In the twenty-first century, awareness of the environment has dramatically increased as it begins to suffer at the hands of humans. Discussions on protecting the world’s luscious ecosystems have multiplied. Groups of so-called “environmentalists” and their critics flock at the chance to throw their opinion in. Though strong-minded, the intent of these people are seriously doubted by those such as contemporary scientist Edward O. Wilson. In his satiric and forward book The Future of Life, Wilson employs a slippery slope logical fallacy, classic name-calling, and sarcasm in order to illustrate the unproductive nature of such discussions. The average person cannot pick up on a logical fallacy at first sight, making it an effective tool to be utilized by Wilson. He claims that an environmentalist college student lacking credentials will find an endangered spider in a person’s property and that this will lead all the way to shutting down said person’s property. The thought of this would not have come up in a discussion about …show more content…
From “hypocrites” to “the wackos,” Wilson name-calls these groups in order to lighten the weight of his argument. As opposed to the norm of name-calling, his intent is not to maliciously offend these people. In fact, without these words, Wilson’s argument would be excessively powerful and slightly overbearing. Words such as “wackos” are used more often in a comical sense than in an offensive one. This shows that although Wilson harshly criticizes these people, he wishes to release the metaphoric gas pedal he is pressing in order to appear less headstrong. Productive discussions truly only occur between those who have productive intentions, and wackos and hypocrites do not generally fit this description. Because of this, Wilson is able to sufficiently prove that the discussions between these two groups of people will remain unproductive until their intentions
Both works provide valuable insight into the political atmosphere of American society, but vary greatly in their intended message, usage of persuasive method, projected audience, and choice of tone. One can see resemblance, however, in the fact that the authors of both articles strive to spark a reaction in their readers and encourage change. In that regard, while Hedges’
In David Brook’s, “One Nation Slightly Divisible” and Jonathan Rauch’s, “In Defense Of Prejudice, both writers make valid points. Both authors also have a common technique; Brook’s and Rauch seem to have biased viewpoints towards the subject matter. But although these two authors share this similarity, one author stands out in how he uses the bias to his advantage or even to the advantage of the audience to better understand and be convinced by his ideology. Although both authors seem to have biased viewpoints, their bias fuels their arguments in efforts to successfully fulfill their purpose. David Brook’s appears to structure his biased viewpoint in a way that exhibits a more pervasive bias than Jonathan Rauch in how he uses the bias to incorporate
Bishop asserts that the American people are, consciously and unconsciously, segregating themselves into like-minded communities and losing any variety of thought, along with healthy debates or challenged beliefs; by doing so, these homogenously-forming groups are driving majorly divisive wedges in between one another. The amount of polarization that we are witnessing today in both the American government and public alike can be largely attributed to this communal and lifestyle segregation and it has been for a long time, though unknown to the mass public. Bishop notes that this pattern of cultural and population sorting mostly began in the 1960s, during that volatile period of riots, unrest, and revolution. Many people were dissatisfied from the conformity of the 1950s and wanted something different ...
Shuttleworth’s analysis of the current political situation illustrates the danger of Brady’s dogmatism, proving how the media’s portrayal of polarization between religious extremists and fundamental scientists can drive a lack of compromise between each group. While it is obvious that not every person on either side of this schism is dogmatic, extremist views have caused ripple effects throughout modern society. One of the most notable areas in which dogmatism within religion had lasting implications can be found by analyzing the election. According to Christiana Forrester, a reporter for the Huffington
World War I, or the Great War, lasted from 1914 to 1918. In harsh battles between some of the world’s strongest economic powers, millions of people were killed and wounded. Woodrow Wilson was the President of the United States during these years, and he yearned for peace. Towards the end of the conflict, Wilson delivered a speech called “Fourteen Points” on January 8, 1918. His goal in doing so was to create some stability in a time of crisis. Even though the leaders of some countries did not jump on board right away, they eventually agreed to signing the Treaty of Versailles, officially ending the war. Through emphasizing peace, security, and freedom, President Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” paid off overall, ultimately revealing that
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1996). Betrayal of science and reason: How anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
After reading both passages, the most prevalent taste left in the reader's mouth is one of "irony". The intention of Wilson's work is to show two views. One is of environmentalists who are upset with the critics because they are not conserving enough and are only inte...
The new shift in cultural acceptance of the times has changed the culture war. Many Americans argue that “there is a religious war going on in this country, a cultural war as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself, for this war is for the soul of America” (Fiorina). However, some argue that the culture war is only based on small differences between the Democrats and Republicans. The issue at hand is how divided the American public is today and how much time is spent on this polarization. This division is not just a small difference in parties, but more a difference in moral and religious issues.
It is generally agreed that modern environmentalism begins with ‘A Fable for Tomorrow’, the first chapter in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962). The fairytale-like opening to the book begins with the words, ‘There was once a town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings’, painting a classic pastoral picture where she describes civilization far from modern ills coexisting with nature yet away from the perceived danger of the wild. However pastoral peace swiftly gives way to destruction- 'Then a strange blight crept over the area and everything began to change. Some evil spell had settled on the community: mysterious maladies swept the flocks of chickens; the cattle and sheep
To persuade an audience to support their view, an author must establish their credibility and professionalism or else their argument will be perceived as illegitimate by the readers. Unprofessional statements such as "what's at stake as they busy themselves are your tax dollars and mine, and ultimately our freedom too" (lines 15-17) eliminates the validity of the justification made. The claim that environmentalists consume tax dollars is valid, but since it was presented in a hyperbolic and stereotypical manner, its effectiveness is lost. Exaggerating the effects of environmentalists by proposing that "our freedom" (line 17) is at stake due to the spending of tax dollars is pretentious and therefore decreases the productiveness of the argument as a whole. Stereotypical names given to both sides that are used throughout the passages such as "greens" (line 3) and "right-wingers" (lines 65-66) create a humorous tone that diminishes the credibility of the authors. Humor, a beneficial anecdote in some arguments that adds to the effectiveness when used in moderation, is excessively prevalent in the passages to the extent that both are perceived as absurd. Casual mockery such as the statement "some Bennington College student with a summer job will find an endangered red spider on your property, and before you know what happened the Endangered Species Act will be used to shut you down" (lines 19-23) augments the humorous tone of the passage and eliminates the productiveness of the assertions made. Wilson’s use of satire emphasizes the importance of not only the validity of the points made in justifying an argument, but also the diction used by the author and presentation in attributing to the argument's overall
“Carson used the era’s hysteria about radiation to snap her readers to attention, drawing a parallel between nuclear fallout and a new, invisible chemical threat of pesticides throughout Silent Spring,” (Griswold 21). She described radiation as the creation of human’s tampering with nature, and warned that similar dangers would become inevitable with the continued use of pesticides (Carson 7). Carson also knew that a large percent of her audience would be housewives, who she could use as example of those who found poisoned birds and squirrels in their gardens. She angled much of Silent Spring towards this audience, which helped her book become the catalyst for environmental change (Griswold
American liberalism has deviated from its core values and constituents hence metamorphosing into a toxic disdainful movement. Emmett Rensin in his article in Vox dubbed “The Smug Style in American Liberalism” captures these observations perfectly. He notes that through the condescending notion of knowing has alienated the contemporary liberals from their core values that were deemed progressive in the past. The movement is currently cloaked as the “monopoly on reason” and has a “defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside its consensus” (Rensin). The article infuses rhetorical strategies that are critical in advancing the author’s core message to his target audience.
Edward O. Wilson, the writer of this satire, writes about the opinions of two disagreeing sides to demonstrate the unproductive nature of these litigations. To do this, the author writes in a horatian manner and uses instances of exaggeration, parody, incongruity, and irony to help him convey his message that these arguments are pointless. The well distributed use of these strategies allows the writer to efficiently illustrate and mock the unproductive disagreement of these two groups of people.
For these reasons, global warming stands as one of the most daunting policy issues facing our world today. This is compounded by the debate over the very existence of climate change. While countless sources of empirical evidence testify to the very real presence of climate change the world over, considerable denial of the phenomenon still exists. The argument has been made that evidence about climate change is a gross overstatement, or in some cases, a complete fabrication. Despite the evidence to the contrary, many interest groups with considerable political clout have successfully perpetuated the argument that documented changes in the environment are a product of natural cyclical changes in climate, and are not associated with human activities. However, even the acceptance of this particular brand of reality is no grounds for the disregard of environmental consciousness. Even if one accepts the premise that recent climate change is not resultant of human activity, the rationale behind environmental conservation remains ...
William F. Baxter exemplifies this anthropocentric viewpoint. In his book People or Penguins: The Case of Optimal Pollution, he argues that society should respect and attempt to preserve environmental balance only if the benefits to humans outweigh the costs. Baxter claims that, since there is no normative definition of “pure” air or water, society should aim for a level of pol...