Comments on: Militaristic Approach to Invasive Species

By: Jessy Casey

Jessy Casey — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:20:22 +0000

Militaristic terminology can be good at times to convince the average person of an invasive species that could possibly be affecting their own health and the health of the environment. The term “Invasive” alone sounds militaristic, and so this type of terminology is widely used and the most common that I’ve heard. However, they are not involved in a “war” as they only need to be removed from the environment they are invading. This is the only thing I agree with Larson on, because I do not believe all invasive species should be treated as “the enemy”.

By: Kierre Willoughby

Kierre Willoughby — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:12:53 +0000

I agree that the use of militaristic terms cna make it seem like invasive species are intentionally bad and theat they mean to destroy their ne habitat. While in reality the goal isn’t to destroy the invasive species its just to contain them in a way that they dont spread to new habitats and dosen’t drasticlly affect the enviornment they have already been introduced to.

By: Ming Ming Wang

Ming Ming Wang — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:56:54 +0000

I think the statement is more meant to acknowledge the fact that humans as a whole has had a far greater impact on the environment than any other species on the planet. It is hard to even know exactly how an ecosystem was before human activity became a factor in impacting it. I dont think the actions taken by people to try to restore ecosystems should be condemned, but we need to be careful of the fact that in taking action to correct the changes, we may be unknowingly causing more damage.

By: Marian Keegan

Marian Keegan — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 01:40:08 +0000

“Humans have no hope in restoring ecosystems to their original state” seems to condemn any action and obliterate hope. I doubt Larson’s intent was to do either; however, one should not dash hopes. I found the reference to your past blog, presented as a link, very useful.

By: Samuel Brunelle

Samuel Brunelle — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 03:37:03 +0000

I agree with your review of Larson’s commentary. The terminology and metaphors are completely necessary to grab the reader’s attention. Yes, its exaggerated, which makes me even wonder how Larson thinks it can make readers militaristic after reading an article.

By: Meghan Thomas

Meghan Thomas — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:19:41 +0000

I completely agree with your opinion. Like you, it has always captured my attention and made me want to read more. I wonder if militaristic language was studied verse non-militaristic language, which would be more effective in grabbing the readers attention and in conveying the problem? My bet is Larson would lose!

By: Michael Potts

Michael Potts — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:08:44 +0000

I share a similar view on Larson’s arguments and do not think that they are really strongly founded. Had you perhaps chosen to give your example blog post a different title or used different language in it, I do not think that you would have captured the attention of the reader as effectively. I know that I liked your title, and it sparked my interest in reading it. Perhaps Larson should rethink or reanalyze his arguments.

By: Nikki Rigl

Nikki Rigl — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:35:01 +0000

I agree that the use of militaristic language is alluring and leads readers to better understand the hazards posed by invasive species. In a sense we are taking a stand against exotics just as a country would oppose another in a war. While this may slightly amplify the ecology associated with this preeminent problem, I find this writing style convincing and albeit necessary to hold people’s attention and relay importance of this cause. I find it humorous that most of us students in AIS Writing 20 used militaristic language in our writing without intending to or even recognizing it.