Dull pains that turn into a throbbing wound at the sound of your name, the thought of your laugh, the memory of your touch.. It’s all too much. 

How Tiresome this life becomes…

I’m tired of investing .. So tired that even if there was a possibility of whatever it is I may have with him blooming into something more, I’d prefer not to.. Despite how the fleeting signs of happiness pass by when he’s around.. It really isn’t worth it. It’s sad though.. That probably in a few years I’ll forget these words or make an exception for someone.. Let them in and reveal the deepest parts of myself. Only to be labeled as not enough in some way or another .. And the cycle repeats itself over and over until either two things happen. Either we find someone who sticks it out no matter what or you find your comfort in yourself during your last years on this earth. Despite how morbid that may seem, countless lives have been spent searching just as I have. And just like them, I’m just tired..

“The out- back” of our backyard?

                                                                                                                                                          

With certain forms of  technology being a relatively new adaptation to the way in which humans communicate with one another, the ways in which authors manage to persuade their readers has also been altered over the years in hopes of being able to maintain some sense of allure for the audience at hand.  Similarly, the authors of the articles “Man discovers a new life-form at a South African truck stop” as well as “Saving Ethiopia’s Church Forests”, Rob Dunn and T. Delene Beeland respectively,  try to attain the same goal of persuasive writing while also acknowledging the use of technology and media that researchers use to help promote benefits of their research to the public. Though rather ambiguous in this light,  the two articles part ways when it boils down to the application of the information and the ways in which it can be implicated into the grander scheme of a project that seems more crucial to a particular area.

Throughout Rob Dunn’s article, the points that are relative to his research as well as his trips are acknowledged in a narrative fashion as he describes his adventures to an audience who might enjoy a short story about excursions around the world, and/or fossils. He reveals the main character Oliver  Zompro, a German biologist, as just another person one may see on the street, but is far different than the usual by stander seen drinking a late and doing a crossword puzzle at Starbucks. With simple language, and yet clear depictions of his worth to the science world, Dunn proves how unique Zompro’s hobbies are- especially when he discovers a new species that has been right under everyone’s nose despite its “most hypothesized home being the fossil section of a museum. Considering the unlikelihood of this animal still surviving after all this time, Dunn provides the background of the newly named creature as well as used a bit of narration as he tells the two stories-the first having to deal with the traveling to the remote location to find the insects and the truck stop incident that happened not so long after. He uses very simple prose so that even the simplest of readers should be able to understand the gist of the article. He also uses the common activity of stopping at a gas station/truck stop, which is common for anyone who has driven for long distances, to portray how easy it could be to discover a new species if one takes time to note that we do not know most animals on this Earth. To fill in the interest gap between himself and his readers, he uses the picture of the isolated area to continue holding the readers interest. Showing the picture of this raised “island” above a desert that goes as far as the eyes can see makes the reader wonder if the explorers did actually make the journey a successful one and therefore urges the audience to continue reading to find out what happens next. Discussing what happened after the discovery of the promising species happens to do this as well – for example, letting the reader know that they began to complain,how  unpleasant thetrip became, and even the unfortunate event  of one person who broke his ankle and then was stung by a scorpion. No matter the pain they endured though, this finding was more precious than gold in their eyes. One could reasonably imply such a response from the text: “They looked in holes. But the truth was that while there were miles of desert there were not really that many places to look. After a whole day nothing had been found, not a single clue. Then things changed. Someone turned a leaf and under it was, lo and behold, a single individual (see photo). It hung there as though it had been waiting for centuries. Soon there were others. By the end of a week, thirty Mantophasmatodes had been collected, observed and fawned over. No one mentioned the heat. No one complained about anything. A few of these serious scientists began, uncontrollably, to smile.” Even with the being outside of their comfort zone in the hot sun of this raised, desolate location, the success of their trip had made it all worth it.

Beeland’s article was much more general in the scope of the welfare of an entire country, rather than the notification of the existence of  one species. This article, unlike its counterpart, uses quite a bit of problem and solution as there are multiple examples of how they are faced with a problem and further find ways and means to solve it ( showcasing problem to 100 priests, toilets, cease use of trees for so many items, etc.) With the dwindling homes of so much biodiversity of the country being the problem at hand, to educate people in the reasons of why the forests of Ethiopia are eradicating as well as why it is important that we preserve them seemed like a major priority – so that the people who are also using the forests for their own needs can have some idea of what they are doing to the soil beneath their feet. It also tries to persuade people to act with pictures of the areas and how much deforestation has occurred as well as with logos (statistics). They also manage to persuade with pathos, as they discuss the Ethiopian forest researcher who wept in frustration when the topic of the forests in his country came up.

While Dunn had portrayed his article in a simple manner through prose, Beeland depicted  her article through the eyes of they children they tried to educate.  They try to communicate science to the public and actively engage children by actively live streaming videos of the field work back to the museum where Lowman started a new job as the director of the Nature Research Center at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. This allowed them to get the attention and help of local children who had watched and later aided in collecting the team’s specimens for research.  She used pictures to depict the message – though some had never seen a computer before- to the 100 priests that were shocked when actually seeing images of the decreasing forests. This spoke volumes to them because the amount of trees surrounding their churches symbolized ho w much they appreciate it since “the tree canopy prevents the prayers from being lost to the sky.” Not all of this task seemed arduous to the people when they considered their lives without the church forests and further realized that they’d have to change their ways if they wanted to protect their houses of worship.  With the help of the North Carolina Naturalist, she is able to describe an experience  filled with surprise and joy more fully with this excerpt: “Armed with our nets and ropes and vials, we attracted a large swatch of children who watched our every move and marveled at the six- legged creatures swept from the foliage. Despite the language barriers, we all laughed when ants fell on our heads, and shrieked with joy when a purple beetle appeared on the surface of our collecting tray.”

To save or not to save?! That is the question…

Michelle Nijhuis does an exemplary job at depicting the urgency of endangered species through her articles,” Which Species Will Live?” as well as “Conservation Triage,” while analyzing the prejudice included in the choices that dictate which animals will survive through aspects of climate change, population growth, or use of natural resources, and which will perish forever in an abyss of extinction. Although making use of similar sources for both articles, which helped support several view points on the task at hand, each was written to appeal to particular readers. For example, the article “Conservation Triage” seemed to be more of a casually-embarked conversation for an audience that did not have as much in depth knowledge about the topic, yet still allows this sense of “togetherness” among the readers to know that everyone could affect the progression of a species with just our daily decisions. Initially, “triage” is a term common to battlefields as medics would have to make decisions as to whom they would care for first. In the same light, Nijhuis emphasizes the fact that such a method as emerged as one of the most common ways to decide which species to save- discussing particular attributes that make a species much more worthy to flourish with the aid of societies and organizations. Yet, at times, she adheres to the audience with diction that forces an instance of guilt and/or responsibility as opposed to implying the idea that only philanthropists and environmentalists made a difference in the situation. Nijhuis does so primarily in the excerpt-“The thing is, most of us are already making these choices, and making them all the time. Not that we think much about it. But every time we decided what to buy, where to build, or who to put in charges of spending our tax dollars, we’re indirectly deciding which species deserve our consideration and which species can do without it.” By appealing to the “pathos,” or emotions of the reader, the author ignites a connection between the public and the animals that suffer as a “necessary” sacrifice for human “needs.” Furthermore, it guides the reader toward the consideration of what they can do to make up for all the harm caused, as well as increases their interest in assuring themselves that their existence ceases to be malevolent in regards to the lives of others.

While including the role of the public, Nijhuis begins to discuss the “politics” as well as controversy between which methods have been suggested due to personal preference despite the emotions that affect one’s outlook on the grand scheme of choices. Some prefer to define the need for preservation solely on the effect a species has on its ecosystem, while others ideally seek out those that have the rarest gene pool and hopefully advance the process of evolution for the animals so that they can adapt to the world as it continues to change. Whichever path that is chosen, those that have been mentioned will leave quite a number of species out in the cold as finances have become finite in the world of environmental safety. With that in mind, the beneficiaries of projects that pertain to the safety of animals and ecosystems have to consider what they will receive in return for their collaborative efforts on the rescue missions. The alternative article,” Which Species Will Live?” puts more emphasis on this topic as Nijhuis incorporates a quote from Tim Male, vice president at Defenders of Wildlife: ”Politically controversial species attract more funding, as do species in heavily studied places: ‘We live in a world of unconscious triage.’” As selfish as that may seem, it is the realistic truth that some animals we see roaming today will disappear simply as a result of the inability to pay for such projects. An inability caused by the lack of popularity a species acquires is a hard hitting fact that hits home every time. The effect this has on the human race as the care takers of the Earth instantly shows in Nijhuis’ other article, as she projects the way in which such a situation can evoke immediate sadness in one’s heart while making such life threatening decisions- a much more elaborate and detailed version of the previous excerpt. In the third paragraph, she writes, “as entire groups of species, including storm petrels, were deemed valuable but not valuable enough, a scientist would quietly shut down, shoulders slumped and eyes glazed. ’I’m just overwhelmed,’ he or she might say…” which immediately allows the reader to note that the people who make these choices are not cold and heartless, but do in fact care rather deeply and see this process as a must for the progress of rescuing the most important in spite of differences in personal opinions.

As a result of embarking on the discussion with this particular scenario, Nijhuis lures the reader with in-depth analysis of the main ideas to further elaborate on that which caused such a reaction from one of the participants in the meetings. She does so through realistically acknowledging the good as well as the bad of each scenario, no matter how good one’s intentions may be when conjuring up a plan for preservation. This reminds the reader that if inspired by said article to adhere to a plan that has flowered in one’s mind, one should be wary of the repercussions, the “what if’s?” and surely the “Is it too late?” scenarios. Such an example was seen within both articles as it regarded the “evolution – first approach which was geared toward giving animals a chance at adapting to the rapidly changing conditions of this world through protecting the species who possess the rarest traits. Though seen as a logical plan, Martha Groom, an ecologist at the University of Washington, pointed out the overlooked repercussions of such an idea and how threatening it could actually be despite the intentions of those who support this method. One of the main points Groom mentions discusses the entirety of an entire species being victimized because of the loop holes of this plan and thus worries about branches of the evolutionary tree being subject to extinction like so many have before us.