Lingering Arguments [PDF]
Author: Vanessa Dornisch
For the first half of the twentieth century, no regulations on air pollution existed in the United States. A lingering smog hovered over many cities, and the air often was unhealthy to breathe. While most Americans were not happy with the situation and pushed for limits on pollution emissions, factory owners opposed regulations because they did not want to spend money on new technology. In the end, the environmental side won the argument, and the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. Environmental arguments such as this one continue to raise controversy today.
Environmental sustainability, the ability of the environment to sustain the human needs of the present and the future, is a new issue surrounded by controversy. In his article, “The Bottleneck,” Edward O. Wilson argues that the current level of human exploitation is unsustainable, while in “Environmentalism as Religion Run Amok,” Michael Crichton claims that environmentalists have become somewhat fanatical in their predictions for the earth. Although both Wilson and Crichton present valid arguments that are of interest to any reader concerned with the state of the environment, Wilson’s is ultimately more effective in its combination of rhetorical strategies of ethos, logos, andpathos.
As an environmental author, Edward O. Wilson is highly credible. Besides writing several books, one of which won the Pulitzer Prize, he is a biologist and a professor at Harvard University (Lamm and Everett 573). If a reader knows Wilson’s credentials before beginning to read “The Bottleneck,” Wilson’sethos has already been partly established. According to the Arkansas State University English Department, “[t]he closest English equivalent to the Greek word ethos is . . . ‘image[,]’ [but] we by no means suggest that ethos is concerned merely with a good appearance. The best way for a writer to show that [he or she] is possessed of a good ethos is for [him or her] to actually have a good ethos” (Moore). Michael Crichton also has a pre-established ethos with readers of “Environmentalism as Religion Run Amok.” Crichton is known as a best-selling fiction writer—most famously for his novel, Jurassic Park—but he has no credentials in environmentalism (Lamm and Everett 593). Some readers, as fans of his other work, will be inclined to consider, if not trust, the claims he presents. Others, however, will share the viewpoint of The Nationintern Bryan Farrell when he writes that “Crichton’s science is sketchy at best” (Farrell). Whether Wilson’s and Crichton’sethos hinders or helps their arguments is strictly based on the readers’ personal opinions.
Of course, a reader cannot begin to judge fully the validity of an argument before actually reading it. It is within the text that an author utilizes pathos, in Aristotle’s words, to “[create] a certain disposition in the audience” (Moore). Wilson usespathos in two ways. He begins “The Bottleneck” with a presentation of the opinions on environmental sustainability of both an imaginary economist and an environmentalist, making the reader aware of both views. By immediately recognizing the counterargument with the opinion of the economist, he allows for the remainder of the article to disprove that opinion, a strategy that attempts to leave the reader believing that the author’s own claims are true. Wilson also uses an emotionally charged conclusion to appeal to readers’ pathos. He writes, “. . .[A] universal environmental ethic is the only guide by which humanity and the rest of life can be safely conducted through the bottleneck into which our species has foolishly blundered” (qtd. in Lamm and Everett 52). Words such as “only guide,” “safely conducted,” and “foolishly blundered” are all intended to produce a final emotional sentiment in his readers.
Crichton also employs pathos in his argument, most prominently through use of a familiar and talkative tone. His style of writing is easily understood and emotionally-loaded, much like that of a fictional novel. This choice of style has two benefits toward invoking readers’ pathos for his claims. First, Crichton’s readers know him as a fiction writer, and if he had written “Environmentalism as Religion Run Amok” in a style completely unlike that of his other novels, he might have discredited his own ethos in their eyes. Second, the familiar style makes readers feel as if Crichton is talking directly to them, and even readers unfamiliar with his other work will be drawn to consider his claims. Crichton also uses pathos in the actual content of his article. His writing is highly emotional, especially in the segment in which he claims that the past was not a better time for humans to live. He writes, “There is no Eden. There never was. When was that Garden of the wonderful mythic past? Was it the time when infant mortality was 80 percent, when four in five children died of disease before the age of five?” (qtd. in Lamm and Everett 7). This type of emotional language dominates Crichton’s article.
Written arguments cannot be constructed on the audience’s emotions alone, however. Logos, or logic, is perhaps the most crucial and concrete rhetorical strategy. The Arkansas State University English Department stresses, “The core of argument. . . is in logic. Unless one supports a claim or conclusion about something through a logical, or rational, appeal, one is not making a genuine argument” (Moore). The strongest aspect of Wilson’s article is its appeal to logos. Every claim he makes about the decreasing sustainability of the environment is heavily backed up by statistics. A large portion of “The Bottleneck” is a discussion of the environmental problems that China is experiencing due to its overpopulation, which Wilson presents as a model of what the whole world will experience if population continues to climb at the current rate. Most readers have heard something of the problems in China, and according to the Xinhua News Agency, based in China, Wilson’s evidence of their sustainability issues is correct. “The energy shortage is the top issue, but China’s worry list doesn’t stop there. . . . [F]or example, . . .[b]y 2030. . .China [will be] among the world’s poorest countries for water supply,” writes journalist Yang Jianxiang. Wilson’s use of strong evidence to support his claims leads even the most oppositional reader to consider his argument.
On the other hand, Michael Crichton’s use of logos is not as apt. In the first half of the article, he uses effective analogies and logic to compare environmentalism to religion, but goes on to make several minor claims that are completely unsupported and have little to do with his major claim. Trying to prove that environmentalism is not based on fact, Crichton writes, “Secondhand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, . . .the ice in the Antarctic is increasing[,]. . .[and] there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide. . . .” (qtd. in Lamm and Everett 20). He goes on to assert that he could give “factual basis for these views. . .[but it would probably] not impact more than a handful [of people]. . . .” (qtd. in Lamm and Everett 21). The problem is, however, that most readers have seen evidence suggesting the opposite of these views, leading them to doubt the validity of Crichton’s claims. Although Crichton resumes better logic in the conclusion of the article, unsupported facts leave the reader questioning the credibility of his entire argument.
As with many arguments, Wilson and Crichton both utilize the rhetorical strategies of ethos, pathos, and logos in their articles. It is in the way that the authors choose to employ these strategies that determines whether a reader will accept their claims as true. In “The Bottleneck,” Edward O. Wilson warns that the world is heading toward a bottleneck and that humans must change their way of life to make it through. He combinesethos, pathos, and, principally, logos to create a well- rounded and well-supported argument that most readers will consider valid. In “Environmentalism as Religion Run Amok,” Michael Crichton asserts that the environmental movement has become more like a religion than a science, and that society must begin to view environmental issues in a more realistic way. He uses ethos and pathos to support his claims, but lacks logic and support. Although many readers will give him some credit, Crichton’s article most likely will fail to change any pre-established opinions. Ultimately, Wilson’s argument is the stronger of the two because he principally relies on logos to prove his claims, while Crichton, on the other hand, depends too heavily on pathos. According to Karyn Rybacki and Donald Rybacki in Advocacy and Opposition, a book based around the concepts of argument, “[a]n ethical arguer has as [his or her] objective the welfare of the society” (11). Despite their arguments’ strong and weak points, both Wilson and Crichton believe that their own claims are the best solution for society in facing the earth’s environmental sustainability issue.
The Bullitzer Prize 2008