I bet when everyone was young they were scared of something whether it was monsters, the dentist, or even the dark, but I’d guess that they were never terrified or even thought of global warming as something frightening which could be a reason it got out of control in the first place.  In “Facing Extinction” written by Catherine Ingram she explains about the disasters yet to come due to lack of information about global warming, overpopulation, and the overall human contribution to the next mass extinction on earth.   

 In Ingram’s first section, entitled “Dark Knowledge” she explains the terrifying truth for our up and coming future, but terrifying is only a small portion of emotion yet to come. First, Ingram explains that “in the last decade our carbon emissions levels are the highest in history, and we haven’t experienced their full impact yet.” In addition, she states that even if we stopped emitting carbon into the air by tomorrow, we would still see an increase of heat for the next ten years. Secondly, Ingram says that we might be facing a full summer melt in the next five years which is the melting of the Arctic summer ice. The Arctic ice has cooled the northern part of the earth and tampers with climate throughout the world. Without the Arctic ice cooling the north it could rapidly increase not only the oceans but the overall temperature of our atmosphere. Furthermore, Ingram says that some scientists fear a methane “burp” of which will produce billions of tons of methane gas and could be a start to a mass extinction. With so much methane gas in our atmosphere and its ability to absorb heat from the sun. It would increase the temperature of our planet within months causing cataclysmic events starting the next mass extinction. Additionally, Ingram explains that the melting of Antarctica has increased by 280% in the last 40 years. According to Ingram, “each day, the extra heat that is trapped near our planet is equivalent to four hundred thousand Hiroshima bombs.” Moreover, Ingram goes on and writes that “ if we were to make it through this gauntlet of threats, we would still be facing starvation.” with grain being our main food supply and the average harvest being reduced six percent every one degree Celsius rise above the norm. 

Global warming, decreasing glacier levels, and humanity’s connection to it all is something truly something to be terrified of not only because it would be the end, but because it’s out of our control.

While reading Ingram’s writing I felt an overwhelming amount of anger and sorrow. On the surface, I brushed it off so it wouldn’t bother me, but I can’t pretend that it doesn’t exist. Ingram truly threw daggers at her readers to show the truth behind it all, and not only did those daggers pierce me but many others as well. Ingrams used many tactics that not only puts me and others mind in chaos but also makes us more intrigued with her writing. With only reading a few paragraphs into her article I could tell that this wasn’t just an explanation on global warming, but also a warning for what’s to come. Right off the back, Ingram uses pathos to twist our emotions by saying truly horrific details about our changing world. Personally reading this and understanding our situation makes me think if anything even matters anymore. Constant questions flood my mind like,” why am I even writing this paper if everything’s going to end sooner rather than later?”, ”Should I even finish my education?” I’ve always had a fear of dying young and not being able to do anything about it and I guess my greatest fear might come to fruition. Reading Ingram’s article has opened my mind to all the dangers and possibilities that are coming and to be honest I’m not ready for it. Something that really intrigued me is that Ingram said Antarctica has been melting 280% faster than normal, and I dove into more research on this statement.  Not only is Antarctica rapidly but a survey shows more than one million square kilometers below the previous record low which is very worrisome. Whilst reading Ingram’s article I was terrified, but I kept thinking that she might have exaggerated some parts. My father, I included, have always been skeptical of global warming with us not fully finding any evidence through our experiences. I later realized all the proof I needed was right in front of me with so seasons starting late and constant wet days with our farmers not being able to produce certain foods. I believe Ingram on the dangers of global warming but I feel like we have more than 5 years on earth. Altho many people believe in Ingram’s reason and evidence there are many who do not. An American climatologist by the name of Judith Curry is a climatologist who isn’t convinced of the damaging effects of climate change and believes the credibility of climate research to not be accurate. She’s written two essays with one of them being on the credibility of climate research.

Global warming is dangerously close to our front door and Ingram makes the certainly clear. With all of Ingram’s different styles of writing it’s not hard to believe her witting. Global warming is still not getting widespread recognition and is probably a big factor as to why is out of control. Throughout Ingram’s essay, she explains global warming in its darkest form and how we’re at its mercy due to humanity’s overuse of natural resources.

America Lopez

Professor John Wolff

Writing Comp I

9 December 2019

The End Of Legacy Response

In her essay “Facing Extinction,” Catherine Ingram goes into depth about the possibilities of all complex life becoming extinct in the near future. She wrote this paper with ten different sections in which she explains the processes of how extinction for all complex life is coming to an end, and how we can deal with the probability that human extinction is coming our way.

In “ Facing Extinction,” Ingram explains that global warming is here and how the effects have brought the future to a clearer upbringing. In the section labeled “The End of Legacy,” she goes into depth about how the future is still coming, but we should live our lives in the present and go on living from that point. She states that we don’t need to think about our legacies and what we are leaving behind, and people naturally think about the futures and legacies too much, so just not thinking about these will make it easier to live in the present and bring a weight off of people’s shoulders. Ingram then claims that people tend to think of their futures and how human life will live on “indefinitely,” while also bringing in the fact that the most “emotionally charged” of people’s legacies is the children that they bring into the world. She then claims that us forgetting our past and future may haunt us, but we need to move on, our memories won’t do anything to help us avoid catastrophe. Finally, she says that we won’t lose the world we see today we’ll mostly always have that memory in our minds, and we should make the most of the world and lives we have now. 

When I read this I felt confused, but also afraid, for what’s going to happen in the future. I personally am the type of person that frequently thinks of the future, not even intentionally, so when Ingram was talking about how we won’t have to worry about the legacies we are leaving behind, it made me scared of what’s to come. But now after reading this section over and over, I am not completely relaxed, but calmer. It made me realize that I don’t have to think about my future to the finest point, or even at all, and I should just relax a little and let my life events come at me one at a time. The future isn’t set and stone, but I don’t need to fret about every little detail in my future because, in the end, it doesn’t matter. Thinking about legacies doesn’t have to come to my mind anymore, I don’t need to worry about what my children are going to be left with and I really don’t need to worry if I’m going to have biological children because I can always adopt. This really changed the way that I see my future and the things I think about. In the end, Ingram shows many points, which help us understand that our legacies won’t be needed, and we can really focus on ourselves in the present.

Ingram wrote the section “The End of Legacy,” to show that we can stop future thinking and be in the present, and enjoy what we have now, So not worrying about what we’re going to leave behind. The intended and unintended audience is who Ingram is writing to. The people that know and understand Global Warming and want to know what is or isn’t going to be happening in the future. Also, the people who don’t know or ignore Global Warming and can find and read this, so they get a better understanding of what’s happening with the earth and what’s to come because of it.

 Constraints within this reading would have to be the parents and their children’s futures. Parents, no matter how hard they try, always seem to think about their children’s futures, even after reading this, it’s a natural thing for parents to do.

Ingram is a journalist, telling people about how we are going to be facing the extinction of all complex life on earth. She brings in logos, pathos, and ethos, to help bring up her point and idea. She uses pathos to persuade people reading by using their emotions. She brings in a part in which she talks about children, and how parents like the idea of watching their children grow up and make something of their lives. She also uses an example of her friend that was in prison, she stated that he was able to visit his wife and children each month. It made him “depressed for days” after they would leave because it made him remember the “colorful world” that was outside. Lastly, she brings in a quote from Laureate W.S. Merwin, “On the last day of earth, I would want to plant a tree.” Ingram brings this quote in to show that we don’t have to treat everything as though its never going to make a difference, but we should have a mindset in which we think, even though this may not have an effect, I’m still going to do it because I can… Ingram also brings in part of her life, saying that she avoids seeing documentaries on the sixties and seventies because it reminders her of “when hope and every imaginable kind of freedom were our daily fare, represented in our music, political activism,… and in the atmosphere.”  

Within the section, we now see that our legacies won’t be needed, we can forget our past and futures without having to worry about anything, we can spend more time with our kids in the present and not worry about the future they’re going to make, and we can still do things in life, even if it won’t have an effect in our lives. After reading “The End of Legacy,” you may feel as though what’s the point in anything if there isn’t a clear future of what you’re going to do. Or you may feel as though you have this heavy weight lifted off of your shoulders because you don’t have to worry about your future and or what happened in the past, and now you can really live your life in the present. This reading may also make you even more paranoid, but remember that the future isn’t truly set in stone, it has room to change and grow, so think about your present and enjoy the life you have right now. 

Work Cited

Ingram, Catherine. “Catherine Ingram, Facing Extinction, Facing Extinction by Catherine Ingram, 2019 Facing Extinction by Catherine Ingram, 2019-Facing Extinction by Catherine Ingram, Leonard Cohen, Dahr Jamail, Chris Hedges, Extinction, Extinction Rebellion, Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Deep Adaptation, In the Deep, Catherine Ingram Podcast, In the Deep with Catherine Ingram, Post, Extinction Facebook, near-Term Extinction.” Catherine Ingram, Sept. 2019, https://www.catherineingram.com/facingextinction/.

Snapshot. https://www.catherineingram.com/facingextinction/. Accessed 24 Oct. 2019.

THE END OF LEGACY As Your Awareness Metabolizes the Deadly Threats Ahead and the Unlikeliness of Solutions That Will Cha.

MacDougall 1

Makenzie MacDougall

John Wolff

English Composition 1

23 September 2019

                    Climate Change Denial

The world is changing as we know it and many people either don’t want to believe it or just ignore it because they feel it isn’t as important as other things. One big change that is happening is climate change. Climate change is a big problem that no one really wants to talk about or even think about. When it is talked about, it angers many people. In “Facing Extinction,” it brings many things to our attention. One of the main subtitles in the article is called “Distraction and Denial.” This section is very eye-opening because Ingram successfully bring to realization that people distract or go into a stage of denial that climate change and massive extinction are even coming our way.

When I first read this article, I will admit I was angry and speechless. Thinking about how a massive extinction was coming but no one wanted to believe it, so nothing was getting done about it. I didn’t like it or understand why no one was doing anything, but after I read it over a few times, I started to understand and come to terms with some things. With all the suitable evidence of climate change, it currently has an impact with significant costs and future risks to natural systems and society.

Ingram found many reasons why people tend to deny or distract themselves from climate change and extinction in her article. One of the first reasons why people deny that climate change is a threat is because it doesn’t affect their morals. In the article, Ingram states that “climate change does not challenge our moral sense of right and wrong and thereby doesn’t stir our brains to action.” By Ingram saying this, we understand that since climate change doesn’t show anything right or wrong in some eyes our brains don’t come to action and nothing gets done about it. Ingram points out that if it were clear that climate change was affecting something that meant a lot to a person, like a kitten or a puppy, then our morals would kick in and realize that this is a real threat and it needs to be taken more seriously and not ignored.

Not only do we rely on our moral senses though, but we also rely on our genes. Ingram found that “our genes favor short-term gain over long-term trouble.” I believe that this is a very true statement and by saying this it shows that our early benefits don’t always help us later in our lives. If our genes focus on short term-gain instead of long-term trouble, what happens when long-term trouble like extinction comes along? When something like this does come, we won’t be ready, we will have less of a chance of being activated so we will either deny it or just ignore the threat because we won’t know any better.

Ingram explains another reason why we see a lot of people (parents) denying or distracting themselves about what’s coming. Parents are doing it because they are worried about their children. When a parent hears about a massive climate change or a massive extinction, they instantly start to worry about their children and about how there will be no protection for them in the future. In fact, many people now are deciding that they don’t even want to have kids because they don’t want their children to go through all of that. Since this scares many parents, they deny it and keep the information from the children. Although I understand why parents would want to keep this from their children, I think they should be telling them about what is coming. The reason why I think parents should be telling their children is so they can start getting the knowledge about what is coming and start preparing themselves for what’s going to happen. I understand that this is a very scary thing to discuss and you might not be comfortable talking about it with them, but we really should because it is a very serious situation and it is unfortunately coming.

When I read about how this is making some people not want to have children, I was very depressed. Many people love the thought of having kids but are starting to question even having them because of all the future threats of climate change and massive extinction. Although I don’t like the fact that it has come to this, I fully understand why some people don’t want to have children. Everyone with kids always wants the best for them so it’s only acceptable that some people don’t want to have them so they won’t have to go through what is coming.

As Ingram discusses though, we don’t just distract and deny what is coming, we cause it to speed up. Many people don’t realize that they are doing anything wrong but they are actually making things worse. As Ingram puts it “we bend nature to our will, paved over forests and Greenland’s, and rerouted and dammed rivers and because of all that and more we have caused our atmosphere to have a high fever.” When we pave over Greenland’s and forests we don’t think about how it is affecting the environment. We live in what Ingram calls calls ‘The Matrix.” We believe that doing all the things like damming rivers and paving over things is normal because it is superficial to us. Not only do we do these things that hurt the environment but we also do more.

By burning oils and gases, we are damaging our atmosphere but yet again we don’t seem to understand that or care because it is superficial to us in some way. Since we keep doing all of these things to the environment and more, there are more and more future risks and significant costs of climate change happening now and it will only get worse and worse as time goes on if we don’t change the things we are doing and start paying attention to the environment around us and how the things we do affect it.

World Change

We are all not to inclined to admit that our world climate is changing. Us as an entire species are slowly destroying our world and we all need to come to terms with the fact that sooner or later there will be nothing left. After reading excerpts written by Catherine Ingram, I can conclude that she is a well-known author! One article in particular that she wrote I found to be a dramatic eye-opener. That article was called “facing extinction.”

This article she wrote is all about the world we live in and how we are slowly destroying it! Emotionally, this topic is something that will hit you hard. For me, it made me literally sick and had to read it not once or twice but over three times!!! Especially section three “Distraction and Denial” I was angry and upset. Reading about how we are destroying our world and ignoring the fact of what is happening. How can just ignore the fact that what we are doing in our everyday lives can affect us in the future? How can the older generation do this to us and expect us to fix it? In section three of Ingram’s article “Distraction and Denial”, Ingram says parents will “offer up their children.” Maybe because they fear what will happen to them. Maybe we should be very open to the elephant in the room…Parents are scared that their children will have to live in the devastation of the lives they have created. They also have to deal with the consequences of many others, in the world, that they have created for them. These parents and young adults can’t stand having their children suffer from their mistakes. Yet still, all we do is ignore the fact that we are slowly killing our home. The older generation wants us to fix the problem! However, the older generations won’t even tell us what is going on because they are so afraid to even speak of it. We need to stop the stigma that is going around about this topic. We need to stop the stigma that is going around about this topic. In “Distraction and Denial,” Ingram’s creates an emotional response in her readers by discussing the significance of world climate change and how this issue calls for new actions to be taken. We need to say “one of the biggest problems we face is climate change and we are in denial about it! This is unacceptable in our society!” Ingram also says, “we perceive them only as linear problems and assume we will have time to address them.” It is quotes like this, quotes that give a lot of credibility to the author. People don’t really think that climate change is a threat to us quite yet, but in reality, it already is! no one is really doing anything to solve the problem. They are just dancing around ideas to reduce the problem, and if we don’t do something about it, it will become an even bigger threat. It is said that we will have time to address the problem of climate change that we are facing extinction, but problems have already started happening and we are still blind to it because we do not want to think about the realization of what is happening. In “Distraction and Denial,” Ingram creates an emotional response in her readers by discussing the significance of world climate change and how this issue calls for new actions to be taken. We have already killed so many big mammals in order to take their land so we can build more things that will hurt us in the future more than helping us. Ingram states “we have bent nature to our own will, paved over her forest and grasslands rerouted and damned her rivers”. I look at it like a wooden ruler we bend it to its breaking point and went we bend it too far it snaps and brakes. Or that the grasslands and forest are like lungs to earth, and we are destroying her lungs like one of a smoker. Sometimes our lungs begin to collapse, and you won’t be able to breathe and if the earth can’t breathe, she won’t get oxygen and will slowly begin to deteriorate. The truth is this: earth’s lungs are beginning to collapse, and we need to do something about it until it’s too late. We are basically bending the earth like a ruler and bending her to the breaking point. once she brakes, she will never be the same you can’t fix a ruler and expect it to have the same measurements but if you try to take care of that ruler so it doesn’t break. This section stood out to me because of the title “distraction and denial.” First and foremost, we are distracted. Distracted by our fantasy life, or as Ingram would say the “matrix”: a life we create. Furthermore, we are in denial. We as a society are in denial about what is happening around us! How mother nature is breaking, and that soon there will be nothing left of her.

Trump’s Motives Contributes to Threat of Nuclear War

Nuclear technology in the wrong hands could become dangerous not only for Americans but for the world at which bringing peace to the Mideast is no longer the focus. The Iran nuclear deal that has led to negotiations with Saudi Arabia is a relevant crucial topic being discussed today. The potential threat of a nuclear war has driven many people to skepticism with Trump’s irrational measures taken within the White House. Since the United States  has been a leader in nuclear technology, the International Atomic Energy Agency agreement guarantees: no materials provided by the United States be used for explosives, prohibits the sale of nuclear technology, and the transfer of classified data all of which are put in place to prevent the use of nuclear weapons and production of destructive nuclear bombs which would violate government policies. The past few years the Iran nuclear deal has raised many concerns as President Trump moves to shift the nuclear power balance of the Middle East in favor of Saudi Arabia despite it being a risk to U.S. national security absent adequate safeguards completely dismissing the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

The Editorial Board from the New York Times article, “Trump’s Idea of a Middle East Nuclear Deal,” voices Trump’s motives with the Iran nuclear deal and states that Trump’s administration would provide materials to a government that can use nuclear weapons against Iran. Adding to the concern, the Editorial Board purposes there is reason to put stricter controls in place. “By ramming through the sale of as much as $80 billion in nuclear power plants, the Trump administration would provide sensitive know-how and materials to a government whose de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has suggested that he may eventually want a nuclear weapon as a hedge against Iran.” (Editorial Board, 2019) As a result of Trump’s nuclear cooperation with Saudis, the Editorial Board has argued that although the nuclear deal was deemed a risk, Trump’s administration overlooked laws and proceeded with nuclear dealings to gain profits and appears to exhibit no regard with the continued activities despite warnings by career and political staff members. Saudi Arabia claims they only want the technology to produce nuclear power for domestic purposes and prolong their oil reserves. (Editorial Board, 2019) However, despite their assertion Saudis’ refusal to make a commitment in surrendering uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, without a doubt could lead to nukes.

Though some may disagree with the Editorial Board’s argument which focuses solely on one perspective viewing Trump’s effort as a selfish act of greed and negligence to be biased, manipulative, even distorted, I like many others, find this approach plausible because it provides logical thought, contributes to ethical appeals, and provides prospective to readers which is far more practical.

The Editorial Board can provide an explanation to their claim through the use of logos by applying proof of the corruption within Trump’s administration supporting that the actions not be in the national security interest of the United States. With Saudi Arabia planning a project to build reactors and having planned for nuclear foundations, Sanger and Broad (2018) found it becomes a serious concern when they refuse to rule out their right to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Ultimately, the Editorial Board suggests, “it’s no surprise that the Saudis would prefer to negotiate over nuclear technology with Mr. Trump,” (Editorial Board, 2019) implying they rather negotiate with someone who looks passed the legal aspects and responsibilities also a reasonable implication to why they chose to approach the matter from their perspective.

Sources included in the article addressed by the Editorial Board, persuade the New York Times readers with reason and facts following a sequence of logical thought. With the Atomic Energy Act and incorporation of the 123 agreements, the Editorial Board can attribute the transferring of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia and the spread of atomic weapons. Thus, by elaborating on the 123 agreements criteria and requirements, the Editorial Board is also educating its readers of the agreement’s goals in order to establish its significance in the nuclear deal within the White House and how that connects to the Saudis involvement in uranium and reprocess of plutonium, hence a pathway to nuclear bombs.

The Editorial Board also expands understanding of what nuclear power could mean for the United States by convincing its readers why their opinion is rational. Using evidence and quotations, the Editorial Board is able to apply rhetorical analysis to the argument. They provide a perspective that helps to draw judgments on aspects of Saudi Arabia’s determination to produce their own nuclear fuel and nuclear power plants. Reports referenced by the Editorial Board, justify the relevance of concern they preserve as they go on to express their speculation, “but it’s hard to trust such assurances, given Saudi animosity toward Iran.” They also embrace a statement made by Prince Mohammed bin Salman, “without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible,” exposing credible interest. In addition, the fact that Saudi Arabia refuses to sign agreements that prohibits production of nuclear weapons, more specifically atomic bombs, also appeals to the logos and ethos. More so, it reveals character on behalf of those making the decisions and exposes their recklessness a sensible indication to why the Editorial Board would think that nukes may pose a threat in the near future.

Although the Editorial Board’s response to Trump’s negotiations with Saudi Arabia encourages its readers to draw analysis from the information they provided in their context, they only considered one perspective and did not consider forming other points of view to appeal against the matter. With that said, it could be argued that the Editorial Board was manipulating the audience in one direction and might not be considered morally correct. Some could argue that it is not just the United States that is providing nuclear technology and could oppose the Editorial Board’s claim, that perhaps Trump’s negotiations with Saudi Arabia would in fact be in the United States best interest in keeping peace in Mideast and the United states if we cooperate with Saudis decisions. This is a theory that some may agree with if they consider the fact that the United States is not the only option for Saudi Arabia who has other countries such as Pakistan who might be willing to help. Because New York Times readers are limited in standpoint, the Editorial Board does not promote Trump’s motives as beneficial in the long run for the Mideast or the United States. They omit the advantage that the United States might have in monitoring the activities going on in Saudi Arabia.

Essentially, the Editorial Board’s concerns are relevant and plausible in present day, however there are still other angles to take into consideration that were not addressed in the article. But, in spite of overlooking different aspects of the circumstances the United States has been put in, and the lack of solutions offered in the Editorial Board’s response to the nuclear deal, they did offer an alternative shift to gain security considering the urgency of the matter. They took into consideration that there may be a huge change with nuclear power therefore, stipulations and provisions should begin effect immediately to ensure the safety of all communities not just our own. It would have been an even stronger article had they applied more solutions to their argument instead of just focusing on the problem but rather what we can do to fix the situation.

Though the Editorial Board fixated on one primary focus, Trump allowing Saudi Arabia the ability to contribute to the spread and production of nuclear arms, the Editorial Board allows the readers to respond and form their own opinions from the narrow-ended approach.

Some look at the situation from a different view point, I on the other hand prefer not to take such a leap in faith hoping for the best outcome regarding Trump pursuing negotiations with Saudi Arabia. I find that the Iran nuclear deal was a dangerous act to begin with and am not convinced that Saudi Arabia will not participate in destructive nuclear activities that could pose a threat in the future. I don’t put my money on Saudi Arabia nor my trust in them like Trump does because Saudis aspirations with uranium and reprocessing of plutonium urges me to believe Saudi Arabia will eventually conduct an atomic bomb. The Editorial Board allows its readers to question acts made such as why Saudi Arabia wouldn’t want others to oversee the activities going on in their country, and from this readers are able to draw their own conclusions.

The Editorial Board fails to foster more than one perspective and doesn’t propose alternative solutions. Some would depict this approach as biased pushing the audience to favor only their conception while others may look at it to reflect on why they chose to structure and develop their approach the way they did. However, considering the Editorial Board’s argument did not use vivid wording or appeal to emotional values on this political affair, it eliminates predisposed conceptions and allows for more accurate and objective opinions. Furthermore, the Editorial Board applied credible sources which constitutes the facts and data they applied to develop their point to make it convincing and allowed the readers to engage withholding judgment from the text. In short, the Editorial Board used the details of the text to achieve its purpose.

Work Cited

Editorial Board. 2019. “Opinion | Trump’s Idea of a Middle East Nuclear Deal – The New York Times.” February 20, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/opinion/trump-saudi-arabia-nuclear-technology.html.

Sanger, David E., and William J. Broad. 2018. “Saudis Want a U.S. Nuclear Deal. Can They Be Trusted Not to Build a Bomb?” The New York Times, November 24, 2018, sec. World. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-nuclear.html.