Speaking for human others can often lead to misunderstanding and harmful results. This can happen even when one believes that they are justified in doing so or believe their intentions are noble. The same harms can occur when speaking for a speechless being or inanimate object such as nature. In Jeffry L. Ramsey’s paper Speaking for Nature?, the author extends the argument of speaking for others as proposed by Linda Alcoff in her work titled The Problem of Speaking for Others to include nature. In this essay, I will reconstruct and explain the problems with two arguments that Ramsey voices concerns about and in doing so demonstrate how these concerns contribute to the ongoing debates about the future of the environment. Also, I will argue and show that ultimately Ramsey’s advice is impractical and does not solve the problem of speaking for others because the problem lies not in how one goes about speaking for nature, but in the very act of speaking for nature. One argument made by those who take on the role of being a spokesperson for the environment is that nature ought to be restored to its original state with the help of science. Science, the study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, is thought to be an objective activity which has the ability to produce impartial results. A person would be able to accurately assess the natural state of an area with the use of scientific research and with those results be able to determine what
In “The Changing Nature of Nature: Environmental Politics in the Anthropocene” environmental politician Paul Wapner depicts the human impacts on nature, and their significant intervention in ecosystem dynamics. His research outlines the “end of nature” (Wapner, 37) and aims to put emphasis on the beginning of the Anthropocene, suggesting that we are finally realizing that nature is not merely a material object. With this in mind, Wapner argues that the ways in which we protect nature should be significantly different, this, justifying his study. In order to form an argument, Wapner begins by summarizing a general piece of academic research, and through this is then able to provide an organized overview of the logic of his argument. The alternation
As human beings we’re all affluent to live on this fascinating place called earth. We live everyday normally just as every other human, animal or insect. But we eradicate insects and animals as if they aren’t as important as we are. Nature is being inherently demolished by humans who are oblivious to know that all living things on the earth have a purpose . However, Annie Dillard, well-known for her ambiguous nonfiction books help support the importance of nature and why we shouldn't intrude upon it. For example, Dillard’s excerpt from “The Fixed” about a Polyphemus Moth uses countless rhetorical strategies to construct a compelling message about the peace and beauty of nature, but it also illustrates how easily mankind can destroy it. Therefore, a part of nature is to be naturally
In a chilling recollection of mankind’s current misdeeds towards the environment in “The End of Nature,” McKibben’s call for action is one paramount to the survival of the human race. In essence, McKibben argues that the futures of both nature and ourselves are delicately yet undeniably interconnected. Furthermore, he urges that “we” (ALL humans) are the deciding chip in said bond. By doing so, McKibben implies that action must be situated if we are to expect any change in such bleak a situation. This argument can clearly be found when McKibben speaks out on a myriad of environmental issues in the past, present, and future. McKibben begins to accustom readers to a pattern in which human ignorance juts out from past environmental experiences.
Throughout history, humans have had a strong reliance on nature and their environment. As far back as historians can look, people have depended on elements of nature for their survival. In the past few decades, the increased advancement of technology has led to an unfortunate division between humans and nature, and this lack of respect is becoming a flaw in current day society. In Last Child in the Woods, Louv criticizes modern culture by arguing that humans increasing reliance on technology has led to their decreasing connection with nature through the use of relevant anecdotes, rhetorical questions and powerful imagery to appeal to ethos.
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.
In Paul Taylor’s essay, “The Ethics for Respect for Nature,” he argues that… In this paper I will first describe Taylor’s concept of “respect for nature.” I will then explain the part this attitude plays in rationally grounding a biocentric outlook on environmental ethics. Lastly, I will present Rosalind Hursthouse’s criticism of Taylor’s view, and state how Taylor might respond to this criticism.
Richard Louv writes a persuasive essay analyzing the relationship between nature and technology. His essay focuses on how technology is progressively altering the way we perceive nature. Louv believes that the more we are in contact with technology, the less in touch we are with nature. His persuasion throughout the essay uses many rhetorical devices to help the reader envision how much better “true nature” is.
Aldo Leopold laid the foundation for environmental awareness decades ahead of a “ecological conscience” (257). There have many pleas to reconnect humanity with nature since the release of Leopold’s cherished book. Intuition and reason tell us that living in harmony with our world is more than idealistic—the future of our planet depends on it. The desire for harmony is not new one. Humans have long time sought to live in peace. It is genuine feelings of love and
Have you ever thought about how your actions or opinions affected the environment around you? We’re constantly unaware of what we do that impacts the environment’s condition. One author named Wendell Berry blames the public in his article regarding the way society and the industry has treated the environment and its natural resources. This raises concerns whether we should be putting more importance on the economy or the land that we live in for the sake of our future survival. While I agree with most of Berry’s points and perspectives I slightly disagree with a few of his opinions, but nonetheless he brings up a great matter in today’s modern society.
Nowadays, society is full of abundant materialistic stuffs, which makes human to be isolated to each other and even the nature. A writer, Richard Loux, established a book Last Child in the Woods in 2008 to argue about the separation between people and nature to all people, especially parents who have children. Loux adopted a persuasive tone throughout the passage to reach his purpose---make comparison between movie on the television and the “drive-by movie” out the car window in order to emphasize the importance of nature---by employing rhetorical questions nd some short sentences.
Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods, creates a thought-provoking idea of the separation between people and nature in this excerpt from his book. His opinionated tone forces the reader to be concerned for the future generations by including ironic hyperboles and sarcastic diction, which appeal to the readers’ pathos. He uses these rhetorical strategies to indirectly state his opinions.
Throughout today’s society there are several different cultural perspectives which form theoretical and practical understandings of natural environments, creating various human-nature relationship types. In this essay, I will describe and evaluate different ways of knowing nature and the impact of these views on human-nature relationships. From this, I will then explore my own human-nature relationship and reflect on how my personal experiences, beliefs and values has led me to this view, whilst highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each and reflecting upon Martin’s (1996) continuum.
Aldo Leopold’s “Thinking Like a Mountain” (1949), was intended to convince the public, through beautiful and eloquent language, that wildlife conservation is an important implementation and that people should not be trying to make the world a human-centric ecosystem.
White’s thesis in The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis states that in order to confront the expanding environmental crises, humans must begin to analyze and alter their treatment and attitudes towards nature. The slow destruction of the environment derives from the Western scientific and technological advancements made since the Medieval time period. “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them” (RON p.7). Technology and science alone will not be able to save humans until we adjust the way of thinking and suppress the old ideas of humans power above nature. Instead, we need to learn how to think of ourselves as being
Despite what mankind would like to believe, humans are animals. As multi-celled organisms, we consume other organic matter, change the land for own uses as a beaver would build a dam, and as other mammals, we are all fed breast milk from our mothers when we were young. Yet there is this disconnection and alienation of the human race towards other species. Moreover, through fear of taking action, the convenience provided to us if we simply choose to ignore the environment, and the alienation of other species that are endangered by our actions, the hostile and uncaring attitude of humans towards nature is the core reason for many of the problems in our environment today.