The Future Of Life By Edward O Wilson

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

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

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 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.

One thing Wendell Berry wants these graduates, the next generation, to avoid is not to make the mistake of mislabeling things as “planetary”. One example he uses is how the environmental

Thesis what worries me about the future ? This question is difficult for others to answer it because their are tennagers who are getting older in life and they think about how their future is going to be. Often the answer changes as you get older. The texts that we looked at are Anthem by Ayn Rand, “Emancipation Proclamation,” by Abraham Lincoln, Prometheus from Greek Mythology, “Critical Thinking video by Leo, and a Socratic Seminar. I am a person who is stubborn and determined person.

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 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.

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

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.

In the article “Why Bother” by Michael Pollan, the author addresses the issue of climate change and what we as individuals can do. Pollan starts by making the primary assertion that it is up to each individual to change their habits of mind to curtail the current climate crisis. He believes that by the simple act of gardening it will severely help the situation at hand. During the course of Pollan’s article he gives many examples of what he believes we are doing wrong and how we can change. Through the use of many different rhetorical strategies he is able to support his case very effectively. Pollan clearly states the situation and purpose of his article, along with minor and major claims to support his ideas.

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.

Modernism represents an optimistic view of human impact on the environment that has been the dominant viewpoint for the last 200 years. The knowledge that mankind holds the ability to control the environment heavily stresses why climate change is not such a problem to worry about. One of the core beliefs of the modernistic perspective is that people have no need to fear future environmental disaster because the next technological advancement that will prevent it is right around the corner. Furthermore, those who share this view do not include themselves in their image of the ecosystem, believing they are detached from it. Lastly, a laissez-faire approach is taken to environmental problems, focusing on progression through technology, stressing that as long as progress is made in this area all problems will be fixed. For a modernist, climate change is nothing to worry about. This may be a real situation, but it will be solved with advancements in technology before one’s way of life is changed. What people should be worrying about is ensuring a laissez faire approach to the market with sponsorship to new technologies. As a result of reusable energy technology already existing, modernists believe that the problem of climate change has been solved and without disrupting free market system these technologies will be further implemented. As long as there are people given the opportunity to innovate, some will focus on and ultimately solve the concern of climate change. The issue of

Environmental issues have been a cause of a lot of debate in the recent past. Governments and nongovernmental organizations have been in constant consultations on how to help protect the environment. Apparently, as a result of man’s many actions, the natural environment is getting torn apart so quickly that the coming generations will not enjoy this kind of environment, unless a

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.