How Does Wilson Use Satire In The Future Of Life

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

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.

Bill McKibben in “The Environmental Issue from Hell” and Rachel Carson in “The Obligation to Endure” both believe that environmental issues are some of the most important issues facing mankind today. In “The Environmental Issue from Hell,” McKibben argues that Americans need to take a moral approach to solving the global warming problem. He is passionate about the problems associated with global warming, but he fails to provide concrete support. Carson argues in “The Obligation to Endure” that humans have ignorantly tampered with the delicate balance of nature through the use of pesticides. She presents a valid argument; however, it is weakened by her failure to cite her sources and her sole reliance on her own credibility as a biologist

In her essay “The Obligation to Endure”, Rachel Carson alerts the public to the dangers of modern industrial pollution. She writes about the harmful consequences of lethal materials being released into the environment. She uses horrifying evidence, a passionate tone, audience, and the overall structure of her essay to express to her readers that the pollution created by man wounds the earth. There are many different ways that pollution can harm the environment, from the nuclear explosions discharging toxic chemicals into the air, to the venomous pesticides sprayed on plants that kills vegetation and sickens cattle. The adjustments to these chemicals would take generations. Rachel

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

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.

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.

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.

Edward O. Wilson’s The Future of Life uses satire to show the two opinions of two different sides of the idea of environmentalism. On one side, the “People First Critic” accuses the environmentalists as being out of control in their efforts to make the world a better place by helping the environment. However, the “Environmentalist” criticises the opposing critic as not caring enough about the environment and that supposedly makes him wrong. These are both two different sides to the same argument and both are out to prove a point.

"Save the Planet," "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," "Go Green." Quotes like these have become a commonality in today's age. We all are familiar with the large efforts to help preserve the environment. In "Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments," Thomas E. Hill Jr. sums up his essay by stating, "The point is not to insinuate that all anti-environmentalists are defective, but to see that those who value such traits as humility, gratitude, and sensitivity to others have reason to promote the love of nature" (688; par. 4) This excerpt provides the thesis behind Hill's argument. The author found that

Here Wilson uses an ethical appeal to try to convince the reader that the environmentalist side is hiding their true motives, and only seek power. There is a clear attack on their

The connection between humans and nature is very weak. Due to future advancement we are basically losing our grip on reality, which brings up the point of destruction to nature that we are not aware of. At one point in time nature was the most beautiful thing you could ever witness. Now people exploit it for money. They are selling land, resources, even water for a profit. They don’t think twice or blink an eye at the damage they cause. The disconnect is so huge the debate of protecting the earth is treated as a forbidden topic. “Second, environmental injustices critics challenge the mainstream environmental idea of what environmental problems are in the first place. They say its focused on the beautiful outdoors, it has anti-urban bias, it isn’t engaged enough with artificial human environments like neighborhoods and workplaces” (Purdy 4) That just baffles me how you can turn the place we call home and the wellness of it to a political debate when all we should want to do is preserve it.