Argument Analysis

The Uninhabitable Earth Article Analysis
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

The Uninhabitable Earth Article Analysis
There is complexity on the issue that climate change is, that it is impossible and naive to look at it in one perspective. In the author’s piece titled “The Uninhabitable Earth” published in the New York Magazine, Wallace-Wells shares his concern about how the world is taking so lightly the issue of climate change. Wallace-Wells is concerned that the world is not concerned or alarmed enough about the possible repercussions that are about to unravel due to climatic change that has been occurring in the recent century (Wallace-Wells, 2017). He argues that the world needs to give the issue more attention and view it in more perspectives than just through the fears of rising sea levels (Wallace-Wells, 2017).
True to what the climatic situation is currently in the world, Wallace-Wells argument is worthy of an audience, but his way of expressing his views will scare if not terrify his audience. Throughout the article, Wallace-wells vividly and frighteningly expresses the potential outcomes of the role that the human population played in accelerating global warming over the past few decades. Moreover, his argument is supported by facts and occurrences that are hard to ignore. For example, the heat waves that heat Karachi and Kolkata in 2015, where close to 1500 deaths were reported, supports his claim that heat death could be one of the repercussions of global warming (Wallace-Wells, 2017).

It is important to acknowledge the fact that Wallace-Wells is right to paint the potential results of global warming as scary. The truth of the matter is the situation and the uncertainty that clouds the issue is frightening. Most of the scientific solutions that have been postulated are either impossible or will have close to zero effect in achieving the desired objectives. Pioneering scientists in the field, for example, Wally Broecker, believe that no amount of emission reductions can be made right now to help avoid a climate-related catastrophe. If professionals, people who are supposed to be giving us the solutions feel that nothing can be done, the actual, people should be scared.
Another perspective to look at the effects of global warming and climate change is to look at it as a problem that we as human beings engineered. And so, just like we made it, we can also find a way or a solution out of it. This is a perspective that according to Wallace-Wells, optimistic scientists even without logical answers to avoiding a possible “doomsday” have a faith, nevertheless in human ingenuity. Even though Wallace-Wells finishes his article with this hope-inspiring conclusion, it is hard not to tell how skeptical he is about the hope that persons can forestall a global disaster (Wallace-Wells, 2017).
The fact that earth has already experienced five mass extinctions before the civilization that is in existence right now further props this argument. In the most recent one about 250 million years ago, about three percent of the population of species on earth survived. Scientists can argue that instead of focusing on avoiding the inevitable catastrophe, more attention should be put in making plans to increase this percentage. Examples of such theories that can be set to practice include a model that will collect excess methane and carbon dioxide and damp it in space.
Some of Wallace-Wells’ arguments are not entirely factual as you maybe be deceived to believe. They are, according to professional review, misleading personal opinions. In the introduction of his piece, Wallace-wells suggest that the melting of permafrost can release a total forty tons of methane into the air. Not only is this statement unrealistic, but also scientifically impossible. The melting of permafrost will release methane gas, but not such a significant amount at once. In fact, the melting of the permafrost cannot happen suddenly and explosively as he suggests. According to Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University, the science to such an occurrence is nuanced and does not support the notion of a game-changing, planet melting methane bomb (Meyer, 2017).
Moreover, most climate scientists and professionals think that Wallace-wells concerns fly beyond the realm of what researchers think is likely to happen (Meyer, 2017). The science that is behind the process is complicated, and the possible outcomes of global warming could be completely different to what Wallace-Wells may postulate. Additionally, over the past decade, scientists have shied away from citing the issue of climate change in a negative way. This is because they believe that people respond better to positive messages and therefore global panic will do less in making the situation better.
However critically we must look at Wallace-Wells’ article it is important to note that his message is not only his but reflects on the society in general. It is only recently that Stephen Hawkings said that, “our species need to colonize other planets in the next century to survive.” This shows that there is a part of the society; especially the scientific community that believes doomsday is actually upon us. If Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk recent unveiling of plans to build shelters on mars is to go by, and then really the statement above cannot be further from the truth (Wallace-Wells, 2017).
Wallace-Wells argument about global warming being the end of food is arguably the most credible of all the possible outcomes talked about in the article. With compelling factual evidence, it is hard to dismiss Wallace-Wells argument. The numbers of droughts that have occurred in recent times have been on the rise and especially in parts of the world that were considered food baskets. Even though climates differ and plants vary, the basic rule for cereal crops grown after the optimal temperature is a decline by ten percent of the yields for every degree increase in temperature. According to research, if by 2080, there would have been no drastic reduction in emissions, the southern part of Europe will be in permanent and extreme drought (Wallace-Wells, 2017).
From these events, it can now be understood where Wallace-Wells concerns arise from. It is evident that his message is not as far-fetched as earlier thought. After all, Wallace-Wells might be right. Therefore, considering that that is the state of the world right now, the article is not worth discarding in its entirety.
In conclusion, this paper has illustrated and evaluated Wallace-Wells arguments. Through analysis of the article, the paper has established how the author came to the conclusions he made and essentially broken down why the article is of relevance to the society today. Even though scary and farfetched the piece by Wallace-Wells is, the message he has for his audience is clear. According to Wallace-Wells, the world as it is right now including you and me is not alarmed enough to make a drastic course of action to avoid global warming engineered apocalypse.
References
Meyer, Robinson. (2017, July 10). “Are we as doomed as that New York Magazine article
says?” The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/is-the-earth-really-thatdoomed/533112/Wallace-Wells, David. (2017, July 10). “The Uninhabitable Earth.” New York Magazine.Retrieved from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html.