Richard Louv The Last Child

In 2008, Robert Louv wrote a book titled Last Child in the Woods which elucidates the expanding gap between people and nature. Louv develops an argument in one section of the book that states technology is the cause for the separation of people- specifically those of the technological generation- and nature. In the passage from Last Child in the Woods, Louv uses anaphora, rhetorical questions, and appeals to ethos to develop his argument regarding the gap technology is forming between people and nature.

Since the dawn of mankind, clusters of innovations throughout history have allowed for societal progression at an explosive rate. While primarily fostering a centrifugal system of advancements; humans’ interests in expansion is spiraling out of control. Throughout history elements of collapse can be traced through civilizations and natural resources. Wright’s argument posits humans have hyperextended their utilization of resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, therein by setting up the world for the largest ecological collapse in history (Wright, 2004, pg. 130-131). Due to the cyclical process of past collapse and reformation humans have an advantage to rectify our current consumption rates ultimately avoiding a fate similar to past societies (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). As such Wright’s argument should frame larger discussions of responsible citizenship.

The contrast between technology and humans is talked about in Richard Louv’s article from Last Child in the Woods. He uses great strategies to get his point across to the readers. Louv wants everyone to realize how the times have changed and how important technology has become in our lives. He wants to give us a better understanding of how technology has changed our lives. In this article Louv uses rhetorical strategies to prove to his readers that his points are valid. These strategies are telling stories, using important names, and making jokes.

The use of technology in society today has drastically increased and has became difficult to comprehend. To the point where it started to consume people’s lives no matter how hard they strived to be individuals, and it drew a wedge between society and nature. In Richard Louv’s passage, “Last Child In The Woods,” he emphasizes how over time the relationship between people and nature has declined by using rhetorical strategies such as imagery, anecdotes, and hypothetical examples.

Essay three contains my response to Charles Yu’s highly emotional take on technology. Initially, I chose the topic simply due to my interest with technology without sufficiently analyzing the article. As I read more deeply into his tone, word choice, and argument structure, I found a poorly backed argument based almost

Zbigniew Brzezinski once said “no matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using environment to manipulate behavior for national advantages to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades” Throughout the years, humans have seen a significant amount of technology advancements and its implication for human beings and the environment. M.T. Anderson’s novel “Feed” gives readers a representation of ing aa future dystopian world, one in which technology is not just around us but implanted inside our heads. Anderson draws parallels between our society and that of the feed which creates an ominous warning for our own society. The environment turns into a disaster due to how rapidly technology is advancing.

In the article “Is Technology Neutral,” Whelchel discusses whether or not technology is morally neutral. Towards the beginning of the article, Whelchel briefly mentions two viewpoints on this question, a viewpoint from Melvin Kranzberg and a viewpoint from Arnold Pacey. These viewpoints seem to coincide with the common-sense view and the strong view perspectives of the neutrality of technology. It is evident that these two arguments of the neutrality of technology are vastly different, but there does not seem to be a clear-cut answer on which of these viewpoints can be used as the ultimate answer to the question of whether or not technology is neutral.

Looking at the world today we can clearly see the dominance of humans and their creations on Earths surface. Many people see what we have done as brilliant and almost super natural and I agree to these comments to an extent. It is true, looking throughout history and where we started we have accomplished an unbelievable amount of discoveries and inventions. No other animals is as skill, as innovative, and as motivated as we are, but there is a question we must ask due to these creations. Beginning the 21st century, many research labs across the world can manipulate and create nature. For example, just merely 2 years after this century began researchers at the state college of New York in Buffalo had been experimenting with genetic technology and they were able to change the color of butterflies wings. Has the human gone so far they've created a wedge between themselves and nature? After asking this question there's also the question of whether or not this is a good thing. Richard Louv voices his opinion on this question and supports his ideas perfectly. His opinion being, synthetic nature is irrelevant to true nature and using rhetorical strategies he can quickly convince many people of his ideas.

We’re so concerned about the text that arrived two minutes ago that we may not see the car that’s swerving onto the sidewalk. Look what society and humanity have come to! And if I was to point fingers, it would so be at technology. I mean, what else is dehumanising us? Using some as test subjects or experiments? Or ripping us from our social skills? So today, I shall prove to you all that technology without a doubt has a negative impact on humanity. The radio play, Flowers for Algernon is a character study of one man, Charlie Gordon. Charlie is a 32-year-old developmentally disabled man who has the opportunity to undergo a surgical procedure that will dramatically increase his mental capabilities. This text is a source of evidence that technology has negatively impacted

Rhetorical Analysis In the article, “Is Science Dangerous,” Lewis Wolpert, author and developmental biologist, creates an image which deflects the idea that scientists may be the cause of unethical behavior and moral let down in society. Wolpert aims to convince his audience by claiming ethical issues arises only when science is applied to technology. Science itself isn’t a threat to humanity, rather the ramifications that come from technology and how it is used, or misused in some cases. Lewis Wolpert writes that technology is not science and that they are not considered to be one.

Searle: I partly agree to your statement, but I observe that you are inclined to ignore the concept of technology and the wonders that it can perform. Furthermore, just as you are able to persuade other individuals in thinking that they make decisions for themselves, it is probable that someone else influences you and the decisions that you make without allowing you to understand that you are being manipulated.

The human race has come a long way since its beginning many years ago. Over time, we have learned how to use our surroundings and the environment to our advantage in order to improve our way of living. As more and more years go by, we use more and more of our resources, some which are non-renewable. As we continue to do this year after year, decade after decade and century after century, we come across the dilemma of a shortage in resources. In order to preserve these resources, we move on to a different source and run that supply dry as well. This is an example of being bad environmental stewards. This vicious cycle has been continued for years and nothing has been done to stop it; sooner or later we will run out of resources to use and the results of this will be devastating. Of course, everything that happens causes a reaction some way or another that usually are not beneficial. This is exactly what is happening as we use up the resources around us and it can be seen in three major ways: the extinction of animals, mass pollution and global warming. This essay will discuss how the overconsumption of resources leads to these three ways and how they are affecting us as the human race.

Human-caused global environmental changes are the result of a rapidly growing population and our high dependencies on non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels (Vitousek, 1994). We are part of a consumerist society which keeps us plugged into this dependency on cheap fossil fuels (Ahmed, 2012). Our intensive industrial and agricultural activities cause us to exploit the Earth’s resources, and we cannot continue on this path. Ahmed (2012) explains that this does not mean the end of the world, but it does mean that this is the end of a particular form of industrial civilization which is based upon the idea of unlimited growth.

Before the use of technology, humans had to solely rely on the environment to fulfill their daily needs. Humans respected, and even feared nature for its destructive capabilities. Before the use of technology, humans were connected with nature at an almost spiritual level. They knew how to use the environment and sustain it at the same time. Before technology, there was a natural balance between nature and humans. Unfortunately, as humans developed by advancing in industry and technology, a lot of the respect and fear once held for nature was lost, which lead to an increase in the occurrences of environmental problems. The more humans used technology, the more they imposed themselves on the environment, and the more their connection with

In today’s society, people who proclaim their love for the environment are depicted as “tree huggers” or hippies. With technology being the focus of everyone’s lives these days, it makes sense that people with those concerns would be given a negative connotation. However, this does not mean that it is right or okay. Pope Francis claims that the “technocratic paradigm” is the fault for our negative relationship with the environment. The technocratic paradigm is the controversy that arises involving the interference of technological innovations with what we are called to do. Although there are certainly magnificent pros to the advancements in the world made by technology, especially in the medical field, there are cons that come along with it, and the environment is taking the direct hit of them. Technology today is strictly used in order to improve the lives of individuals and society, not the environment (Pope Francis, p. 52). The