The two articles covered in this essay focus on the conservation of the wild. They are well-written to passage the message to readers, and it appears like the two authors are well versed with conservation matters. Although they have preservation of the wild at the core, the writers have divergent conclusions concerning how the world can approach the preservation of what is natural. This essay offers summaries, differences, as well as similarities between the two publications.
Keegan’s article talks about how whales are killed by centrifugal forces that are initiated by the moon. At nighttime, while the moon causes water to oscillate back and forth, it watches its work. Although the mammals try to fight through the rotations, a significant portion of them lose their footing. The majority of whales cannot match the strength of the world’s rotation as well as the bathymetry of large water masses. As a result of beaching effects, roughly two-thousand cetaceans succumb every year. Even though whales may sometimes trap themselves in loneliness, they often beach in teams that are huddled together in rows. The author describes how whales struggle to survive after they are covered under the sand, but most of them die from dehydration because the air is so salty that it shrinks their skin pores and captures moisture from internal organs. On average, a whale can live for twenty-four hours on dry land (Keegan par. 5).
That notwithstanding, Keegan says that she worries that human beings shy away from offering assistance to their fellow humans, yet are so fast at helping wild animals. It is shocking that when a whale is found to be in danger, an entire town flocks to save it, but when a woman in the neighborhood is diagnosed with cancer, only a few friends visit her. Keegan’s article represents a human population that does not care about the welfare of its members. For example, a non-government organization spent $10,000 to transport a whale in Florida, and, unfortunately, it succumbed to unfavorable weather conditions only three days after its rescue (Keegan par. 7). The same amount of money could have bought food rations for the homeless and less fortunate in society.
Both articles discuss the magnificence of nature, where humans are paying attention to preserving wild animals at a time when the natural world is continually turning out to be invisible. The authors depict a world that is eager to view wilderness as an inheritance of essences that can be interpreted to result in controversies as well as conversations. In addition, both articles mention that it is worrying that humans are not doing things the right way. Instead of preserving wilderness in its actual state, people are attempting to offer explanations, justifications, codifications, as well as ecological and biological acceptance as to the actions to saving inheritance in the long and short-run (Keegan par. 12; Williams, p. 44).
While Keegan (par. 18) concludes that humans should pay more attention to helping homeless and hungry individuals, Williams (p. 44) proposes that wild should be preserved in its natural settings instead of local and national museums. Although there are ideological differences between the two publications, they both focus on preserving what is natural. Offering assistance to the homeless and hungry is a good show of concern to other individuals as proposed by Keegan (par. 21).
In conclusion, it is a good idea to maintain ecosystems that support the thriving of the wild, as proposed by Williams. Further, the two authors provide solutions that can be beneficial in a world that faces many issues such as climate change, hunger, calamities, and diminishing numbers of wild animals.
Works Cited
- Keegan, Marina. “Keegan: Why we care about whales.” Yale Daily News, 2009, Web.
- Williams, Terry Tempest. “A shark in the mind of one contemplating wilderness.” Nation, vol. 269, no. 18, 1999, pp. 42-44.