In the essay For the Love of Life, the American ecologist Edward Wilson argues that biophilia has always been an innate quality of humans. In this context, Wilson proves that humans are bound to the living environment via kinship, genetic unity, and long history, so in order to provide the proper future for the human species, the humankind should conserve biological diversity.
The central idea of Wilson’s article is that humans have an inborn affinity for other life forms. This natural tendency of humans to focus on different life processes is called biophilia. Wilson persuades that biophilia can well be explained by the application of his savannah hypothesis. The latter assumes that humans, since they have evolved in the environments of savannahs, have an innate preference for those habitats which resemble the savannah. Wilson’s savannah hypothesis aligns with the concept of habitat selection, in which humans, as species dependent on specific natural environments, have certain aesthetic preferences as to where to live. In relation to this, Wilson assumes that it is the genetic preference that guides humans in their selection of the living habitat and their affinity for the natural environment despite all beauty of stone and glass cities.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"For the Love of Life: Summary".
Conservation ethic will pass on the best part of the natural world if people learn to take responsibility and love the world. All living organisms have been related by the genetic unity and genetic history. The role of the human is to protect the living planet, where the human plays the role of the mind in a body. In the technocratic world, natural environment is still attractive for people: the author persuades that biophilia is an instinct. The environment offers multiple potentials and people should preserve it so that the next generations may get resources and knowledge from the rich source of the natural environment.
The author uses his credibility as a renowned scientist to prove the savannah hypothesis, as well as builds on particular evidence to support the arguments. His logic is clear and his arguments are well constructed. The author is emotional enough and uses lots of rhetorical questions in the situations when it is particularly necessary to convince people to support him. The language, too, is full of scientific terms; yet many of them are explained for better clarity.
