Edward O. Wilson's The Future Of Life

However, Simon strongly disagrees on the environmentalist’s outlook he believes the exact opposite. Fear is their primary motive... "Fear is rampant about rapid rates of species extinction," he continues, "but the fear has little or no basis. The air in the US and in other rich countries is irrefutably safer to breathe. Water cleanliness has improved. The environment is increasingly healthy, with every prospect that this trend will continue. The highest rate of observed extinction, though certainly more have gone extinct unobserved, is one species per year. "The scare that farmlands are blowing and washing away is a fraud upon the public. The aggregate data on the condition of farmland and the rate of erosion do not support the concern about soil erosion. The data suggest that the condition of cropland has been improving rather than

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.

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.

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

However, Gore does not just present the problem. He issues the challenge for the scientific community to seek ways to solve the problem, but he points out that these measures must be taken now. The problem is so severe that actions must be immediate in order to be effective. Comparing today’s environmental problems to the wartime challenges faced by the World War Two generation, Gore urges today’s citizens and scientists to rise to the occasion and be willing to sacrifice, if necessary, to solve the problems that society has created.

John Fire Lame Deer was a Sioux Indian tribal leader, medicine man, rodeo clown, and storyteller amongst other things. A selection from his autobiography Seeker Of Visions: The Life Of A Sioux Medicine Man titled “Talking to the Owls and Butterflies” is a short piece regarding nature and man’s relationship with it. The piece was intended to make an impression on white people in order to help salvage what is remaining in the environment. Lame Deer reprimands the “white world” for its negative outlook towards nature and the treatment of animals, he converses how man has changed and reshaped nature in order to make it more profitable. Stating that Caucasians have gone and altered animals in order to create

Additionally, Wilson’s exaggerations are not far off from what people might say in real life. When reading Wilson’s statement about what the environmentalists will do with their power (i.e. locking someone up because an endangered spider was found on their property), one might be reminded of the 2016 election, and how ludicrous statements were uttered to combat the opposition.

In conclusion all of this culminates together to make it obvious that neither side, the People-First Critics or the Environmentalists, made the attempt to research, gain ground, or develop their arguments. Wilson satirizes the language of these two groups and it able to make clear issues with their arguments that before may not have been clear. Wilson also is able to mock the groups in a way that shows them how childish they are. All in all this is a great way to compare the two sides with similar

In The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson, Wilson, a contemporary scientist, illustrates the unproductive nature of environmentalists and the people-firsts or anti-environmentalists. Wilson also identifies the parallels of each group and their unexpected similarities. He satirizes the language that each group would typically use against the other. It is concluded that people in today’s world are all too literal. When everything said is taken to heart, it is difficult for the real issues to ever be resolved.

“Like the rest of us, scientists gravitate toward the huggable” (Begley 257) says, Sharon Begley as she refers to animals in her article “Praise the Humble Dung Beetle.” Begley, an accomplished and award-winning science journalist, informs people on the threat of the plants and animals that are going extinct. In this article published in Newsweek, she persuades her audience that this threat of extinction is harming the environment and humankind and that it can be detrimental in many ways. In “Praise the Humble Dung Beetle,” Begley’s use of rhetorical appeals, her organization and syntax, as well as her tone, help inform her audience about the importance of insects in our ecosystem.

The “People First” critic is clearly not an environmentalist. While he specifically addresses that the environment is important, he also counters with “conservation should be kept in perspective”.

From analyzing the importance of the Montgomery Bus Boycott to conceptualizing the racial politics of the 19th century, Kirt Wilson presents a refreshing take on African American activism. Wilson evaluates the foundational components of racialized politics in order to describe the ways that prudence, imitation, and social structures contribute to the tense racialized climate of the 19th century. The Racialized Politics of Imitation in the 19th Century analyzed how imitation created the progression for the African American communities while the The Contested Space of Prudence in the 1874-1875 Civil Rights Debate presented the congressional racial civil discourse that existed during the Reconstruction era.

“Environmental wackos” and “anti-environmentalists”, according to Edward O. Wilson’s The Future of Life, both have a hidden agenda. He claims that these hidden agendas are rooted in personal interest and ideas which only benefit them and not the people, nor the environment. Through the use of absurdity and irony with a sarcastic tone, Wilson satirizes these agendas that make the environmentalists and people-first critics unproductive.

The approach to environmental news stories can also differ depending on the media outlet that is writing or printing the story. The Sun and The Daily Mail are aimed at middle to working class people and a younger audience, which means that they often use shocking headlines to grab people’s attention. For example, Cheyenne Macdonald’s 3rd March article in the daily mail (see above table), uses adjectives like ‘killer’ and ‘super’, which don’t actually provide any extra

In Ian McEwan’s novel Solar, the audience must suffer through the perspective of the obese, self-centered, womanizing main character Michael Beard whose interest in climate change stems from a desire to reap economic benefits and a boost to his reputation. Far from a novel that presents a scientific protagonist with a desire to save humanity rather than make a fortune from a catastrophic future, Solar failed to live up to the high expectation held by ecocritics. The satirical nature of the novel appears to challenge the views held by many ecocritics rather than uphold the ideas setting the basis of the ecocritical movement. Although Solar is by no means the environmental novel ecocritics were expecting, McEwan’s choice of dismissing the