The public must be enlightened, but the public must not be belittled. That is the major difference between Anna Lappe's essay The Climate Crisis at the End of Our Fork and Derrick Jensen and Stephanie McMillan's As the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Stay in Denial. Although these two pieces seem similar on the surface, as they both address society's ignorance towards climate change, only one truly educates the public on the issue and sparks initiative for change, while the other criticizes and mocks its audience for trying to cope with a situation that is far more complex than the average person comprehends.
As the World Burns presents itself as a self-aware satire, in hopes of causing society to recognize how the "easy solutions" …show more content…
For example, Lappa introduces the issues that come with the destruction of rainforests. At first, this issue presents itself as a concept that most readers would be familiar with, and something that is commonly agreed upon as an issue. However, when Lappa exposes that these same rainforests are what allows for quick and easy access to an abundance of food that no one ever seems to think twice about, a wake-up call starts to go off in the back of the readers mind. Without belittling her audience for not understanding the whole picture, Lappas piece instead guides her audience into coming to their own realization of their misconceptions towards climate change. Lappa even goes as far as to offer real solutions to the problems she presented, such as sustainable farming. At the end of the piece the audience is left with a new found understanding that they should be a lot more worried about their future than they previously were, but they are also left with this hope that there are still ways to make progress changes in society. The future does not have to be grim, but we must be able to face the grim reality that if drastic changes are not made to our society, life as we know it may cease to
As the World Burns presents itself as a self-aware satire, in hopes of causing society to recognize how the "easy solutions" …show more content…
For example, Lappa introduces the issues that come with the destruction of rainforests. At first, this issue presents itself as a concept that most readers would be familiar with, and something that is commonly agreed upon as an issue. However, when Lappa exposes that these same rainforests are what allows for quick and easy access to an abundance of food that no one ever seems to think twice about, a wake-up call starts to go off in the back of the readers mind. Without belittling her audience for not understanding the whole picture, Lappas piece instead guides her audience into coming to their own realization of their misconceptions towards climate change. Lappa even goes as far as to offer real solutions to the problems she presented, such as sustainable farming. At the end of the piece the audience is left with a new found understanding that they should be a lot more worried about their future than they previously were, but they are also left with this hope that there are still ways to make progress changes in society. The future does not have to be grim, but we must be able to face the grim reality that if drastic changes are not made to our society, life as we know it may cease to