Will this century mark the decline of society? Is the future safe from the mistakes of mankind? In “Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene”, Roy Scranton suggests that the question we should be asking ourselves about global warming is not whether it exists or how it can be stopped, but rather how are we going to deal with it. The purpose of the article is to convince everyone that current life is unsustainable, and that nothing can be done to reverse the process; we must acknowledge that the future will be drastically different and plan in advance if civilization is to keep moving forward. Dr. Scranton develops a realistic tone that relies on logos, pathos, and ethos appeals to persuade readers of his claim. Scranton sufficiently backs up …show more content…
According to the World Bank’s report, climatologists predict greenhouse gases will cause temperatures to rise 7.2 degrees before the next century (par. 8). While the rise in temperature might seem trivial, Scranton elaborates on the detrimental effects this change would cause by quoting James Clapper. Mr. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, argues that extreme weather disasters will “increasingly disrupt food and energy markets, exacerbating state weakness, forcing human migrations, and triggering riots, civil disobedience, and vandalism” (par. 7). Dr. Scranton mentions these sources in order to convince the audience that an increase of only a few degrees can have a devastating impact that will inevitably leave the planet radically different during this epoch; the current epoch we live in, named the Anthropocene, is a term invented by geologist and scientists for the epoch that is “characterized by the arrival of the human species as a geological force” (par. 10). The name of the epoch inspired Scranton to title the article “Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene” since it reaffirms his claim that we must accept that the future will not be the same as the present. Furthermore, Scranton includes a book in his article written by geophysicist David Archer incase readers remain skeptical of the scientific evidence with …show more content…
He includes references from scientists with different backgrounds and public statements from government officials to support the claims that he made. Not only that, Scranton is a doctoral candidate in English at Princeton University, and he has written for The New York Times, Boston Review, and Theory & Event. Also, Scranton has published a novel about the Iraq war. His achievements and academic background certainly increase his credibility. His scientific and political sources add to his credibility even more so. The examples included in the logos paragraph is only a representation of the evidence featured in his article hence the use of the plural version of scientists and government officials in this essay. Even though Dr. Scranton has credible sources, he does fail to consider a portion of UTA readers. He mentions that the “question is no longer whether global warming exists” but instead questions how we are going to deal with it (par. 9). As a result, Scranton ignores the readers that might not believe in global warming; he does not recognize this small audience in his article, and as a consequence, readers might find Scranton to be slightly arrogant. Despite the failure to acknowledge this alternate view, Scranton does have the public’s interests at heart. The purpose of the article is to convince readers to take action and help save humanity
A similar message that appears in his book that appeared in the aforementioned speech was the impact of the media speculation. The book addresses this in two examples. One was presented with the news of a lawsuit that an island called Vantu would file against the EPA; yet the lawsuit would never move forward due to it only serving a purpose to launder money and raise awareness to global warming that was never proven to affect the island. The other was shown to be environmental scientist who received their funding from environmental organizations, such as NERF in the book. These scientists would often have to go against their findings and report what the organizations wanted them to, or possibly lose their funding. Additionally, the book profoundly took opposition to the claim of global warming. This is presented in the form of the main character, Peter Evans, who has been manipulated into believing everything that the media has told him about global warming. It isn’t until John Kenner is introduced, that Peter begins got learn the truth about global warming. The author uses specific evidence to back his claims, specifically he uses a wide array of resources to verify his claim that Antarctica is not in fact melting, but getting colder and thickening. Furthermore, another essential concept that that book introduces is environmental extremists, or bioterrorism. These characters in the book would stop at nothing to make sure that everyone believed in global warming, and tried to destroy parts of the world to succeed in their mission. Bioterrorists are best represented as a warning of what could happen if people continue to buy into the media’s lies without having conclusive evidence to back up their
The global climate changes have brought devastating geographical changes over the last century. With unfunded solutions and internal political conflicts driven by pure ignorance, our species has begun digging its own grave. Roy Scranton, author of “Learning how to Die in the Anthropocene”, has already begun contemplating the inevitable. By incaptivating his readers with his detailed description of his military past; he draws a parallel to the future he describes as inescapable. Using descriptive logic and overwhelming emotion, Scranton successfully convinces that in order to live in the new age us humans have forged, we must learn how to die.
Many people’s opinions are influenced by political leaders and their beliefs, which can have a negative effect on science’s efforts. Mere word changes have shown to make a difference in people’s willingness to pay for taxes that they don’t necessarily support or are even aware of. The use of storytelling has shown to be a powerful means in communicating science to the public as well. Although education and science understanding are not directly correlated with the acceptance of climate science, there is evidence that shows that a brief explanation of greenhouse effects “enhance acceptance across the political spectrum”. Researching source credibility has also boosted the political acceptance of certain scientific information.
Mr. McKibben provides a strong argument call of action for everyone to take action against global warming. But he doesn 't just want action, Mr. Mckibben is demanding action now, and lots of it. Throughout the passage, Meltdown: Running Our of Time on Global Warming, the reader can examine the many ways that McKibben attempts to persuade others to join his movement. When one examines Bill McKibben 's use of rhetoric appeals, persuasive fallacies, and counter augments, A reader can analyze and understand the real claim that the writer is attempting to address.
One key premise that these excerpts rely on is the idea that the changes caused by global warming are irreversible. McKibben argues that we have gone past the point where even drastic changes to how we live couldn’t prevent the worsening of global warming. Even if we were to do “everything possible to make ourselves lean and efficient” the research indicates that is “‘improbable’ that we’d be able to stop short of 650 parts per million [of carbon dioxide],” nearly twice the acceptable amount (McKibben 2010, 13). The author also believes that the changes of global warming are permanent because we can’t reclaim what we are losing. The rainforest, coral reefs, and glacial ice are disappearing and “Once trends like this get rolling, we can’t slow them. We don’t know how to refreeze the Arctic or regrow a rain forest” (McKibben 2010, 28). According to McKibben, the world has reached this point, at least in part, because we have already surpassed the acceptable amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which 350 parts per million. We learned that too late according to McKibben because by the time the research supporting this idea was presented the planet’s atmosphere already had nearly 390 parts per million of carbon dioxide (McKibben 2010, 12). For the author these irrevocable changes mean that “The earth that we knew—the only earth that we ever knew—is gone” (McKibben 2010, 18) which leads to the heart of the text, the idea that civilization will be just as irreversibly changed as the world.
“It’s the end of the world as we know it.” In addition to being the lyrics to a very popular song, these words represent the beliefs that Michael Pollan expresses in his article, “Why Bother?” Michael Pollan is an award-winning American journalist who maintains quite a passion for the climate crisis that seems to plague our news. In addition to writing many books on environmental conservatism, he teaches journalism at the University of California - Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. Sadly, in this article, it seems as if Pollan gives in to his own titular question and surrenders to the force of climate change.
Bill McKibben's "The Environmental Issue from Hell" argues that climate change is a real and dire concern for humanity. His essay deals with the methods and persuasive arguments needed to spur American citizens and the government on to change to more eco-friendly choices. The arguments he proposes are based largely upon emotional appeals calling for empathy and shame, and examples of what in our daily lives is adding to the changes we're seeing in the climate.
This video successfully uses the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos to support its claims on climate change. The way National Geographic uses ethos, or credibility, for this video is strong and thought out. The main speaker is none other than Bill Nye, who most students grew up watching in elementary school; to learn different aspects of science; and is a very respectable and credible speaker for this topic, of climate change. Nye graduated from Cornell University with a degree in mechanical engineering, then moved to Seattle, Washington to work as an engineer for Boeing and ultimately became a science educator, winning educational awards for his famous program, “Bill Nye the Science Guy”(Biography.com). Nye has extremely credible credentials to be able to speak about this topic of science, who speaks in a serious, concerned and informative manner to grab the attention of the viewer and explain that climate change is a serious affair that needs to be acted upon.
Scranton believes that human beings are killing present life by ignoring the effects of global warming on the world. He continues to warn the reader that change is coming regardless of what people do now and that they human race must prepare for what is inevitably coming, as it will be the collapse of global civilization as it is known. Scranton states that this time we are living in, the anthropocene, presents humans with multiple challenges but mostly, “what it means to be human” (page 234). How to control the inevitable
Friedman argues that the age we live in should now be called the "Energy-Climate Era" and then explains what he means by calling the world "Hot, Flat, and Crowded". ”Hot” refers to the rapid warming trend that is being observed by scientists all over the world as a result of the massive carbon dioxide emission since the industrial revolution in America; “Crowded” refers to the rampant population growth occurring throughout the world; and “Flat” refers to the rapid trend of globalization that has swept over the world because of advancements in technology, which have given us so many more capabilities and more connectedness but have also estranged a large group of people who do not have access to energy and technology. This tricolonic problem that Friedman outlines is entirely correct and by asserting these things about our current world, Friedman is able to establish eloquently that the central problem facing us is global climate change as a direct result of the energy crisis. He elucidates that if global climate change is ignored it will drive “global weirding,” meaning that carbon dioxide emission will not only make the world hotter, melt the polar ice caps, and cause major areas of terrain to be engulfed by the ocean, but it will probably cause unpredictable climate changes in a variety of places on the globe at an unpredictable rate. In fact, global warming may send the earth into another ice age.
In the article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, written by Bill Mckibben, he firstly opens up by saying that back in 2012, according to the statistics, we surpassed the global record high for climate temperature in our nation, destroying other previous records. Despite the research and the displaying of data, nobody is doing anything to adress the following issue. Mckibben outlines three distinctive numbers that outline the following issue., 2 degrees celsius, 565 gigations, and 2795 gigtons, which he uses to validitate and support his argument. Firstly, the ongoing problem of climate change in society is fundamentally a matter of individual moral responsibility that is inspired by the insight individuals are intentionally harming the environment. Secondly there is yet to be an effective collective state response to the issue of global warming, despite approaching two full decades of ongoing and reoccuring negotiations and the very near universal participation by states in the UNFCCC. Thirdly, because this issue has been put on hold for longer than it was innitially expected, greenhouse gases are being emitted into our atmosphere, polluting our environment. The South-North issue and an ongoing debate comes into effect as all the greenhouse gases that are created and used in the Northern hemisphere are being emmited into the southern hemisphere. Hence, my thesis is; despite the fact that global warming and climate change has been an ongoing problem globally for years, humanity has failed to resolve thiis issue as it quickly begins to escalate.
The hottest recorded temperature was in 2005 which matched the temperature in 1998. Twice in the last decade we've had the hottest temperature on average ever recorded throughout history. Coincidence. I think not. The snows of the Kilimanjaro have basically vanished and in a couple decades Glacier National park is going to need a new name because by 2030 there will be no glaciers left in the whole park. The great Greenland icecaps are melting at an alarming pace, and sliding into the sea. Your right, who cares it's not like its happening near us. But by 2100 all our coastal states will look like Venice including ours. You won?t be alive but your children and grandchildren will. The sea level is expected to rise up to 23 inches in the next decade. There has been a 100 percent increase in intensity and duration of hurricanes and tropical storms since 1970 according to a 2005 MIT study. How much more evidence do we need before someone does something about this? For anyone who cares at all about the future, the gradual transformation of our earth is turning into a human-furnace that makes terrorism look like a game of monopoly. Think I'm kidding? By 2050, 15-37% of all plant and animal species could be extinct. Meaning it will be harder for plants to produce photosynthesis. No big right? Wrong. Without photosynthesis, oxygen can?t be made. Most of us in this room will be in our late 60?s by then with children and grandchildren. What does that mean for them? The air will be harder to breath and the temperature of earth will have increased by 2 degrees Fahrenheit. By 2050 up to 38% of water will be unable to hold underwater species because of rising temperature.
Our world is always changing, so is our climate. Some changes are apparent, others not so much. Climate change is an important issue of concern in the twenty-first century. Environment, if it changes at all, evolves so slowly that the difference cannot be seen in a human lifetime (Wearth, 2014). Mostly all scientists predicted that it would take thousands of years for the planet to warm up due to emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels called greenhouse gases. But in the past 200 years, things began to change. The rate and the amount of warming that is happening on this planet are unprecedented. Wearth says, “People did not grasp the prodigious fact that both population and industrialization were exploding in a pattern of exponential
The first part of this essay discusses what the human species has done to deal with the problem of climate change. While some improvements have been made, the problem has not been addressed aggressively enough to stop the damage. What is amazing about this is the denial of so many people that problems exist. If they do realize the risks, they are simply not taking actions to contain the damage.
One of the most substantial problems in the world today is global warming. This gradual warming of the earth is in occurrence at an extremely slow rate but it is happening. Many scientists believe that as human’s work and release greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere, it can become dangerous for the long lasting life of humans and our environment. “Unless we take immediate action, the impacts of global warming will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly and damaging, and increasingly affect the entire planet - including you, your community, and your family” (“Global Warming Impacts”). Everyone should be knowledgeable about global warming and the dangers that it brings to our planet. This essay will examine