How to Poison the Earth Name: Course: Due Date: How to Poison the Earth In the article, “How to Poison the Earth” by Linnea Saukko, the main idea presented in the first paragraph is that “Poisoning the Earth can be difficult because the earth is always trying to cleanse and renew itself” (Kennedy et al, 1997, p208). The implied main idea in the article by Saukko is that, people should be keener on how pollution has negative effects on the earth and that people should take correct measures to dispose wastes. The implied idea also suggests that the most important thing to do is to ensure that the world protects the environment against irreversible consequences of pollution. In the third paragraph of the article, Linnea Saukko directly implies that “burying toxins in the earth is the next best method” in poisoning the earth (Kennedy et al, 1997, p209). The implied man idea in this paragraph is to show that people in the world do not practice appropriate measures to dispose of poisonous waste. In paragraph eight, the direct idea as presented in the article concludes that it is very easy to pollute the earth, one “just has to be sure to generate as many substances as possible…”and one will have successfully polluted the environment (Kennedy et al, 1997, p210).
The implied main idea is caution. The caution by the article is that man should not pollute the earth to an extent where the damage cannot be turned around. Man can choose to either care or neglect the effects of their actions. In summary, the implied main idea is about how human beings poison the world and how pollution spreads allover the world. In the first paragraph, the writer sets the tone by suggesting that poisoning can be a difficult process yet, what the writer means is that poisoning the earth is not particularly difficult. Looking at the pollution levels in the world, it is evident that people, by means of industry and other activities, have managed to pollute the earth easily and rapidly.
For further implications on the ease of polluting the earth, the writer goes ahead to describe the various ways through which the earth can be polluted. The article also traces how the pollution flows between the water bodies and the effects that arise from such pollution. The writer also presents the effects of climate change and the subsequent heat on water bodies and animals. Water bodies evaporate, and animals may die. “Overheating can be a deadly threat for many animals” (Angier, 2004, p512). One thing to note is that the descriptions are true accounts of how the earth is being polluted.
Reading the essay can either be enjoyable or down right repulsive. One can enjoy the article because of the stylistic approach Linnea Saukko has chosen, but the repulsive effect comes from the truth of the activities of man that destroy the earth. The author has chosen to imply her central point as a stylistic device.
She has chosen to use sarcasm as a style so that the article can be enjoyable and at the same time be informative. Sarcasm is a stylistic device where someone says one thing yet s/he means another, using humor. Sarcasm is an aspect of irony. The writer is discussing weighty issues, but the sarcastic tone makes these issues seem trivial. The sarcastic element of humor is used to ease the reader into accepting what the writer is proposing. Such writing, where a writer uses a lighter tone to discuss serious matters, is more effective especially if people tend to shy away form such topics.
The risk attached to such stylistic writing is that people may trivialize and devalue the message. Linnea Saukko in employing stylistic features in her article has managed to appeal to a large audience. However, one cannot quantify positive appeal neither can they for the negative. References Kennedy, X. J., Kennedy, D. M., & Aaron, J.
E. (1997). The Brief Bedford reader. Boston: Bedford.