December 2, 2015 - 16:53
Bruno Latour articulates a variety of main ideas in his essay-a couple of which clearly stand out to me.
*First, Latour tells how the Earth has survived for an “amount of time vastly older than the existence of the human race”, yet we are destroying our surroundings so rapidly. Latour recognizes that human impact has been detrimental, and will continue to be without modification of human habits.
*Latour also claims that humans have become the subject of the Earth. We have made our world our object, a thing of which we can treat in any way. Mankind is the center focus and the Earth is subjected to human activity. This is wrong.
*Finally, Latour explains that humans are unable to grasp how their immediate actions may influence history. Perhaps Latour is questioning our concept of time and how if affects the decisions we choose to make now. We, as humans, have always viewed consequences as upcoming or far in the future. Humans are not recognizing the danger.
I’m curious as to what any of this means. What is Latour trying to convey? Does he want change?
If an author desires an overwhelmingly significant response from his or her audience, the rhetoric in which they present should be more understanding..