Blog #19 Leopold

This piece was a very dry one. It was definitely my least favorite to read. It talked about many ethical and moral issues, which is all well and good. However, the attention to detail in this piece was too much. It dragged on and on. There are some pieces in this book that I enjoy even though I disliked the topic. This one seemed like it in no way reached out to the reader who wasn’t completely into it. The parts about X and Y were confusing and slow to read. The parts about land ethic had a good overall viewpoint, but just didn’t quite get me there. I think that being able to meat your readers where they are at in your story is really important. If you don’t write with them in mind you will lose them. Leopold could have added some humor, dialog, or more action to get my attention better.

Blog #18 Berry

I really admire Berry’s description of his life on his farm. I have only been to a couple of farms in my life. The ones that I have seen however, are far from self sustaining. I think that is a really noble thing to undertake. It must have taken up a ton of his time and his wife’s time. Also, raising children in an environment like that would be interesting. I wonder how the child’s view on ecological issues will develop.

Blog #17 Snyder

This was a very creative piece to say the least. I have to say that I am not too familiar with Smokey the Bear. I am pretty familiar with Buddhism though through my Religion 205 class this semester. The way that he compares Smokey to a Buddha and what he stands for as a religion is really interesting. I always enjoy new ways of looking at things and that is exactly what is happening with this piece of literature. He is taking an iconic image (Smokey the Bear) that usually stands for forest fire prevention, and turning it into something much more. He now stands for a kind of religious aspect of wildlife conservation. He even portrays Smokey as a kind of extremist protector. It’s quite extreme, but I do think that it displays its point very well.

Blog #16 Steingraber

This was an extremely thought provoking piece of writing. I loved how Steingraber laid out her argument. She explained all the facts and background, inserts a personal story about her family and daughter, throws in a current event with the food recall in Belgium, and then ends with more facts and a final (unnerving) statement. I never thought of how our breastfed children are actually at the top of the food chain and how that isn’t the best place to be. I kept thinking that she was going to state that although our babies get all these chemicals thrown into them, it is actually good for their immune systems. Something along the lines of the old phrase, what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger. However, that statement never came. I found this a little unsettling as a woman and future mother since I have always heard that breast feeding is much better for your baby and they receive more nutrients. Apparently, they receive a lot of really harmful contaminants along with those nutrients. It’s also scary to think that we know so little about the very dangerous chemicals that we have detected. It just shows that we are an advanced society that knows a frighteningly miniscule amount of knowledge about something that is obviously so important. I only wish that she would have included some tips on how to combat this issue. Perhaps eating organic food could help?

Blog #15 Carson

I would like to express my admiration that Carson is able to be so passionate about something. She is obviously VERY concerned with the lives of the birds. It is interesting how she describes the dead birds as bodies and corpses. She then backs up her argument with relating that to humans. I’m not sure that I believe that the two (birds and humans) are that closely linked, but she does support her argument well. The idea that we kill things that we dislike just because they bother us and it’s easier falls along nicely with Muir’s approach as well.

Blog #14: Muir #2

I thought this excerpt’s interest was in its description. This was surely one of the more descriptive pieces I’ve read. I loved how Muir describes the Grasshopper and Fly just as much as he describes the Bear. And I have had encounters with bears and can tell you that seeing one in the wild is scary, magnificent, and so much more terrifying that you would ever expect. However, Muir decides that the Grasshopper is more impressive and a better representation of the land. I can agree with him there as well. Sometimes it is the little things that define a place for us. Some of the more common things can mean the most.

Blog #13 Muir

I think Muir is voicing a lot of extreme and one sided opinions. In some ways I do agree with him though. I agree that some things are “beautiful” even if they don’t seem it. Many dangerous animals are beautiful or interesting, and not evil. On a side note, that actually reminds me of Patricia Smith’s poetry. I find it very ugly and harsh, and that harsh, grotesque way about her writing is what makes it beautiful and honest. In the same way I think that all things have a purpose. I don’t think that Muir disagrees with this; he just believes that things have their own purpose, and it is not to serve humans. I can also agree with that. However, he said at one point that people look down on others who sympathize with creatures other than humans. I just don’t think that’s true anymore. I think if you looked down on an animal people would look down on you, no matter how ugly it is. There is also a line where he states that our earth has “made many a successful journey around the heavens ere man was made” and if he is talking about the Christian God in this story, which I believe he is intending to, he would know that God made the world in seven days and humans on the 6th day. That line kind of threw me off as to if he really had a stable argument since a lot of his rant was about how men are trying to play God and decided what God is like. Those are some pretty radical statements.