a lack of cooperation that has a terrible on us spiritually by damning us, or stopping our progression. In addition, temporally pride will lead to a lower average standard of living because of the lack of cooperation and the destructive competition that can happen if someone focuses on making others fail rather than seeking their own or others' success.

President Benson uses repetition to describe facets of pride, the benefits of humility, and how we can become humble. (I wouldn't dare to call it anaphora, because then it would look like I was just copying Brandon.) This is effective because it adds a rhythmic quality to his statements and helps them to be memorable. He starts off his descriptions of of what repenting of pride could do for us with the phrase "Think of" and all of his exhortations to be humble with "We can choose to be humble by..." By phrasing it this way, he avoids ordering us to do anything and follows the Lord's injunction relating to persuasion: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." (D&C 121:41)

He also says, “Pride is the universal sin, the great vice. Yes, pride is the universal sin, the great vice,” and “Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion. I repeat: Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion.” This added emphasis on these particular phrases might indicate that President Benson wants all of us to realize we could be guilty of pride. It is called a universal sin and a stumbling block to Zion, which includes all those striving to do good. I imagine his goal in giving this talk was to warn us of the dangers of pride, but phrase it in such a way that we would not be offended and prideful because of his words.

Alma's Preaching: An Ethos Analysis (latest draft)

In Alma 7, Alma addresses the inhabitants of Gideon. In the first six verses, he effectively portrays himself as one who is worth listening to because of his many accomplishments and as someone who has stayed humble even in the position of chief judge over the land. In verse two, he establishes his credibility in a way that is particularly effective for his audience of a more righteous group of people.

"And even I could not have come now at this time were it not that the judgment-seat hath been given to another, to reign in my stead; and the Lord in much mercy hath granted that I should come unto you. "

There was probably renown and authority associated with being the chief judge, and Alma could have noted that aspect about himself, but instead he says he was "wholly confined to the judgment-seat." By saying 'wholly confined,' he implies that he would have rather been doing something else, like speaking to the people, and that judgment-seat is not a particularly desirable position. Alma knew that preaching the gospel was more important than being chief judge, and guessed that the people of Gideon agreed with him, so he presented himself as one who knew the gospel rather than as the former chief judge.

In addition, Alma says several times how much he trusts that the people of Gideon are doing what is right. He identifies with the people by mentioning several things that they all would consider important if they are following Christ, especially in verses three and six. For example, “I trust...that ye do worship the true and the living God, and that ye look forward for the remission of your sins.” Placing his trust in his audience that they are doing what is right makes it easier to listen to his counsel

Alma also mentions “the awful dilemma that our brethren were in at Zarahemla” in Alma 5, referring to how the people of Zarahemla had strayed from the right paths. He speaks to this audience and establishes his credibility differently. In Alma 5:3, he says, “I, Alma, having been consecrated by my father, Alma, to be a high priest over the church of God, he having power and authority from God to do these things...” He stresses his responsibility as high priest to preach the gospel when he could have mentioned his previous authority as chief judge.

The people of Zarahemla might have known already that Alma was famous for being the chief judge, and maybe even for rebelling against the church in his youth, but I would guess that Alma wanted them to realize that his priesthood and the things of God are of more eternal value than fame. Besides, since Alma intended to preach the gospel, his position as the high priest is a better qualification than his experience as chief judge.

Even though Alma probably could have caught the attention of either of his audiences by referencing his worldly fame, he understood its transient and fleeting value, and focused instead on the gospel.

Health Care and its Current Relevance (latest draft)

I will be analyzing the timing of an opinion piece on Barack Obama's health care plans called "Tort reform is a cure for our ailing health care system." It's from The Gazette, a newspaper in Iowa, which I selected out fondness for it while I lived there.

Before I talk about how relevant the arguments are in terms of Kairos, let me give you a brief summary of his article. The author, Duane Schmidt, raises the point that a significant proportion of medical tests are given because doctors are worried about being sued for malpractice. Schmidt claims that health care and health care reform would be less expensive if doctors didn't have to worry about needless tests or their money being siphoned off by litigious patients. He offers the solution of not letting juries who know nothing of medicine being set over malpractice cases.

The issue of health care reform is still in the stages of debate where people are looking for solutions, so this is a good time to give suggestions. Schmidt also takes advantage of the current decreasing approval of Obama by accusing him of pandering to trial lawyers and of putting someone who was formerly a lobbyist for trial lawyers, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, to preside over the investigation. Now is a most opportune time to make such appeals to pathos that invite us to draw derogatory conclusions about Obama without considering whether the facts back them up.

Schmidt's use of the excitement and contention regarding health reform to distract us from his lack of strong logical support for some of his points is most evident in the third and fourth paragraphs.

Addressing Obama, his article says, "Earlier in the summer, you said that you would “never go there” in terms of enacting tort reform. I presume this has nothing to do with the enormous financial support you receive from trial lawyers." Schmidt does not give us any references as to when Obama said the short phrase "never go there," attempting to discourage us from looking at the context of that remark for ourselves. Also he invites us to assume that Obama receiving financial support from trial lawyers means he must be corrupt, without giving any details about the nature of said financial support.

Schmidt goes on to say that Obama has in fact appointed Sebelius to look into tort reform, noting that, "Interestingly, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was for eight years employed as a lobbyist by the Kansas trial lawyers. Is this the ultimate example of the fox guarding the henhouse?" He sets us up to make a generalization about trial lawyers, that all of them must be untrustworthy and focused on swindling doctors out of their money, neglecting to consider that Sebelius' experience lobbying for trial lawyers might make her more qualified for that appointment. Comparing Sebelius to a fox guarding a henhouse is a false analogy that oversimplifies the issue.

Then Schmidt says, "We can only guess her findings, and would not wager when, or if, she ever concludes anything," using the plural pronoun to help us think we agree with him. I have been using plural pronouns as well, but I feel I am justified in it, because I am trying to encourage you to consider all the facets of the issue, while Schmidt seemed to want us to only consider his side. His proposal for tort reform is sensible and well-timed, but the way he implies that Obama, Sebelius, and the government have dastardly intentions is rude as well as most likely counter factual.

Claims Don't Cut It: Weak Logical Support In Lovelock's Article

(But alliteration allures. And, uh, assonance as well.)

Blake wrote the first post analyzing this article on global warming and nuclear power, and others in his group followed with their own analyses, but I feel like Lovelock's logical fallacies have not been properly addressed

Although I agree with Lovelock's proposal that we should not be fearful about nuclear power, I am incredulous with the premises he puts behind it. Lovelock makes several claims about the effects of global warming and the feasibility of nuclear power, but he only cites a source for one of them when he says "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001 that global temperature would rise between two and six degrees Celsius by 2100." In all other instances, he offers no logical support for his sometimes emotionally charged statements. I will quote and discount a few claims of his.

"The complete dissolution of Greenland's icy mountains will take time, but by then the sea will have risen seven metres, enough to make uninhabitable all of the low lying coastal cities of the world, including London, Venice, Calcutta, New York and Tokyo." Lovelock allows emotion into his factual claim by saying that these well-known cities could be submerged, but he does not refer us to any data about the rate of Greenland's ice melting or a probable timeframe for its "complete dissolution." So we do not know how long it would take for the sea to rise seven meters, or even if it ever would do so*.

"Climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests in a catastrophe for their people, their biodiversity, and for the world, which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners." This statement begs the question 'Which climatologists said this and how do we know?' Also, how does the rainforest act as an air conditioner? Lovelock does not back up this claim, but instead focuses on the emotions of the loss of the Amazon rainforest.

"According to Swiss meteorologists, the Europe-wide hot spell that killed over 20,000 was wholly different from any previous heat wave. The odds against it being a mere deviation from the norm were 300,000 to one." We do not know where Lovelock procured these statistics, because he does not identify these Swiss meteorologists or link to their data. Furthermore, the statistics themselves are uninformative. How many people usually die from heat waves, and what's the difference from 20,000? Are winters getting warmer, and does this cause fewer cold-related deaths? What data are they using to find those odds? If the heat wave is a deviation from the norm, how much of a problem does this say climate change is?

"Agriculture already uses too much of the land needed by the Earth to regulate its climate and chemistry. A car consumes 10 to 30 times as much carbon as its driver; imagine the extra farmland required to feed the appetite of cars." There are several assumptions in this quote that Lovelock makes no attempt to justify. Does the Earth "regulate its climate and chemistry?" Does agriculture put a damper on this process? Do we need extra farmland to fuel our cars? The links in his chain of logic could easily be contested. Also, to be scientifically precise and not increase the skepticism of his readers who know a bit about chemistry, Lovelock should have said that cars and humans produce, not consume, carbon dioxide.

I could cite more of Lovelock's failures to site his sources, but there are other problems I want to mention. His word choice colors his essay apocalyptically, as Blake might say, when he speaks of how "global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism," the "grim forecast" of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the "extra farmland required to feed the appetite of cars," and my favorite, how "the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases." Yet, looking at his failure to source his claims, he does not provide adequate support for these doom-sayings.

Lovelock creates a false analogy when he says, "It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm, and failed to notice, as we piled on fuel, that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited. When that happens, little time is left to put out the fire before it consumes the house. Global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act." We have only his word that global warming is this serious and urgent, and the statistic he cited that the "global temperature would rise between two and six degrees Celsius by 2100" implies that we are very unable to be exact about global weather conditions.

When Lovelock says that "Most of us are aware of some degree of warming; winters are warmer and spring comes earlier," and how a "grim forecast was made perceptible by last summer's excessive heat," it's a non sequitur. We cannot assume that the temperature variation of individual years proves or disproves his claims--a much wider data sample is necessary. Statistically speaking, anecdotal evidence can only be used to disprove 100% trends. NASA documents how annual temperature summations are taken here, and a graph of their data here suggests that the global mean temperature has risen by a little more than .5 degrees Celsius in the past century, but there is still a large year-to-year variance.

Lovelock casts opponents to nuclear energy as straw people when he says, "Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified..." The only concern that he addresses is worries about but I fear that he uses false premises, namely, that "nearly one third of us will die of cancer" and that oxygen is a carcinogen. And even if both of these premises were true, he still wouldn't have proven anything about how dangerous or safe nuclear power plants are.

Ultimately, I regret spending so much time analyzing this article when there was not much useful to be gained from reading it, but I was drawn in by the sheer audacity and volume of Lovelock's unsourced claims.

*Given a surface area of 3.61*10^14 meters squared of water on the Earth, it would take around 3.61*10^14 cubic meters or 87,000 cubic miles of water to raise the sea level by even one meter, assuming that the sea level rises uniformly everywhere. It would probably require more water, because the surface area of the water would increase as the sea level rose.