Rhetorical Analysis Of Richard Louv

Ira C. Herbert, an executive of the Coca-Cola company, and Richard Seavers, a representative of Grove Press, are the speakers of their own respective letters and they both focus on the motto “It’s the real thing”. Herbert’s purpose is to convince Seavers to stop using the motto “It’s the real thing” and to use a different one and Seavers purpose is to address Herbert’s concerns about the motto and defends his company’s right to keep using the motto. Herbert adopts a friendly tone in order to point out what Seaver was doing, using the same slogan Coca-Cola uses. Seaver adopts a serious tone to guide Herbert what had happened to Herbert and the company of Coca-Cola. Herbert and Seaver use different rhetorical strategies in order to persuade

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 his 2008 novel, Last Child in the Woods, journalist and natural idealist Richard Louv demonstrates the effect that separation from nature has on children. Using a variety of rhetorical strategies, Louv reminds the different parents, as agree cohort which adapted alongside new technology, of the benefits they received from nature prior to the technological revolution. Louv persuades them to instill an appreciation of the natural world in their children, even if such appreciation deviates from societal norms.

In his article, “What are People For”, Wendell Berry muses that technological progress serves no purpose in the grand scheme of things, cynically notes that the “higher aims of ‘technological progress’ are money and ease”. By condoning this materialistic outlook of life that afflicts society with a “cultish faith in the future”, Berry urges his audience to consider taking part in a community that appreciates life in the present. Berry heralds truth in his argument that technological advancement, even ones made with good intentions, inevitably contaminates society because it enables twisted misuse of power and serves to strain human relationships.

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.

Louv uses this example to prove how people are trying to change nature, not get closer to it. He goes on to say that the most obvious reason of why we are getting farther away from nature is because of technology. Louv believs technology is what is driving us apart from experenicing all the wonders nature has to offer us such as, "children's early understanding of how cities and nature fit together. " The example

Unlike most of the persuasive essays needed many “power” words to persuade readers, R. Crumb’s comic, “A Short History of America”, reflects the change of the natural, ecological landscape to urban area without using any words. Nevertheless, his drawing deeply shows us the down side of the urbanization and we human-being are destroying our indispensable nature. We are going the exact opposite direction to a better life; we are going to live in the life where we totally rely on technology and advanced, luxurious materials. Humans will never be satisfied and keep changing. However, while we’re keeping changing, have we ever asked: What are we doing to our nature?

It cannot be denied that, in at least some areas, the invention and progression of technology has benefitted the human race. With the growing industrialization of the world in the last centuries the lives of many people have been made easier. But, this growth of technology is not without its consequences and people are not without their concerns. While industrialization has had its benefits, the environmental cost of this progress is immense, and the impact it has on nature can be hard to swallow. It may seem like talk of the environment is something to be left to scientists or activists specializing in that particular field, but they are

Improvement of technology and its use has been the foundation for American economics. Although such innovation does create jobs, customs, and cultures that contribute to the American lifestyle, it can also create pollution that harms the environment and brings about environmental injustice. People focus on outcome effects of a certain project. Whether its main goal is for economic gains, to help improve the way American people live, or even if it is harming the ecosystem in any way, they will intervene. However, what people don’t pay attention to is the tool that is being used to accomplish such goals that can produce complications as it relates to the environment and injustice that comes with the utilization of technology.

Richard Louv, the author of this essay, Expresses that humans have gotten away from their roots in nature. He explains that we try to advertise through-out nature, and that we have technology in every part of our life. He explains that people need to get away from technology, and find nature.

In today's world, the real meaning of technology is not understood and known by all. Technological innovations do not worry people, unless of course, they are done to things we eat or use as medications or ones that affect our lives in any way. Often we do not think of things such as seedless fruits and antibiotics as technology. However, if we look deep into the meaning of technology, it is bought about my human beings and changes the environment so our goals can be met and in such a case even fruits become technology. (Cowan 301-326)

Richard Louv is trying to express that the technology that our lives now revolve around is what makes us feel that heart-aching feeling of depression that we feel after not being around nature for a long period of time. However, he states that the least expensive way to cure this sort of depression is to surround yourself in nature and just observe what occurs. The way he words his quote is perfect for the message he is trying to convey of technology not necessarily being an atrocious idea, but an invention that people occasionally need to put down and walked away from. Fortunately, he knows that nature is a necessity that most people ignore until they

As we enter the twenty-first century, it is clear that many things about our method of interacting with our environment are different than in previous centuries, and that, in fact, the very philosophy of the man-nature interaction may change again. Some look forward to these changes. Others are fearful or condemnatory. In many cases, people implicitly or explicitly argue that certain technologies are unnatural. They claim that while certain technologies may be useful, other technologies represent a form of Nature manipulation and this that tinkering is unwise. Since this argument may appear in many places, it is important to critically analyze it. I feel that this argument is the arbitrary reaction

Nature is merely our instrument of conquering one another. By manipulating what already exists, we create everything from nuclear warheads to high speed internet. The continuous competition between men feeds off of our technological advancement—none of which would be possible without the resources Nature provides for us. And rather than being grateful for the unequivicable power so generously offered us by our environment, we instead mock its existence. We distract from the cunningness and cruelty of our efforts toward mankind by relabeling our target ‘Nature’ rather than ‘each other’. By convincing ourselves we are somehow beginning to have Nature within our control and understanding, we forget that Nature is really only the means, not the end of our conquest. We will not be satisfied until we have defeated ourselves. As Lewis puts it, “Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won… But who, precisely, will have won it?” (The Abolition of Man, 421)

The technological fix to environmental problems leads to sustainability that frames earth as a recyclable, renewable, and, ultimately, replaceable resource. Fixing the problem in the sense of conserving, regenerating, and nourishing the resource base of capitalism. It is no longer an issue of how to convince people to accept and promote sustainability, but of whether we can and how to overcome the alienation and reification from nature that had emerged with capitalism, industrialization, and urbanization? It is critical to consider whether we can ever approach Nature in an non-ideological way or are all attempts to capture Nature, theoretically, poetically or narratively, nothing more than our own appropriation of it?