John Berlau

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

Ever since the dawn of industrialization, humans have caused serious, irreversible damage to the biosphere. And as the world progresses and Canadians looks on, they realized the impact of their environmental damage. Sometimes new ecofriendly technology enters the market and replaces the old environment damaging one. But that is not enough, human society as a whole must completely rethink and change themselves individually to so that their actions causes minimal environmental backlash.

Through discussing possible solutions using a critical and cynical tone, Carson identifies the common mistakes and effects that humanity has been creating. The article starts by explaining how common poisoning as a way to control pesky animals has become. Rachel Carson demonstrates, “In southern Indiana, for example, a group of farmers went together in the summer of 1959 to engage a spray plane to treat an area of river bottomland with parathion. The area was a favored roosting site for thousands of blackbirds that were feeding in nearby cornfields. The problem could have been solved easily by a slight change in agricultural practice,” (12-19.) By presenting an example in which poision seems to be the answer and then presenting an uncomplicated solution which would benefit the ecosystem and the farmers, she is emphasizing how simple it is to destroy the Earth. To add on, when the author utilizes the words “easily” and “slight” she brings the audience’s attention to her critical tone by accenting the transparent fix. As the audience is exposed to how mindless their actions were with the the parathion, they understands the author’s discontent of the dangerous manipulation of the farmland.

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.

The relationship between humans and their environment is a topic that engenders much debate. Humans are intellectual. They can think, reason, feel and make deductions or hypothesis and seek to solve or prove their deductions or theories. The environment on the other hand is inanimate and exists by means of natural laws and principles that govern the universe. It cannot prevent man’s exploitations; it cannot take up arms and fight. However, in its own way, by natural laws, it makes efforts to purge and renew itself from the effects of man’s endeavors. Mangor (2002) argues that like the ocean that

The first is that humans needs and natures needs are two separate issues. The idea that they're not irrevocably intertwined is inane, because we want the environment to thrive so that we can continue to exploit it. The second misconception is our reliance on technological advances that may or may not happen to save the environment. This diamond implies is a foolish thing to do, as many monumental issues are all waiting to be fixed with technology that isn't coming, or that if it does ever come, it won't be an instantaneous thing. Third and finally, is the perception that those who fear for the environment are fear-mongers, doom-sayers, and rabble rousers. Their cries of warning falling on deaf ears because the effects of environmental damage has yet to reach the public. While the citizens of America may not feel the effects, there's a great many third world countries that do and are. Places where overpopulation and famine are rampant are prime spots for wars, terrorism, and emigration which then spreads the very same problems to other

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.

This environmentally friendly objective is quite the opposite of Americans’ scouring past to use up all the resources on the continent. Today, Americans know that they must create a sustainable future so that their descendants can survive on this planet for generations to come. To understand this current American ideal, one must look at the past and the damage that has been done through

The essay opens up with McKibben talking about how the political campaign against global warming is flawed because at our current point there is nothing much that can be done to fix it.(Mckibben,1) He then goes to state that humans are the biggest culprit behind global warming and supports this by giving examples such as SUVs and American ignorance.(2,9) He concludes by saying that if ten percent of America were to go green, it still would not save the planet, but ten percent could get the government’s attention to pass laws making everyone go green. (11)

As we continue to grow and have a greater impact on the Earth’s systems, it is essential that we address our role and relationship with nature. The separation of humans from nature encourages environmentally irresponsible behavior because it allows us to take on the conqueror role, giving us the ability to manipulate the landscape with the duty to provide and proliferate. Throughout human history, we have made advancements in technology and agriculture, resulting in the imbalance and overuse of land. The ability of humans to manipulate the landscape and recognize the consequences of doing so makes us an invasive species. Our dependency on Earth’s resources and services put us at competition with the environment. In order to understand our role

Bob Mondello, the author of the article, is wary of the future of our planet. He thinks that if we as a society do not try to change our habits, then we could end up like the BNL

Contemporary scientist Edward O. Wilson captures the opposing viewpoints of environmentalism based discourses through satirical language. In Wilson’s literary work The Future of Life, the author, by use of candid tone, frequent hyperbole and an appeal to pathos, is able to satirize the unproductiveness of such discussions.

Everyone in my generation has probably grown up seeing ads or watching videos about pollution or about the environment in general, so much, to the point that these constant reminders about protecting our planet are already part of the norm for us. While these reminders have had positive effects, like how more and more people have become informed of the Earth’s condition, many people, myself included, still remain indifferent to the threats our environment faces. I won’t lie; I’m no saint or crusader for the cause, but every now and then certain videos or articles strike a chord within me and makes me reflect on the way how I’ve been living affects the environment. One such article was the one we read last week in class, “The Sixth Extinction” by Elizabeth Kolbert in the Upfront magazine.

In a slightly facetious fashion, scientist Edward O. Wilson points out to the general public both sides of the coin in regards to environmentalism and conservation of natural resources. He appeals to the emotional, logical and ethical sides of readers by pointing out the harsh effect that the desires and actions of both “radical environmentalism” and “anti- environmentalists” can have on the economy and working class citizens. These passages both comically show the overwhelming consequences that the extreme of any one standpoint can bring.

Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong in human conduct. Environmental ethics studies the effects of human’s moral relationships on the environment and everything within it (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). The ethical principles that govern those relations determine human duties, obligations, and responsibilities with regard to the Earth’s natural environment and all of the animals and plants that inhabit it (Taylor, 1989). The purpose of this paper is to reveal environmental issues that are threatening the existence of life on Earth, and discus our social obligations to refrain from further damaging our environment, health and life for future generations. I will discus the need for appropriate actions and the ethical