Killing Ourselves?

Sarah Mark

I came across a recent article which addresses the issues of extinction. The article, entitled “We’re Killing Everything, Including Ourselves: Royal Society Sort of Says” (October 11) by Matthew McDermott, makes one large claim on the issue. His main point is that humans are the cause of the majority of the extinctions that have occurred during our time here on earth. We are the reasons for the environmental concerns of the world, and if this will inevitably lead to our downfall, he wonders why people cannot understand this. How can the problem be any clearer?

The issue he addresses is clearly an important one; I don’t think anyone can argue that. This is no doubt something that we as a race should all be concerned with, but he goes into almost no detail about it. He offers one reference which points out the great changes people have made but then does not go on to explain it at all. He quotes from the Royal Society, "There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record...Never before has a single species driven such profound changes to the habitats, composition and climate of the planet."(Magurran et al , 2010) He then follows it up with nothing, no explanation and no point. He continues on then to summarize the conclusion of the article which basically states only the quote he already included. The summary itself does make some good points, about mass extinctions, climate changes, biodiversity and how we should be finding tools to measure the extent and intensity of these changes. These all seem like things McDermott could have expanded on to make his point clearer but he said nothing after the summary, he only went on a rant about how people don’t care or listen. I even found his title a little confusing… using “Sort of” does not sound like a convincing article is going to follow.

The second concern I had with the article was that McDermott didn’t include any sort of statistics. He uses his quote to point out that the rate of extinction in species exceeds anything in the past, and that climate changes are at a maximum but he doesn’t include any numbers to go with it. I feel that any convincing argument, especially one that refers to an actual study, could make a much better impact with some statistics to show the actual increase. Percents and numbers always have a way of getting people’s attention.

Just to pick on the little things, I also thought the article could have used some editing, and that’s something coming from me. I stumbled on a few obvious grammar problems but more importantly I found it hard to read a lot of the sentences. This wasn’t because of big words or complicated thoughts; it was just that they weren’t well thought out in their structure. “In case the litany of separate studies showing how bad the ongoing extinction crisis the planet is undergoing, driven for all intents and purposes entirely by humans, really is haven't driven the point home”(McDermott 2010) What? Am I the only one confused by this sentence? I personally find it difficult to be swayed by someone’s opinion when I can hardly follow their train of thought.

My next critical thought came when I noticed, and it didn’t take long, that McDermott did not offer any sort of solution. He simply stated the problem and then commented on people’s lack of interest. Oh, but he did make one comment about another person’s suggestion. “Paraphrased, how do we get people to care? Richard Brenne suggests more provocative headlines and the one on this post is mostly Brenne's. Thanks.” (McDermott 2010) And that’s it. That is the only input he shares with us regarding a solution to people’s lack of action.

Lastly I was concerned with the way McDermott chose to end the article. It didn’t seem to me to be very nice and didn’t make me sympathize with him. “Why is this simple, seemingly self-evident concept so difficult to grasp? Let alone act upon?”(McDermott 2010) I think this is more of an insult to people rather than a thought provoking question. Kind of a poor ending, but it did keep in theme with the rest of the article. I would have been more interested if he had asked a question not pointing out my ignorance and lack of action but one that made me really think about the problem. A question that would stir in my mind until, maybe, I really felt the initiative to make a change.

In conclusion, I do agree with his main point of the importance of this issue, and I appreciate his passion, but I feel that if he wanted to go to the trouble of writing and posting the article, he might have considered making it a bit more convincing. Statistics, more explanation, a little compassion for the reader, and a little editing would have made this article a much more interesting read.

Citations:
McDermott, Matthew., New York, October, 11, 2010.Science & Technology, We’re Killing Everything, Including Ourselves: Royal Society Sort of Says.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/were-killing-everything-including-ourselves-royal-society-sort-of-says.php

Magurran, A. E., and Dornelas M., 2010, The Royal Society B, Biological diversity in a changing world.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1558/3593.full