More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weaknesses of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory
Charles darwin theory reflection
Strengths and weaknesses of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Nature can be murderous. Yet, thousands of people can go down trying to fight it. Which almost happened in the story “Leiningen Versus the Ants” by Carl Stephenson. Brazilian army ants are the main antagonists in the story, that represent nature. When humans are forced into conflicts with nature, the struggle will be intense and unpredictable, as a result of this the person will fail because nature has the ability to adapt and outwit. approaching the profound bloodshed, Leiningen had a calm attitude to the army ants, in view of his attitude, it leads to his downfall. Faced with the decision to fight or flight, Leiningen, the main character of the story, Was informed of the ants power yet, chose to stay and fight, holding himself with high …show more content…
confidence. L achieved from his early successes which are noted as, “...even here in this Brazilian wilderness his brain had triumphed over every difficulty and danger it had so far” (Stephenson 552). What he thought anyway, but nothing from his past could prepare him for the upcoming events. In the story, a district commissioner cautioned Leiningen the danger of the ants. But, he chose to omit the advice given to him. “He was sure he would prove more than a match for the ‘irresistible ants’” (stephenson 552). Leningen thought he was more intellectual than the ants. One of his proudest tactics were traps. Figuring the ants would not be able to think their way through the barriers. “I use my intelligence, old man, with me, the brain isn't a second blind gut. I know what it's there for” (Stephenson 551). He thought only setting up two simple traps would fool the ants. With his arrogance, he could effortlessly gain the win. Later, Leiningen would soon realise nature had more up its sleeve. In mid conflict, Leiningen started to change his attitude about the ants.
They threw in new and different ways to navigate the obstacles. Leiningen not in the least expected they had the intelligence to do so. Discovering they could not pass through the moat, because Leiningen placed strategic traps he thought it was his victory, but nature could easily think as well too. remarkably they figured out a new way to cross. Leaves were used like boats. This was a turning point for Leiningen. At this time, he actualized that the ants would prevail. “...ants are intelligent that certain species even use others as milch cows, watchdogs, and slates, he was well aware of their power of adaptation” (Stephenson 560). It was now a challenge for him. Soon after he started doubting if he could handle the situation, “Hadn’t his brain for once taken on more than it could manage?” (Stephenson 555). The ants, an overwhelming force with new changing tactics each second. Even still their powers grew, Leiningen could see that he could not back out this moment, he had to stay and fight. Not doing anything would get the plantation engulfed in sufferacting ants. “As things stood at present it looked as if the devils would raze him and his men from the earth instead. He had underestimated the might of the enemy” (Stephenson 561). He could foresee that the onslaught was close to an end, nevertheless something drastic had to happen even if it changed his perspective. The ants would soon chew on the
flesh of Leiningen. He now, had to fight for his life. Afraid for his life, but not cowering. Leiningen had to cross into the enemy lines to defend the plantation. He had to make a break through the horde to flood the moat. In his mind, he thought he would die. He was finally fearful of the ants. In spite of his courage he was not even halfway to his destination, he knew before he would die pictures would form of his past life in his head. And that is exactly what happened. Leiningen's power was dwindling the ants were going to take the victory. In the last second, he flooded the moat taking the ravenous ants with it. Even if he had won the battle his flesh was torn to the bone. He would be scarred all through the rest of his life. In the back of his mind, he knew he should not have underestimated the might of nature. Nature had the incredible ability to adapt and outwit. Humans can get caught in conflicts with nature. The fight is always intense and unpredictable. Before the fight, Leiningen held confidence in himself of squashing the ants. But as the battle went on, the ants grew in power. They jumped all his obstacles to the point Leiningen feared his life. All together nature outwit Leiningen in many ways. Nature can be destructive and if underestimated it will become the greatest power and rise in the top.
Adding to this idea that nature and all of its ugliness and abnormalities is still in fact nature, Quammen goes on further by addressing the human attitude towards nature’s intricacies. By this, Quammen refers to the human attitude towards nature as a whole based solely upon his/her opinion of one organism. As textual evidence for this idea, the example of the spider can be used again. Most people associate the black widow as being venomous and deadly, and so they unfairly associate the same characteristics with harmless beneficial house and garden spiders as well. This attitude toward the spiders can also be applied to nature as a whole. Since humans posses this attitude towards nature, a lot of nature’s beauty is often overlooked.
The inspiring documentary film, E.O. Wilson—Of Ants and Men, showcases biologist Edward Osborne Wilson’s passion for preserving the biodiversity of our natural world. E.O. Wilson not only values the fascinating creatures (particularly ants) that he comes across during his research and in his daily life, but he also takes action and participates in the Gorongosa Restoration Project at Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique, Africa. The destruction of Gorongosa demonstrates the call for us—Homo sapiens—to realize how critical it is to concern ourselves with protecting the very ecosystems that have molded us into the complex species that we are; according to E.O. Wilson, “We adapted over millions of years to wild environments…We really need them” (CITE?). The better effort we make to understand that we are a part of this large, interdependent ecological community, the better equipped we become in not only being
Annie Dillard, in her excerpt, “Heaven and Earth in Jest”, supports that nature has an alluring quality but can also be quite morbid. Dillard explains how nature is beautiful but also scary. She supports this claim by using vivid imagery and extremely descriptive language, in order to portray that innocence can be removed by the most common things. Her purpose is to expose that the littlest thing can alter a person’s life.
This idea is expressed prominently in John Foulcher’s For the Fire and Loch Ard Gorge. For the Fire entails a journey of someone collecting kindling as they witness a kookaburra kill a lizard, Foulcher represents his idea through the use of metaphor, “a kookaburra hacks with its axe-blade beak.” This metaphor represents the beak in weaponised form, as it is compared with a violent axe. This evokes a sense of threat and intimidation towards the kookaburra, which contrasts to societies general interpretation of the ‘laughing kookaburra,’ thereby challenging the reader's perceptions of beauty in the natural world. Also, this comparison of the kookaburra offers a second understanding for the readers to interpret of the kookaburra. Similarly, in Loch Ard Gorge, Foulcher uses strong visual imagery, “savage dark fish are tearing their prey apart, blood phrasing the water decked with light,” to communicate the violence of the ‘savage’ fish to readers in a visual, gruesome manner. Thereby evoking a feeling of disgust towards the situation, as a visual description of blood is shown and Foulcher uses provoking, gruesome adjectives to communicate the fish's brutality. Foulcher expresses these ideas to communicate the abilities of nature, and provide a necessary ‘reality check’ for the readers, to review the beauty they see nature and understand the barbarity at the heart of everything. Although ruthlessness and brutality that nature can show are unintentional and immoral, this harm is a large part of the cycle nature needs to survive and thrive, and these factors can counteract assumed beauty and
Over centuries, humankind has searched for the line where positive and negative influence over nature intersect. “The Rattler”, a tale of a man and a rattlesnake who cross paths in the desert, deals with this very question. The individual is at first cautious of the snake, thinking it best to leave the dangerous creature alone. But at the thought of the nearby neighbors, he takes it upon himself to kill it, and then continues on into the night. The author uses comparison, diction and personification in “The Rattler” to promote sympathy for both characters: the snake and the man.
Did you know even though nature can be beautiful it can sometimes be deadly. In The Most Dangerous Game, Rainsford begins to see the awe-instilling power of nature and how it can hurt us. The Most Dangerous Game Written by Richard Connell is a story about the dangers of nature and the ethical question of if we should kill animals. Connell uses irony to instill a question in the mind of the reader”Is killing animals moral?” In “The Most Dangerous Game,”Richard Connell uses a flip between man and animal to convey irony in the story while also using the dangerous environment of the Island to show suspense.
Man versus nature makes multiple appearances in “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell. In the passage the nature plays a major role which helps the plot become more adventurous and exciting. “Rainsford struggled up to the surface and tried to cry out, but the wash from the speeding yacht slapped him in the face and the salt water in his open mouth made him gag and strangle” (2). Rainsford fell overboard and into the water, the rocks put him in the water. If the rocks were never there, then Rainsford would have never had to swim towards the island. This passage proves that Man versus nature does exist in this short story.
Maxine Kumin’s poem Woodchucks is not simply a farmer’s irritation over a couple of pesky woodchucks. The subject does have to do with humans having the tendency to become violent when provoked. However the theme of the poem takes a much darker path showing how it only takes something small to turn any normal humane person into a heartless murderer. The theme evolves by using dark references to the holocaust and basic Darwinist principles. These references are made through connotation, tone, allusions and metaphors.
Also in Melville’s writing, there are some examples that show man vs. nature. One example was with Ahab vs. the whale. In the anti-transcendental style, it makes the whale seem like the evil one.
In conclusion, it is the innate nature of mankind to choose survival above all needs which brings out the hidden savage in all of us kept only in check by the artificial restraints placed upon mankind by society. The descent into savagery, man's inherent desire to survive over anything else and the need for civilization and order shows how society unnaturally holds everyone together. The aspiration to endure is an intrinsic response that may lay dormant until the chains of society and civilization are removed; when that day arrives, their dormant instincts will arise and bring about a regression back to that of a savage.
Lying in the cover of wheat-yellow shrub, a cheetah waits patiently for its prey; in contrast, a herd of gazelles peacefully drink from a water hole. The cheetah tenses, ready to make its move; the gazelles tense up, fear in their eyes. In the blink of an eye the cheetah launches after the herd; a chase, albeit a short one, ensues. The cheetah reaches its chosen prey, and the kill is complete. From an ecological perspective, the hunt can be seen as a battle––a conquest between the weak and the strong in which those who win survive. In the Iliad, similes are frequently utilized to showcase the violence in the text as natural, highlighting the characters’ lack of decision making––be it because of the primitive nature of war, or the gods’ influence––in
The external conflict of nature against man never becomes resolved, as nature ends the man and his goals. For example, the severe cold weather prevented the man fro...
... Nature, including human beings, is `red in tooth and claw'; we are all `killers' in one way or another. Also, the fear which inhabits both human and snake (allowing us, generally, to avoid each other), and which acts as the catalyst for this poem, also precipitates retaliation. Instinct, it seems, won't be gainsaid by morality; as in war, our confrontation with Nature has its origins in some irrational `logic' of the soul. The intangibility of fear, as expressed in the imagery of the poem, is seen by the poet to spring from the same source as the snake, namely the earth - or, rather, what the earth symbolizes, our primitive past embedded in our subconsciouness. By revealing the kinship of feelings that permeates all Nature, Judith Wright universalises the experience of this poem.
Ants, Little but Mighty. What is an ant? Ants are insects, they have six legs and each leg has three joints. Ants legs are very strong.