Since the environment is a hot topic in today’s news, many people have strong opinions one way or another about how people should handle environmental problems. The satirical book The Future of Life, juxtaposes two extreme ideas about environmentalism. Edward O. Wilson elaborates on the unproductive nature of headstrong, uncompromising environmental discussions by utilizing exaggerated diction, hyperbolic rhetorical question, and parallelism.
By using exaggerated diction, Wilson highlights the satirical nature of unproductive environmentalist arguments. His diction contains sarcastic phrases that convey the overall superfluousness of his point. Environmentalists being referred to as “environmental wackos” and their adversaries as “brown lashers” …show more content…
The opponents both use similar language when referring to themselves and their contender, highlighting the irony in the situation. The first section starts with using the phrase “what they usually call themselves” in the first few lines, and the second section quickly retaliates with “what they call themselves,” hardly as an original statement. Further down in the excerpt, the environmentalists call the political beliefs lying with the people-first critics “unrestrained capitalism,” mirroring the “creeping socialism” pushed by the environmentalists. Each doctrine is led by this insufferable belief that their word should be law, exemplifying the irony in the parallels in their grammar and diction. The people act self-righteous, yet use the same words as their mortal enemy in each situation. These discussions are naturally unproductive because of the stark similarities in the arguments, in conjunction with the inflexible authors. Both arguments are so homogeneous that there is little room to differentiate between beliefs. Nothing can get done and it is, quite ironically, the fault of the
By using exaggerated diction, Wilson highlights the satirical nature of unproductive environmentalist arguments. His diction contains sarcastic phrases that convey the overall superfluousness of his point. Environmentalists being referred to as “environmental wackos” and their adversaries as “brown lashers” …show more content…
The opponents both use similar language when referring to themselves and their contender, highlighting the irony in the situation. The first section starts with using the phrase “what they usually call themselves” in the first few lines, and the second section quickly retaliates with “what they call themselves,” hardly as an original statement. Further down in the excerpt, the environmentalists call the political beliefs lying with the people-first critics “unrestrained capitalism,” mirroring the “creeping socialism” pushed by the environmentalists. Each doctrine is led by this insufferable belief that their word should be law, exemplifying the irony in the parallels in their grammar and diction. The people act self-righteous, yet use the same words as their mortal enemy in each situation. These discussions are naturally unproductive because of the stark similarities in the arguments, in conjunction with the inflexible authors. Both arguments are so homogeneous that there is little room to differentiate between beliefs. Nothing can get done and it is, quite ironically, the fault of the