Edward O Wilson Satire

Writer, William Blumenfield, in his Huffington Post article, “ Environmental Justice a Form of Social Justice,” details the perceptive and political fallibilities of the Republican party in regards to their courses of action towards environmental justice aims. His inclination is to convey the err in their claims and capitalistic objectives, and to promote his ideology that social justice cannot occur without there first being strives to combat against environmental degradation. He develops a strong, but misplaced, pathos throughout his article, devoid of purposeful facts, resulting in a weak argument seemingly based on his resentment towards the Republican party. Blumenfield’s argument is weak in the fact that is argues based on unapologetically tearing down the other side instead of advocating his point while respectfully pointing out the flaws of conflicting views.

In her essay Rachel Carson targets anyone who will listen as her audience. She wants to inform human beings of the effects chemicals have on the environment. Rachel Carson’s audience had little knowledge of the effects radiation and pesticides might have on nature or to themselves. She successfully enlightened her audience to the harm man was causing to the environment not only presently, she also wrote of future ramifications. She predicts “Future historians may well be amazed by our distorted sense of proportion. How could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by methods that contaminated the entire environment…?” (Carson 615). This statement might make her audience scrutinize their actions through the eyes of future generations.

However, just by reading the title of the article, one can feel an emotional connection to Ben and Jerry’s, especially if one is an activist in the field of environmentalism. “Sometimes lofty environmentalism is a cover for crude politics.”(Will) Judging by this quote, one can understand that this article is in fact against environmentalism. The author is targeting environmentalism as a waste of energy and effort. "So every time he digs into his Cherry Garcia, the conscientious environmentalist should visualize (in addition to world peace) a pile of grain, water, farm chemicals, and energy inputs much bigger than his ice cream bowl on one side of the table, and, on the other side of the table, a mound of manure eight times the size of his bowl, plus a balloon of methane that would barely fit under the dining room table."(Will) Here we see the parallel to the title of the article and what it has to do with the problems in environmentalism. The article itself can be considered satirical in that it makes fun of the environmentalist perspective, this can elicit emotion in the reader and can be called an emotional appeal. The tone can be considered humorous as well to the reader who shares the same view about environmentalism as the

While at first the sarcasm may be to lighten the mood and make her seem relatable, the harsh ridicule of the progressive party and their supporters really starts to depreciate her credibility. At first glance, the humorous way she describes the experience of hauling off all the CFLs she’s just recently changed in her home to the recycling center makes her appear to be just another likable character in a story. However, when brass hasty generalizations are made such as, “I’ve always believed Progressives love the planet, but hate the people who live on it”, it really starts to diminish any likability that she has created. Accusing a specific populous of human hatred is callous and very narrow minded. By now any one close to the middle and leftwards has already written her off and any opinions she has to offer. Another example is the ridicule of the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) that limits mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. She says the EPA promises MATS will raise kids’ IZs, prevent a substantial amount of premature deaths, reduce heart attacks, and lessen childhood asthma”, she follows this up with, “I’d settle for weight control and whiter teeth”. Whether or not you believe MATS would actually do all these things, it seems pitiless to joke about matters that are so consequential to people from all walks of life. It also reveals contradiction in her reasoning. She rid her home of CFLs because they were hazardous to her family’s health. Yet the EPA’s MATS rule is purely a political move to kill jobs and have us “rubbing sticks together to food”. She either believes mercury is dangerous, hence ridding her home of CFLs, or she doesn’t believe they’re dangerous and the EPA is simply lining their

Jobs and protecting the environment, important or not? George Will wrote his essay, “What Price Clean Air?” to convey the message that most of the Navajo Nation run and work at the power plants in Arizona, but as the growing change in protecting the environment, those Native Americans are forced to alter their livelihoods. George Will directs his essay to the American people, to persuade them to help find a change. Using the best equipment and spending billions of dollars on new technology may be affected by the uncertain environmental movement. With ethos, logos, and pathos, George Will effectively uses the rhetorical devices to convey his argument about the social and economic damage brought on by the federal government.

In Brian Parham’s article “There Are Multiple Threats to the Earth’s Environment,” published by The Bridge website on November 18, 2012, Parham claims that Earth’s environment is threatened by a wide variety of issues. Parham 's "There Are Multiple Threats to the Earth 's Environment" is an effective argument due to the strong uses of ethos and pathos, despite the weak use of logos.

In the book The Future of Life, author Edward O. Wilson highlights the ineffective nature of the debates between the two side of environmentalism. He achieves this by pointing out parallels and similarities of the language between two sides in the satirical piece.

Wilson uses his writing skills to rather accurately portray both environmentalists and anti-environmentalists. Clearly, political arguments are never going to come to an end. Each person in the world will continue to have their own opinions. Which is exactly what Wilson was trying to prove here. Nobody is going to change their opinion for the sake to annihilate arguments, humans are simply too prideful. Arguments between opposing parties are useless and a waste of time. The only thing to come of these quarrels is bitterness and anger. It’s unproductive to waste one’s time on something that cannot and will not change. As frustrating as that is, that is the reality, and it is about time that we as people to follow Wilson’s beliefs and agree to

In “Compromise, Hell!” Wendell Berry argues that we should be less submissive when it comes to environmental destruction. As an essayist, novelist, and poet, Wendell Berry has written over 30 books and has won several awards for his writing. Berry starts his article by scolding the American population for

society was in the 1930s. Huxley refers to a variety of themes, ranging from the decay of morals

As The World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Stay In Denial, by Derrick Jensen and Stephanie McMillan, is a graphic novel about the state of our environment. They use cartoons and abundant sarcasm to convey the message that the attempts people are making to save the environment are not enough to do any real good. Their message challenges both those of Edward O. Wilson and the University of Connecticut in that Jensen and McMillan’s ideas are much more radical and suggest that the ideas posed by Wilson and UConn, such as the importance of recycling and sustainability efforts, are ineffective at saving the environment. We must resolve the challenges posed by Jensen and McMillan so that all of the ideas put forth in the sources may work together rather than against each other. In order to do this we must accept that some of the ideas given by Jensen and McMillan may be too extreme to do any real good and that the ideas suggested by Wilson and UConn, though slightly ineffective, are nonetheless important steps in saving the environment. Taken alone, none of their ideas will save the environment; instead it is necessary to combine the ideas of Wilson, UConn, and Jensen and McMillan in order to create a more realistic plan to save the planet.

James Hansen’s appeal relies heavily upon Pathos. In his opening statement, as well as his closing remarks, calling for civil resistance, stating this is the most urgent fight of our lives, and finally, it is our last chance, is a persistent engagement of your emotional response. Seven points regarding fossil fuel use and environmental onslaught to obtain them appear factual. Consequently, the use of possible factual information amongst the plethora of Pathos loses any impact to the appeal it might have had, casting doubt on the validity of the information presented. Soliciting our mistrust of government is a useful, if not somewhat powerful, approach to capturing the audience’s intensely negative feelings towards perceived government corruption

Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace is an explanatory essay debating the ethics of boiling lobsters alive for human consumption. On the other hand the environmental essay Margret Atwood on Climate Change by Margret Atwood takes a more direct stance urging people to take action and start preparing for a future without oil. While both Consider the Lobster and Margret Atwood on Climate Change promote conservation by getting rid of preconceived notion they use very different methods to do so. David Foster Wallace hides his true stance in dry and unemotional data using emotional manipulation to persuade people while Atwood boldly shows her stance on climate change by masking the typical serious tone with satire that appeals to people emotionally

One way that authors attempt to get their readers to think about the environment is by drawing attention to the fact that people harm it. For example, in “The Dark Side of the Perfectly Manicured American Lawn: Is It Giving You Cancer?” the author talks about the common herbicide 2,4-D and writes, “At first, its impact on humans seems mild—skin and eye irritation, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, stiffness in the arms and legs,” (Jenkins, 2016). In the event that these symptoms aren’t off-putting enough, the author then claims that 2,4-D can actually cause cancer in humans because it stimulates extremely rapid cell growth (Jenkins, 2016). I don’t know about you, but I think that trading your health for an attractive yard sounds like a very poor

With today’s broad spectrum of opposing political ideals, climate change is one of the most polarizing and argued points. In an article entitled “Why Some Conservatives Can’t Accept That Climate Change Is Real” by Carolyn Gregoire, we are presented the supposed thought process and biases held by modern conservatives. The author, Carolyn Gregoire, serves as a senior science and health writer at The Huffington Post. Though challenging competency is a common attack used on both sides of the political isle, this piece sidesteps petty mudslinging and instead takes root in the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Inherently, as a political piece, this article criticizes the conservative thought camp. In doing so, this article (like a majority of articles on the Huffington Post) is written towards a sympathetic, liberal audience. Pertaining mainly to psychology, there is no doubt logos is the appeal used by the author. Furthermore, with logos often comes strong, inductive reasoning. As we delve deeper into this article, we also will examine and explore several fallacies implemented by the author. Also