Use of Satire in The Future Of Life by Edward O. Wilson (Book Analysis)

With the topic of environmentalism being heavily debated due to opposing attitudes on whether it is neglected or simply not necessary to be prioritized, individual perceptions have influenced the efficiency of the discussion. In his book, The Future of Life, Edward O. Wilson’s utilization of satire illustrates the unproductivity of the discussion between the People-First Critics and the Environmentalists by highlighting the exaggerated parallelism and the pathos of their arguments that contradict the solemnity of this topic. 

For instance, Wilson emphasizes how these discussions are unproductive with parallelism, in which he exaggerates how the two groups are not attempting to reconcile in an attempt to form a solution, instead opting to criticize each other. Therefore, Wilson portrays the People-First Critic by saying that “Depending on how angry we are, we call them greens, enviros, environmental extremists, or environmental wackos” (Lines 2-4). As a result, his exaggeration of childish names reflects the immature behaviors of the two groups, which is ironic considering the mature significance of their debate on environmentalism. Furthermore, it also emphasized how the two groups were unproductive because they did not demonstrate neutrality towards each other, behaving without any intention of compromising or being open-minded to the reasoning of the other group. Furthermore, the use of childish names also emphasizes how the priorities of the two groups are unfocused, being centered more on personal hatred of each other than adult rationale. Similarly, Wilson does the same in the second column by affirming, “That may be what they call themselves, but we know them more accurately as anti-environmentalists and brown lashers or, more locally out west, wise users and sagebrush rebels” (Lines 37-42). Thus, Wilson parallels the exaggerated usage of childish names to mirror how the two opposing views are similar, despite their evident hatred of each other. Consequently, this exaggerated parallelism of how both groups use immature name-calling in their arguments epitomizes the unproductive nature of the People-First Critic and the Environmentalists. 

Additionally, Wilson’s use of satire is effective due to the irony of their use of pathos that demonstrates how both sides use emotional appeal, instead of science or logic, which does not add any validity to their arguments towards conservation. In the second column, Wilson portrays the Environmentalist by arguing, “What they are really after, especially the corporate heads and big-time landowners, is unrestrained capitalism with land development” (Lines 44-47). As a result, Wilson characterizes the environmentalists as using pathos to gain supporters by appealing to their emotional disagreement of unrestrained capitalism as opposed to researched, proven facts. Moreover, this is ironic considering that environmentalism is a political movement based on science, which indicates that scientific reasoning should be used to remedy the situation instead of emotionally motivated attacks towards the other side. Additionally, Wilson depicts the People-First Critic similarly by proposing that “What’s at stake as they busy themselves are your tax dollars and mine, and ultimately our freedom too. Relax your guard when these people are in power and your property rights go down the tube” (Lines 15-19). Therefore, Wilson accurately exemplifies how both groups attempt to validate their arguments by appealing to people’s emotions on tax, freedom, and property rights. However, claims without evidence are meaningless in a debate. Thus, this shifts this debate away from a logical analysis of the benefits of environmentalism and accelerates it towards a discussion fabricated with personal bias. 

As demonstrated by Edward O. Wilson, the effectiveness of an argument is dependent upon the participants’ willingness to resolve the problems instead of discrediting the opinions of the other side. In order for a corroborated argument to be successful, it is essential to not allow personal preferences to outweigh the agreement that would benefit everyone cohesively. Thus, allowing the notions of a few people to dictate the progress of the conversation is tolerating unproductivity since there is no coherent focus towards the greater issue at hand.