He states that humans are a part of this world and we have every right to utilize its resources but our “rapidification” (fast paced life style) conflicts with how slowly nature works, and thus results in a deficit and pollution. He then discusses the impact of economic statues in different countries and how they impact their abilities to adjust their local methods to reduce the amount of impact they have on nature. Whereas more wealthy countries have the means of minimizing their impact, but more often than not, choose to do nothing. If change is ever to occur, humanity must work together to solve the problem that they causes, no single person will be able to be the solution. Overall, Pope Francis takes a very neutral approach to his argument, where he discusses the issues, but choses to blame humanity as a …show more content…
Yet, perhaps this type of pitch towards environmental reformation is what humanity needs to finally do something about saving the environment. Unlike Pope Francis, Klein draws a clear line between humanity and nature. She sees the connection between each other, but their beings are separate. Pope Francis, taking a more gentle approach, persuades his readers that Earth is everyone’s home, and we all need to take responsibility for what is being done to it. Like predator and prey, humans are eating away at nature and, if over consumed, we will be left with nothing to sustain ourselves and humanity will starve itself. Her strict visions may be something humanity needs to finally start making a change towards saving our planet. Regardless of who we listen to, they are both sending out the same message that involves humans becoming more conscious of their actions, taking the proper steps towards being more eco-friendly, and working together for a greater