This article is satirizing the depletion of the world's natural resources and the conservation efforts of environmentalists. This article satirizes the world's environmentalists. The article talks about a rock as if it were an endangered species. It talks about skipping a rock into a lake like a environmentalist would talk about how cutting down one tree could affect an entire rainforest. This article also satirizes how environmentalists often never talk about the natural occurrences that can cause environmental problems, they blame most of it on the actions of humans. The article never mentions how erosion is a natural factor that is affecting the rocks, the article focuses only on how human recklessness will make rocks, "a thing of the past." This is satirical because rocks are not in danger of going extinct, the rock cycle recycles rocks, rocks don't just disappear into thin air, erode and then form other rocks. Also the world is basically made up of giant rocks! There is some truth in the article though. Our nations natural resources, such as oil and now even fresh water, were original considered to be plentiful and were used up without a care. People didn't realize that the resources were not renewable and were not careful with the amount that they used, and now our world is slowly running out of oil with no real alternatives. This article does have a good message, we do need to think about how what we do will affect our planet, but we are not in danger of loosing our beautiful rocks.
As biocentrism advocate David Diner reported a few years ago, the current rate of global development that is heavily dependent on earth's resources will lead to lack of sustainability for much of the world's population in the next half-century. While there may be arguments about the validity of global warming, no one can deny Diner's concern revealing that at initial glance the Onion News article might have some merit. However, one realizes the true purpose of the news article when looking at the subject matter which is about conserving rocks, an unnecessary measure for greater conservation. Thus, one is led to believe that this article is satirizing the often overdramatic response that environmentalists have to environmental encroachments and damages. By personifying the rock as a biotic creature, irony is heavily used. Often times, environmentalists turn to a much more radical though process than what the general populace is willing to agree with. This Onion News article thus first satirizes the disconnect between environmental reform and public sentiment. The use of pathos, a tactic that is equated to propaganda in this article, is shown as a ploy by environmentalists to trick the public. The phrase "our children" attempts to establish another form of sentimentality with rocks. However, the Onion still mocks this by playing on the overall tone of the passage - exaggeration. It also makes mockery of the logos often used by environmentalists. Much like the Diner quote above, the absurd figures given in the article has little compelling evidence to have a change in public policy. One could compare this to hearing about the extinction of a rare insect in the Amazon rainforest. Environmentalists often ignore the true question at hand - why should anyone care about something that has no effect on them? Thus, the effect of the satire in this article debases the methods used by environmentalists to sway public opinion. As the article progresses, it becomes clear that rocks are being used as a metaphor for America's need for oil. The article goes on to satirize the factions on both sides of the oil debate. By showing the arguments on both sides via juxtaposition, the Onion satirizes both sides and their inability to reach a compromise. In some ways, this adds some truth to the passage. While the earth continues to lose its ability to match human expansion, the global population is left helpless because of the ad hominems and hasty generalizations on both sides. The term "no scientist" shows a disdain for the side that is associated with the more elite section of society while "society's obsession" reveals the condescending tone of the 'elitists'. Thus the Onion article has a clear extension and advocacy for the need to come to a solution instead of arguing about one.
This article satirizes the constant worldwide debate over the use of unrenewable resources. By using something as ubiquitous [but also common] as rocks, the article goes waaaay over the top to show how pointless the debates over resources are and how if we want to accomplish anything and begin using renewable resources and fairly sharing the unrenewable resources we have left, we need to do more than just mourn the loss of the resources we have.
This piece satirizes the natural resource shortage epidemic that some say may be closer than expected, I for one disagree because as human being, a special trait has been passed down to us from past lives such as adaption. Since the very first steam engines, resources have been used consumed and even recycled, as time changes recourse will change as well as the machines they power ,to keep pace with our remarkably well refined trait of adaptation.
This article satirizes the efforts of those behind the environmentalist movement as well as those who support on follow the movement. It is a satire of those who support the movement because of the comedy that comes from the idea that those people would take this as a serious movement. It satirizes the idea that many of these supporters would give much attention to resources that they are told are running out without the thought of or initiative to figure out the actually value or necessity of the resource. It pokes fun at the idea of conservation for the sake of conservation rather than the sake of the Earth of humankind, which many environmentalists are guilty of. This is done through the fact that the conservationist are extremely upset by the depletion of a ridiculous and useless resource. It also satirizes the overall environmentalist effort because it of the ridiculousness of the cause it is trying to raise awareness about, and the fact that it is a pointless cause. This can be connected to pointlessness and lack of productivity in the causes of raising awareness in the depletion of resources, which gain the most attention, over those that focus on solutions to environmental issues, which receive relatively minuscule attention.
5 comments:
This article is satirizing the depletion of the world's natural resources and the conservation efforts of environmentalists. This article satirizes the world's environmentalists. The article talks about a rock as if it were an endangered species. It talks about skipping a rock into a lake like a environmentalist would talk about how cutting down one tree could affect an entire rainforest. This article also satirizes how environmentalists often never talk about the natural occurrences that can cause environmental problems, they blame most of it on the actions of humans. The article never mentions how erosion is a natural factor that is affecting the rocks, the article focuses only on how human recklessness will make rocks, "a thing of the past." This is satirical because rocks are not in danger of going extinct, the rock cycle recycles rocks, rocks don't just disappear into thin air, erode and then form other rocks. Also the world is basically made up of giant rocks! There is some truth in the article though. Our nations natural resources, such as oil and now even fresh water, were original considered to be plentiful and were used up without a care. People didn't realize that the resources were not renewable and were not careful with the amount that they used, and now our world is slowly running out of oil with no real alternatives. This article does have a good message, we do need to think about how what we do will affect our planet, but we are not in danger of loosing our beautiful rocks.
As biocentrism advocate David Diner reported a few years ago, the current rate of global development that is heavily dependent on earth's resources will lead to lack of sustainability for much of the world's population in the next half-century. While there may be arguments about the validity of global warming, no one can deny Diner's concern revealing that at initial glance the Onion News article might have some merit. However, one realizes the true purpose of the news article when looking at the subject matter which is about conserving rocks, an unnecessary measure for greater conservation. Thus, one is led to believe that this article is satirizing the often overdramatic response that environmentalists have to environmental encroachments and damages. By personifying the rock as a biotic creature, irony is heavily used. Often times, environmentalists turn to a much more radical though process than what the general populace is willing to agree with. This Onion News article thus first satirizes the disconnect between environmental reform and public sentiment. The use of pathos, a tactic that is equated to propaganda in this article, is shown as a ploy by environmentalists to trick the public. The phrase "our children" attempts to establish another form of sentimentality with rocks. However, the Onion still mocks this by playing on the overall tone of the passage - exaggeration. It also makes mockery of the logos often used by environmentalists. Much like the Diner quote above, the absurd figures given in the article has little compelling evidence to have a change in public policy. One could compare this to hearing about the extinction of a rare insect in the Amazon rainforest. Environmentalists often ignore the true question at hand - why should anyone care about something that has no effect on them? Thus, the effect of the satire in this article debases the methods used by environmentalists to sway public opinion. As the article progresses, it becomes clear that rocks are being used as a metaphor for America's need for oil. The article goes on to satirize the factions on both sides of the oil debate. By showing the arguments on both sides via juxtaposition, the Onion satirizes both sides and their inability to reach a compromise. In some ways, this adds some truth to the passage. While the earth continues to lose its ability to match human expansion, the global population is left helpless because of the ad hominems and hasty generalizations on both sides. The term "no scientist" shows a disdain for the side that is associated with the more elite section of society while "society's obsession" reveals the condescending tone of the 'elitists'. Thus the Onion article has a clear extension and advocacy for the need to come to a solution instead of arguing about one.
This article satirizes the constant worldwide debate over the use of unrenewable resources. By using something as ubiquitous [but also common] as rocks, the article goes waaaay over the top to show how pointless the debates over resources are and how if we want to accomplish anything and begin using renewable resources and fairly sharing the unrenewable resources we have left, we need to do more than just mourn the loss of the resources we have.
This piece satirizes the natural resource shortage epidemic that some say may be closer than expected, I for one disagree because as human being, a special trait has been passed down to us from past lives such as adaption. Since the very first steam engines, resources have been used consumed and even recycled, as time changes recourse will change as well as the machines they power ,to keep pace with our remarkably well refined trait of adaptation.
This article satirizes the efforts of those behind the environmentalist movement as well as those who support on follow the movement. It is a satire of those who support the movement because of the comedy that comes from the idea that those people would take this as a serious movement. It satirizes the idea that many of these supporters would give much attention to resources that they are told are running out without the thought of or initiative to figure out the actually value or necessity of the resource. It pokes fun at the idea of conservation for the sake of conservation rather than the sake of the Earth of humankind, which many environmentalists are guilty of. This is done through the fact that the conservationist are extremely upset by the depletion of a ridiculous and useless resource. It also satirizes the overall environmentalist effort because it of the ridiculousness of the cause it is trying to raise awareness about, and the fact that it is a pointless cause. This can be connected to pointlessness and lack of productivity in the causes of raising awareness in the depletion of resources, which gain the most attention, over those that focus on solutions to environmental issues, which receive relatively minuscule attention.
Post a Comment