key players of the film named Shawn Heinrichs works for Wild Aid as a marine conservationist. He states that “no other species illustrates what’s going on in the ocean better than sharks” which is significant because they predate dinosaurs and have survived four mass extinctions. However, humans have succeeded in cutting down their numbers by 90% within the Anthropocene (Racing Extinction, 2015). Isla Mujeres was the largest shark fishing island on the east coast of Mexico where at least 20 long liners were targeting sharks every day. The film discusses how this town was successfully converted from a hunting ground to one of the best places in the world for tourists to watch sharks. The community of ex-fisherman made significantly more money …show more content…
taking tourists out to swim with whale sharks than killing them on long lines. This is simple economics and shows how there are solutions to the sociological and economic factors that play into the human impacts on the oceans. The film also features a village on a remote island in Indonesia called Lamakera where there are an abundance of whales, dolphins, and manta rays - a biodiversity hotspot (Carolan, 2013). However, there’s no place on earth where more manta rays are being killed than that single village. Hunting mantas is their main source of income and provides their families with food and children with education. The cartilage from the manta ray gills is sent to China and gets crushed down into glycerin sulphate pills for sore joints. With the advent of traders providing diesel powered engines and a supply chain to China, this village transitioned very quickly into a full on commercial outfit. The civilians of the village acknowledge that the manta rays are being wiped out and that something has to change in order for their children to thrive in the future. The filmmakers acknowledge that the only way to affect change in a remote community like Lamakera is to present a viable alternative. This speaks to the social constitutions of daily life regarding environmental issues because the indigenous people of these islands live in a certain social construct that requires them to rely on the available marine life. Although they acknowledge that these resources will eventually run out leaving their children with nothing, it is difficult for them to comprehend other alternatives. The social constitutions of their daily lives constrain their choices in considering other alternatives perhaps due to lack of thinking outside the box. However, the documentary targets these fishing villages because there are available alternatives such as ecotourism which emphasizes the notion of a shift in paradigm in order to affect change. Furthermore, the emergence of hegemonic ideology in society can partially explain the gap between environmental awareness and practicing pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2010). However, society tends to think in the short-term rather than the long-term consequences of the choices we make on a daily basis. The social constitution of daily life suggests that meager public response in the form of social movements and behavioral change could be due to socially organized denial. Collectively ignoring the detrimental human impact on the biodiversity of the planet allows society to continue living their lives as they normally would without disruption (Norgaard 2014). Racing extinction examines the issues of global warming and ocean acidification through the lens of the world’s evaporating wildlife in an attempt to get the world to pay attention, but the scope of the problem is too big for one documentary to tackle.
The film attempts to tackle a multitude of huge species killers such as the increase in greenhouse gases leading to a global increase in average temperatures. According to the film, the biggest factor in terms of this mass extinction is destroying natural habitat and converting it to land for food. Thus, it is no surprise that the more dependent we are on dairy and meat, the greater the CO2 and methane gas emissions. Cattle produce methane as a bi-product for breaking down grass and methane is 22 times more potent as a climate change gas than is CO2. Therefore, 1.5 billion cows across the planet being raised for livestock cause a big problem (Racing Extinction 2015). Methane causes more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transportation sector. The film also shows how rising temperatures due to greenhouse gas emissions is changing the ocean chemistry killing off coral and phytoplankton. Thus, fundamentally altering the marine ecosystem. Marine research geologist, Dr.Boris Worm used satellite imagery to determine that we may have lost 40% of phytoplankton production in just the last fifty years. This is profound because the phytoplankton in the ocean produce half of the oxygen we breathe in order to stay alive (Racing Extinction 2015). The film uses these examples in order to inspire a movement among the world’s citizens to alter their lives in order to prevent a sixth extinction from occurring. They use the strategy of image dissemination; displaying graphic images of animal slaughter and endangered species, hoping to elucidate an emotional response from the viewers. However, I believe the scope of issues the film attempts to address are too large to be solved through image
dissemination. The filmmakers assume imagery and social media are the ultimate motivators to incite change. However, these methods used to impact society on a level that forces change distort social reality because they are unproven and with questionable results. The film coincides with the “Start with 1 Thing” social media initiative, prompting society to start with one thing to help make the world a better place and divert from the mass extinction we’re heading toward. They suggest doing simple things such as not eating meat for one day per week, using public transportation, or pledging to not buy items made from wild animal parts. However, this strategy has been echoed for decades now by scientists and documentaries. This social movement is not novel to the Racing Extinction movement and may not be enough to simply ask people to reduce their carbon footprint through minor changes. The Racing Extinction team sets out to raise awareness by projecting images of critically endangered and extinct species onto public
Smog and pollution adjust the clouds to a darker shade of grey. Birds migrate because they cannot fly and breathe in such horrible air conditions. Grass is no more greener on the other side of anything. Fish either leave or are left for dead. This Book also shows the danger of mass production, that if we produce too much of one thing, such as a “Thneed,” that eventually we will run out of our natural resources.
There have been five mass extinctions over the last half-billion years while the sixth extinction is currently being examined by scientists around the world. Studies have shown that this is the most shocking and damaging event since the impact that caused the extinction of dinosaurs. This one is different from all others, because humans are the cause of this disaster to our current environment. If we don’t start to realize this issue and do something about it, eventually it will be too late to try to save the Earth and ourselves. I am going to analyze the sixth chapter, “The Sea Around Us,” for pathos, ethos, visual rhetoric and other related issues
Every year, there are about 100 million Sharks killed, ultimately for its commercial success. Their fins are used as the main ingredient for a dish so-called Shark soup. However, many are unaware of the actual importance of Sharks' existence on Earth. They do a number of things to control and balance aquatic life down below, which in return affects how we live on the surface. Sharks have existed in our world for over 400 million years, if they were to suddenly disappear for industrial purposes, much problems will be encountered throughout the world. We must preserve the lives of Sharks, for many reasons most importantly that shark hunting is morally wrong, it may provide economic failure in a given time, and it may serve a critical unbalance of a healthy environmental state.
Throughout the film there are many experts about the ocean and the animals that live in it. Researcher Ritter the misconception of the shark’s species is blown out of proportion by the media, which is why sharks have such an awful reputation. Experts touch up on this subject adding how even one of the biggest movies Jaws is a very large portion from where people get their fears from or it could be from all of the “shark attacks” on the news. Rob discusses how at the rate we are going we can destroy all of the food chains in the marine ecosystem, and this is where most of our oxygen comes from. Throughout the film experts Rob Stewart and Paul Watson are trying to get long lining banned in Costa Rica. Paul makes a really interesting point saying how the biggest problem is that we do not understand what we are and we are just a bunch of “conceited naked apes” that are out of
In 2015 only 59 shark attacks have occurred around the world compared to the millions of sharks killed by humans every year. Due to these accidental shark attacks people tend to think that sharks, especially Great Whites are evil creatures with malice intentions when attacks do occur; but, on the contrary that is wrong. Sharks are not the only beautiful and unique creatures in the ocean, they also play a vital role in our ecosystem; however, due to human interference they might not be around much longer, through awareness sharks can be protected from endangerment.
...ishing. While it makes clear that changes need to be made politically, this is a film meant to appeal to the environmentally concerned citizen. The film-like elements, while distracting to those watching the film with analytical intent, would most likely evade the average viewer. Such thematic elements help to increase viewer engagement, already lacking in environmental films, as becomes significantly easier to watch. Rupert Murray created a film not to be picked apart by critics, but to serve as conversational material between average citizens. He takes steps to ensure that viewers are given simple directives and memorable arguing points, such as repeating images of the MSC sustainable logo. While the statistics may have be victim to claims of arbitrariness, it is easy to visualize an individual at a party asking if others have heard that seafood will end in 2048.
Thesis: Sharks should be conserved because they are an important part of the ocean, attacks are often incidental, and human behavior influences the behavior of sharks.
Racing Extinction is an optically stunning documentary that explores the causes and possible solutions to the Anthropocene Extinction Event. The film is directed by Boulder resident and Academy Award winning director of The Cove, Louie Psihoyos, whose background spars from nearly two decades of photojournalism with National Geographic. The term Anthropocene describes the current era of man that lives on the planet Earth. The extinction event itself, the largest in geological history, is caused by the negative externalities that have arisen due to human activity in the relatively fractional moment that humans have subsided on Earth. Racing Extinction conveys a strong message of environmental conservation to an audience of consumers who are sympathetic to nonhumans and ecologically
The use of fossil fuels has greatly increased the amount of atmospheric and oceanic CO2 to a point where it’s ruining the natural flow of the world; the earth’s temperature is rising. As a result, the polar ice caps are melting causing the seas to rise. With only a 1 meter increase in sea level the United States alone could lose over 10,000 square miles of land, and thousands of houses will be destroyed. The effects will be just as prominent around the world: many islands will become submerged, 17% of Bangladesh will be underwater, and tens of thousands of people will be displaced (“Global Warming” 3).
When it comes to documentaries, many are made to look real, but the truth has been manipulated. Racing Extinction, however, is a carefully constructed documentary which aims to show viewers mankind’s role in potential losses of at least half of the world’s species. Racing Extinction is a documentary created by filmmaker Louie Psihoyos, director of Oscar winning documentary, The Cove. In 2005, Psihoyos co-founded the organization, Oceanic Preservation Society, also known as OPS. ‘’The objective of OPS is to educate the public on what is happening to the Earth, and to promote individuals to make a difference so that future generations will have an enriched environment, not a diminishing one.’’
The whole documentary centered on the death of coral reefs due to the warm temperatures of the oceans brought about by climate change. One of the greatest factors of warm oceans is the greenhouse gases transferred in the ocean which includes carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, which humans emit in the atmosphere, has the capacity to trap heat and 93% of this goes to the oceans.
Through the movie, James Cameron pointed out a stream of powerful themes that were so important to our modern world. The issues that were corporations destroying nature for profit, the lack of respect for creature livings were mentioned.
This film focuses on the titular oceanographer/documentarian (Bill Murray) and his quest to avenge the death of his lifelong friend at the teeth of what Zissou dubs a jaguar shark. Zissou, however, is washed up, and faces financial and crew-related challenges due to his lack of recent success. He embarks on his journey
Firstly, the film begins by showing the costs of man’s destruction of the environment. The “Seven Days of Fire” had been a war fought one thousand years ago using genetically engineered bioweapons. This war eradicated all the previous nature in the world, and brought about the emergence of the “Toxic Jungle”. The jungle covers the entire ecosphere with the exception of a few remaining civilizations. The jungle is extremely lethal to humans and is inhabited by monstrous insects called Ohm.
In 1927, for the first time in history, the world’s population reached two billion people. In 2011, less than one hundred years later, it passed seven billion (Worldometers). Some may think that this is a positive increase, creating economic growth and significant innovations in fields such as agriculture, industry and medicine. However, the amount of difficulties our species will encounter over the next century because of this population increase, will greatly outweigh those few optimistic beliefs. For example, twelve to fifteen million hectares of forest are lost every year, the equivalent of thirty six football fields per minute (World Wildlife Fund). In 2011, there were an estimated nine and a half billion metric tonnes of carbon emissions put into our atmosphere (CO₂ Now). The list could go on and on, but ultimately, these are all just contributors to what might be humanity’s most challenging problem yet: climate change.