Environmentalists Debates

AP English Language

Per. 4 1-28-15

Environmentalists Debates

Debates on the unproductive nature of environmentalists have widely accumulated over the years. The views of who does what and to what does it avail, vary from different perspectives. In the passages written by Edward O. Wilson, Wilson expresses both points of view of the nature of environmentalists and the nature of those who critic them. Wilson separates the two groups but also relates the groups. To keep the opinions clear Wilson often switches his tone between satirical and critical. Each passage exposes the flaws of one another by providing a multitude of criticisms.

            The first passage opens by using the way people address environmentalists or, “environmental wackos” (line 4). The use of the names is an opening tactic Wilson uses to prepare the audience for the next set of insults that come, which attack the environmentalist’s political position. According to the “people-first critics”, environmentalists have a, “hidden agenda that always comes from the left, usually far left.” Wilson uses these accusations to state the obvious. Groups always accuse each other of power play. What use is this? One can accuse another but that doesn’t accomplish much. Wilson then ends by making a parallel between the power play to the people first critics want for “a strong, growing free-market economy…” In doing this Wilson shows that it apparently isn’t just the “wackos” who are concerned with where the power lay.

            Each passage is also shown to reflect one another. The pro-environmentalists are opened with their stereotypical names against the “brown-lashers” or “sage brush rebels” (line 39-42). Wilsons parallel shows that the argument of the environmentalists may as well have the same structure as that of the critics. The passage then summarizes what the environmentalists feel “right-wing” (line 47) critics have on their agendas. They’re apparently empty agenda from the views of the environmentalists.

            Both passages contain and reflect the same backhanded remarks you’d find in any children’s discussions. Wilson effectively express the views of both sides also showing how each side is flawed. Not directly stating any of it its clear that neither side is coming in with credible sources or providing a strong support to base their notions on, They try to do this through accusation and assaulting one another making hast generalizations.