Saving Nature but Only for Man”

In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments”, Thomas Hill explores the idea that those who would destroy natural environments may lack necessary human virtues. He lays out this idea through these claims:

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

Rachel Carson’s Man and the Stream of time possesses enlightening perspectives of nature that have been marinating in her mind for ten years. Her writing reflects upon the effects that man has on nature and the role he plays in the ever changing environment. Her sole observation is that it is man’s nature to want to conquer the world, but nature is not one to be conquered. The writer affirms that nature is an entity that must be dignified, Like English poet Francis Thompson said, “Thou canst not stir a flower without troubling of a star.” Most environmentalist would agree that nature is not stationary, we cut the trees now today, its not just the trees that disappear ten years from now. As humanity advances, we create a multitude of

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.

John Muir, a brilliant Transcendentalist, has written hundreds of enlightening environmental essay to emphasize the adamant need to save these sacred kings of the forests, the Redwoods. Within Muir’s vivid and emotional entries, specifically “Save the Redwoods”, John utilizes rhetorical devices such as personification, analogy, and Religious allusion in order to express the vital need to save the trees.

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, 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 “Last Child in the Woods” the author Richard Louv argues how americans are being separated from nature and why we should stay more involved in nature. He uses several rhetorical strategies to prove his point using imagery and rhetorical questions to convey his message.

Rather, we should focus on how the satire “outlines the unproductive nature of these groups in their discussions.” In this article, we see the anti-environmentalists talking about things that almost seem pleasant when commenting on the environmentalists’ agendas. For example, one of the criticisms is that the environmental laws will create more jobs. In a nation where many citizens fear that immigrants are taking the jobs of Americans, more jobs sounds like a good thing.

Nature has played an enormous part in our lives. From the childhoods of unwanted or loved trips to the country to the issue of climate change, we have all had our part to play in the matter. And yet it affects us as well. Without the presence of nature, we would not be able to survive. Both Rachel Carson and Henry David Thoreau understand the necessity of nature and humanity's lack of love for it. However, they are not without any dissimilarity. Carson's "A Fable for Tomorrow" and Thoreau's Walden are both serious, persuasive pieces that consider the current habits of the American people to be harmful and use pathos as one of their methods to convey this message. However, the differences in time periods, messages, rhetorical effects, and approaches reveal a clear rift between the two works.

"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

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

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.