Saving Nature but Only for Man

Charles Krauthammer, in his essay Saving Nature, save Only for earthly c erstwhilern, argues against whom he refers to as a sen cartridge clipntal environmentalist. Charles Krauthammer is a well-k at presentn right-wing political columnist and commentator who has worked or contributed to a number of magazines through and throughout his flight (Krauthammer 292) His purpose behind writing this article was to prove that nature is hither to serve service homo and not the an separate(prenominal) way around. The logic of his debate derives from an unusual form of pathos an appeal to a humans fondness for different humans over so-called luxurious aspects of the environment.This pathos coupled with kindly to locoweeds fear and moralistic views atomic number 18 the rhetorical strategies he utilizes throughout his subscriber line. Krauthammer begins his assertion by saying that people are beginning to make defend the environment and becoming more green-friendly a prominent moral foster in 1991s society. With great influences and important figures like Ted Turner and George Bush, along with companies much(prenominal) as Dow and Exxon showing their love for Mother Earth, people are beginning to change their views and attitudes of the environment (292).This type of environmentalist (or what he refers to as a sentimental environmentalist at the end of his essay (294)) is inclined to curl man and nature into ane, but Krauthammer on the other hand claims that When man has to choose between his well-being and that of nature, nature will yield to mollify. (293). The foundation of his argument postdates from Protagoras old maxim, that Man is the measure of all things (293). In other words, man crapper only know the universe through mans eyes. All of physics is human physics, all of philosophy is human philosophy.In the past, animals (including humans) have accommodated to nature, suffering through various natural disasters floods, volcanic eruptions, tornad oes and hurricanes. Krauthammer claims that now we must make the natural demesne into a natural demesne form humans (293). Krauthammers first destination in his argument was to stack away a smell out of fear to his readers. To do this, he provides an example of whats presently happening in our ecosystem, such as the looming crises of the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion, and how lemniscus these man-made disasters would e a necessity (292). These cardinal problems are undeniably the result of our civilization, but are made urgent only because they peril man. In Krauthammers eyes, the threat to nature they create is only credible because damage nature (in this case at least) means damaging us humans. This is why we should stop the damaging climate change not to save nature, but to save nature for mankind. This is not an effective plan of attack. By fetching this approach, Krauthammer is relying on the reader accepting his or her own ego-centrism.Whether or not the read er is wholly self- interested, no one is swayed by accusations of sel angleness. He in any case appeals to peoples emotions by having them imagine themselves requesting hardworking voters to sacrifice in the name of the collect anhinga, only then to say that these voters would barely even buckle under them a shrug (293). This is an obscure reference. It is confusing for the reader because many who would come across the term pull together darter would assume that Krauthammer is referencing a extremity of the lower class, where in reality its a type of bird.However, this can be effective because whether or not his audience knows that a snail darter is a bird, the reader is likely imagining themselves being these hardworking voters, and feel rape because of their potential actions. This is his strange use of pathos that we, as humans, should care for other humans more than other living things, especially if we dont even care enough for birds. Any reader capable of feeling compa ssion for the snail darter or guilt for the voters will not separate man and nature, and therefore will not make this distinction in his argument.The dumfounding amount of favoritism he gives to humans, especially in comparison with other aspects of the planet, is at the center of each of his examples. Which of these would be more correct cleanup and ruining the livelihood of humans, or the destruction of a species natural habitat? Krauthammer makes the attempt to tap into peoples moralistic views, otherwise known as ethos. He knows that when it comes to having to choose between the two, people would generally sacrifice the animals before themselves or their kind.With this in mind, he creates a sequence of events that makes his audience aware that sentimentalizing the environment is not always the right choice for the benefit of humanity. For instance, he brings up the topic of the war in the Middle East. Krauthammer states that the only reason why were having this war is because w e believe that drilling for anele in Alaska could disturb the reindeer breeding reasons. We would not have to police the Middle East for their oil if we could get the exact same product from our own soil (293).This as well is an appeal to emotions because people do not want other people to die in vain, especially when there is another solution to stave off these deaths of American soldiers. He gives a similar example, this time in a hypothetical situation, with a forest full of spotted honkers. The welfare of cardinal thousand lumberjacks and their families depend upon logging this forest, which could cause the extinction of this spotted owl (293). Again Krauthammer is forgetting his target audience.No sentimental environmentalist will grant to ending a human conflict by sacrificing the lives of innocent animals. These examples are incapable of changing the minds of the readers who disagree with his views. If theres anything effective about his argument, it is what he does to coax in his audience of choice. Clearly there would be no insinuate in trying to convince an audience thats already in arrangement with Krauthammer, so he targets these so-called sentimental environmentalists. Among other things, he does this by choosing a very intriguing title for his essay.Generally, people who see the parlance Saving Nature, but Only for Man as the title for an argument would think that the author is trying to make a point that Man in general is selfishly saving nature for themselves and not for animals or any other living organism. Just like any repair person would do (in this case, a sentimental environmentalist), one is only interested in reading something that would correlate with their point of view. With this Man-is-Selfish title, Krauthammer would have accomplished his goal in captivating an audience who is in favor of what the title seems to be.Then, once these green friendly citizens are already reading Krauthammers argument, they will have the chan ce to see his logic and reasoning as to why it is demand to become more anthropocentric. The real problem is that he abandons this audience in short after, scolding his target readers more than convincing them. The most obvious theory in this argument is that we as humans cannot foresee all of the consequences of our actions. actually labeling every part of nature as a luxury or necessity does a disservice to the cycles within cycles that is the environment.Too many species and topics can fall in a gray area between the two and any moderation in Krauthammers argument is not readily apparent. For example, one forest of spotted owls may not mean much, but surely the Earth as a whole needs a real number of trees, and possibly a certain number of flying predators to constrain the rodent population under control (something they do simply, which we humans a good deal struggle with). To begin another example, humans eat a lot of salmon. Bears also eat a lot of salmon.If we cut down the view as population, we could harvest more salmon safely. However, this pattern may not impact into other food chains. Sharks also eat salmon, but if we killed all the sharks, the fish that they eat (and the fish that we dont eat) will multiply out of control, and ruin the marine for the salmon. Krauthammers argument hinges upon humans being the appropriate (or at least competent) care holdrs of the composite planet Earth. We have neither the maturity nor the technology to manage an stainless planets ecology.One can also notice a large sense of bias in Krauthammers argument. There is at least one time where he insults his target audience, actually stating that this anthropocentrism runs against the grain of a modern-day environmentalism that indulges in earth worship to the point of idolatry (293). This may be true of some, but to say that the current environmental activists all oblige in some kind of nature worship is a diminished overboard. Instead of alienating his au dience, Krauthammer should be working to find middle ground or at least convert their beliefs.Despite a delusory title, Krauthammers argument is a poorly-crafted article that only serves to state his opinion. His methods of arguing (arousing the audiences center and conscientious minds) are powerful but unsuccessful because it does not take the readers viewpoint into consideration. However, it is ultimately up to the reader to decide its impact. The consequences of a world where we value ourselves above all else will have unforeseen forbid side effects. If nothing else, our future rests in the decision we make, and in whether or not we choose to trust our own judgment or in mother natures.