Conclusion of “Conservation Triage” and”What Species will live”

In the article conversation triage, Nijihuis summarizes that making decisions about which species worthy of being saved  is pretty hard before the end, and then says that people have to decide . This senses that he throws a dilemma for people to face. And he advocates the public to bravely face it and pick a choice. However, in the article what species will live, Nijihuis just clearly states the fact that every criteria has its own flaws. And in the last paragraph, he presents some scholars suggestions. Compared with these two conclusions, we can see that the ending of which species will live is more objective than conversation triage’s.

Nijhuis’ Conclusions

Michelle Nijhuis’ concludes her article “Which Species Will Live?” by explaining, through the use of a simile, that as a society, we need to make stronger efforts to save more species, not just let them die out because they don’t serve a role that is beneficial enough for mankind. She compares what society should be doing to a battlefield medic who “works unstintingly to save lives, even while knowing that he or she cannot save them all.” By using this simile, Nijhuis explains that people should attempt to save every species, even if in reality they can’t save them. Society needs to make an effort, rather than letting species die because in the moment they have no function.

In the conclusion of her article “Conservation Triage, ” Nijhuis hopes to show readers that we could have prevented extinction, but because society decided on the triage system, many were left alone to die out. She makes an emotional appeal by making the reader place him or her self in the position of many officials who decide which species will live with the ending line, “Who gets to board your ark?” After providing the reader with evidence and explanations of the various species that are endangered, and what government has done to either save them or watch them go, she lets the reader see how difficult the decisions that triage involves are.

Both of Nijhuis’ conclusions act as a way for her to show that society could have saved many species, but the importance of the species was not there and neither was the resources nor funding. So in attempts to act for the greater good of society, a triage system was created to save species that seemed more important. Nijhuis recognizes that all species hold equal importance and that in reality the Noah Principle should have been followed, but it is too late to reverse and instate that now, so society has to make efforts now, with the funding and resources we do have to make the difficult decisions that will save more species.

Know Your Target

A good writer knows exactly who the reader is. Michelle Nijhuis wrote two articles, for very different audiences. One was very specific, published in a magazine Scientific American for a particularly academic audience. The other was an online article, meant to be spread through social media and tailored to accompany the most basic understanding of her topic: endangered species. She discusses the problems we face in the world considering which endangered species to save. How do we choose one over the other? Using different articles, she gets her message across to different audiences. Although both articles contain the same thesis (insert thesis), her vocabulary, tone, and references differ in each article.

Nijhuis surely knew what audience she was writing for. Nijhuis’ article “Which Species Will Live?” was published in August 2012 in Scientific American magazine.  The audience was undoubtedly expecting an academic and scientific approach to the topic of endangered species. Nijhuis delivers just that. She begins with a scenario depicting the endangered storm-petrel in unfavorable conditions, putting the reader into a sympathetic mood. The use of such a specific case indicates the high amount of expected interest of the audience. She uses the specific type of animal in her story. She could have simply mentioned a random, commonplace animal. Another example of an audience-specific technique was her use of vocabulary. She used particularly advanced vocabulary without diluting it with easy-to-understand definitions. For example, when she mentions the word “triage,” she refers all the way back to the Napoleonic Wars (something an academically-minded reader should know about) to explain where the concept of triage originated from. Nijhuis’ tone is consistently formal. She uses quotes frequently and appropriately, and the essay is entirely in third person.

Michelle Nijhuis’ second article on conservation called “Conservation Triage” was written in February 2013, this time on an online article. Online articles are spread more frequently using social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter. This article was clearly tailored for a wide range of people. The article begins with the phrase “Let’s say…” This contrasts greatly with Nijhuis’ previous in-depth description of the storm petrel. The phrase offers a more casual and conversational tone. Throughout the article, she speaks to the reader, via second person. She makes the article more current by stating that the fortieth anniversary of the Endangered Species Act is that specific year (2012). She defines triage in a more accessible way: “a rational set of criteria is used to allocate limited resources,” rather than going back to the Napoleonic era. Her voice is easily casual with rhetorical questions such as “Sounds great, right?” This article has a much warmer, less academic feel to it than the article in Scientific American.

Although both articles were able to convey their points about the difficult decisions made on which endangered species to save, the articles used very different approaches. It seemed as if two different writers wrote the articles. From tone to the level of academic understanding, the articles had great differences. The arguments were exactly the same, just rewritten in ways that would draw the reader in. As a writer, Nijhuis has succeeded in knowing and entertaining her audiences.

 

Saving Species With A Finite Budget

The constant battle between wanting to protect and save the numerous amount of species in danger with a finite government budget plagues modern society. The increases in environmental change, as well as the harm that human beings are causing the planet and the environment makes this struggle of which species to save a growing problem, especially in a struggling economy.  Michelle Niijhuis brings attention to the topic of conservation triage in both of her articles, “Which Species Will Live?” and “Conservation Triage.” Conservation triage is “based loosely on the medical term  triage, a decision-making system used by battlefield medics since the Napoleonic Wars.” This term speaks of making difficult decisions based on what is best for the greater good. Niijhuis speaks about the individual value of species and the importance that all have on an ecosystem, but with limited funds, conservationists have to pick and choose their battles wisely. They have to choose which species are more important based on the role they serve and what they can do for society.

Niijhuis discusses many similar topics in both articles, however her tone is different in each. In “Which Species Will Live?,” she addresses her audience with a tone of urgency, laying out the facts and backing up her evidence with words from many different, well-known environmental groups, like the Zoological Society of London, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the New Zealand Department of Conservation, and references many well known environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act. Also, she provides the reader with fact upon fact about how the environment has changed over the course of the past 30 years and the measures government has taken to attempt to restore the balance of nature. The appeals to logos and ethos, and the tone of urgency and danger, pertain to a reader who is aware of many of the environmental hazards that our society has faced. Through the facts, she attempts to persuade the reader to become more involved.

In her article, “Conservation Triage,” Niijhuis takes a softer approach and develops her points through the idea of the
“ark, ” referencing Noah’s Ark. This is a well-known story and relates to readers who aren’t as aware of many of the environmental dangers that exist in the world today. She asks the reader to think about making the decision on which animals to take. “You’ve got a boat—oh, let’s just make it an ark, shall we?—and you can load it with any kind of animals you like. The species you coax on board will probably make it through climate change. The ones you leave on shore probably won’t. While you can choose your passengers, there are limits: Put too many critters in the ark and the whole thing, you included, will start to sink.” This idea entices the reader by allowing him or her to make the decision, putting them in a place of power and helping to provide the reader with the issues that everyday conservationists face about saving various species. She also explains that many species survive because of the purpose they serve society and mankind, since they are ultimately the ones who decide which will live. Through the use of this analogy, Niijhuis demonstrates the idea of conservation tillage to someone who may not know much about the conservation.It  forces “professionals—and, indirectly, voters and taxpayers—to make difficult, emotional decisions, but give them some reassurance that those decisions are for the greater good.” She also adds facts, to appeal to logos, about acts that were passed to save to environment, and mentions big names when it comes to envioromentalists and conservstion groups, like Tim Male, a vice president at Defenders of Wildlife.

Both articles make the reader aware of the issues going on within the environment, but do so in different ways. “Conservation Triage” is targeted at a less knowledgeable reader and “Which Species Will Live?” is aimed at a reader who is aware of what is going on. While using different tones and methods, both articles convey the same message and successfully enlighten the reader about issues, while persuading him or her to become active in fixing this world-wide plague.

 

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.

Same Story, Different Ways

“Which Species Will Live?” and “Conservation Triage” are two essays both written by Mitchell Nijhuis, discussing about the same topic: Saving species with prejudice. However, while “Which Species Will Live?” uses formal and academic language and style, “Conservation Triage” adopts a comfortable and friendly style. For example, Nijhuis applied plenty of professional words in “Which Species Will Live?”, such as “global priority”and “complementarity”. However, in the other one, Nijhuis began the article with a casual conversation, “Let’s say you’re in charge of picking the survivors. You’ve got a boat—oh, let’s just make it an ark, shall we?” Obviously, there are huge difference.This is mainly because the difference of audience. “Which Species Will Live?” was published on Scientific American.com on August 2012, which means its audience are more educated and interested in science. There may be a large number of scholars and academics who read this article. On the contrary, “Conservation Triage” was published on a website called Slate.com, which is a popular web portal targeting on mass market. That is to say, the reader of “Conservation Triage” probably have little knowledge about saving species before reading the article.

Also, there is another significant difference between the two articles: images. As we can see, there are two images in “Which Species Will Live?”. The first comic shows various kinds of stuffed animals being displayed separately in small bottles. This picture gives me a strong impression and makes me feel sad about this lives. Another one is called “Winners and Losers”, which tells which species would be the winners or losers under different criteria. It is a more scientific image that plays the role of an explanation. On the other hand, in “Conservation Triage”, there is only one picture on the top of article. It is a bald eagle, the symbol of the United States. The description under the image writes “Politically controversial species attract more funding, as do those with symbolic value, like bald eagles.” Obviously, this image functions to give the readers a general understanding about saving species. Due to the discrepancy of the audience, it is definitely smart of Nijhuis to choose different images. The two pictures of the first article are dedicate to illustrate a serious situation of all the species, and gives explanation of different priorities to the readers, who are supposed to focus on academic horizon. Meanwhile, the picture of a bald eagle in the second article significantly brings the writer and her readers closer to each other because every American knows that eagle. Without doubt, it is a effective strategy to inform her readers of the urgency of saving species with prejudice, which arises attention of the public to really care about this matter.

Survival of the Fittest best for society?

“Which Species Will Live?” and “Conservation Triage” are two separate articles written by Michelle Nijhui, concerning the same topic.  While the latter was published in August 2012’s issue of Scientific American and the former was published on slate.com on Feb 21, 2013, they both discuss how conservationists have turned to Conservation Triage in addressing species endangerment.  Conservation Triage is the concept of decision-making based on scarcity.  It involves the sorting of “patients” for treatment in difficult situations, “where time expertise or supplies or all three are scarce”.  Conservation triage involves the application of determine which species to save and no to save.  She tells us that this has become necessary, writing in “Which Species Will Live”: the decisions are agonizing but are considered essential for the greater good.”  In both articles, she writes that it might reflect failure in following the Endangered Species act and protecting all species without prejudice.  However, the “status quo” is even worse being that the U.S. tends to pay more attention towards the “politically controversial” or “heavily studied” In both articles, she writes how conversationalists are applying this triage method. She introduces us with the “Function-First” approach where species are chosen according to how unique or essential their role is in nature.  A second method, she dubs “Evolution First” in “Which Species Will Live”, is the prioritization of species based on how genetically diverse they are.

Both articles have the same thesis that conversationalists have turned to triage to determine which species to save and which to let go.  However, they both do this in different ways.  The first article “Which Species Will Live?” contains much more information as well as details about conservational triage.  It goes into greater depth, discussing the controversies and the problems of conservational triage.  For instance, she writes about the many conversationalists that remain uncomfortable using triage and the many people that disapprove of it because it admits to failure and threatens our moral responsibility for nature.  Furthermore, she analyzes the problems that arise for each of the approaches of triage. She expresses that “Function First is useful only I well-understood systems, and the number of those is small (77).”  She describes how by using the Evolution-first method, we are missing broader threats that affect entire taxa.  This article also brings up “Hotspots” which is an approach that apply both function first and evolution first, by preferring ecosystems rich in species, while the other doesn’t address “Hotspots” at all.  I would say that her other article “Conservation Triage” is a very brief, concise version of “Which Species Will Live?”  It addresses all of the same main ideas however doesn’t is less informative and detail oriented compared to “Which Species Will Live?” “Conservation Triage” is more casual in tone while the other is more serious in tone.  She begins “Conservation Triage” by making her audience envision an anecdote, where we have an ark that can only load and save a certain number of the animals.  Which species will you save? She writes.  On the other hand, she begins her other article detailing an ashy storm petrel that nests on 11 isolated islands weighing little and forced to contend with difficult living conditions.  I think that both articles address the general public.  However, I feel as though the article “Which Species Will Live”, addresses a more science-interested or scholarly audience.  She does end this article, calling people to aspire to the Noah Principle: all species are equal and everything can and should be saved.  “Conservation Triage” does not end on this note rather it merely ends after she provides an example of the Evolution-First method.

Analysis on the differences between essays by Michelle Nijhuis

After reading both essay wrote by  Michelle Nijhuis on the same topic, it is easily to distinguish the rhetorical differences between those two essays. The first one, “Conservation Triage” was published on the website with colored picture with it, which reminds us of popular science. The potential reader for this kind of essay will be those who have almost no knowledge or a little knowledge about what the author is trying to explain. So Nijhuis gives the new word, “Conservation Triage” as topic to make people feel fresh about the topic and wonder what Conservation Triage is, which makes them have desire to keep reading. Then, he starts the essay with easy-understand example to tell the audience what this essay is going to talk about. He replaces all the scientific words to simple word for audience to understand and he gives example that is normal in our daily life to explain all the science related events. What is more, the length of the essay is also suitable for normal audience to read. Usually readers with no background knowledge will hardly have interest to read several pages long essay and even they can, it is hard to them to understand.

However, the essay “Which Species Will Live” is more professional in comparison. The topic of the essay directly point out what the essay is going to talking about and the audience is obviously those with enough background knowledge and have been study specifically with. Also the length, the word the essay use, and even the picture which have specific explanation with are all the evidence of the professional reading. The sub-topic of the essay is another difference that differs from the popular science and the professional science.  “Which Species Will Live” focuses more on detail, but “Conservation Triage” focuses more on what the problems are. So for me, there are the main differences.

Which Species Will Live and Conversation Triage

When a reader runs his or her eye over on these two articles, he or she definitely will sense that they have different style. One “which species will live” counts as a scientific article on a serious reader’s beside table, while the other “conversation triage” is like a popular introduction for an unfamiliar thing. If we study where the two articles are published, we will know why the differences exist between them. “Which species will live” is posed on a Scientific American, a scientific magazine aimed for people who are specifically interested in science; “conversation triage” appears on Slate, a website which covers more general topics of which science is only one part. People who scan this website may not have any knowledge of science or animals. Thus the author has necessity to compose two articles with different styles.

After finishing these articles, the most standing difference should be language. “Which species will live” apparently adopts a formal and serious language to tell readers objectively what is going on. “Conversation triage” uses simple and comprehensible words as many as possible. Since readers who read Scientific American have already had scientific knowledge, the author directly informs readers what he is talking about. However, the author uses a series of hook questions in “conversation triage” to intrigue reader’s interest firstly, and then introduce what he is going to say. It is easy for us to find out another evidence. When explaining the term “triage”, the author uses totally different way. In “which species will live”, the author mentions the word “triage” ‘s origination that the method is used in battlefield medics. And followed by is real explanation of this term. Nevertheless, in “conversation triage”, the author gives his own adapted and more understandable explanation.

Compared to “conversation triage”, “which species will live” is much longer. This means that the author tells more detailed facts in the article. As to introducing “resource allocation”, the author mentioned more detailed and accurate statistics like “710 declining native species”, but he just says “more than 700 native species” in “conversation triage”. What’ more, the author states drawbacks of resource allocation method in “which species will live”, but he says little in “conversation triage”. The author deletes much unnecessary details to form the article “conversation triage”.