In Wilson's The Future of Life, Wilson uses extreme satire to characterize how little each opposing group understands each other, and also highlights the fact that each group's rhetoric against each other's points of view is deeply rooted in misconceptions. In this way, Wilson highlights how unproductive the so-called “debates” about environmentalism are. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Wilson develops both steps similarly. Both begin with a label: “environmentalist or environmentalist” for the first step, and “critics of the environmental movement”. Then he gives the labels that each party calls each other. The labels each group imposes on each other tend to have derogatory connotations. For example, “critics” of the environmental movement call environmentalists “crazy,” and environmentalists refer to critics as “brown whippersnappers.” By emphasizing the sense of exclusivity and protective feelings of both sides, Wilson captures the audience's attention from the first sentence, and thus begins his argument about the unproductiveness of environmentalism “debates”. Wilson continues both passages with a description of the misconceptions each group uses to base their opinion on the opposing group. Wilson points out that critics of the environmental movement believe that environmentalists have a hidden agenda and are constantly plotting new ways to gain more power under the guise of “environmentalism.” Wilson then traces the logic of a critic of environmentalism back to their main argument. Posing as an advocate for the people, Wilson writes that conservationists will find “an endangered red spider on your property, and before you know what has happened, the Endangered Species Act will be used to shut you down.” Since this is the case, Wilson writes that “a strong, free-market economy, not creeping socialism, is best for America… and… for the environment, too.” that people-centered critics have of environmentalists, and also the “slippery slope” fallacy that they use to rationalize their beliefs. As Wilson poses as a people-first critic, it becomes apparent that the critics do not investigate the real facts behind the environmentalists' aim. Instead, they make assumptions that may or may not be true and use the worst-case scenario to rationalize their beliefs. Wilson also highlights the slippery slope logical fallacy that people-first critics believe. Not only do critics falsely assume that environmentalists just want power, they also assume that because environmentalists are power-hungry, they will take their lands, which will result in a deficit. in the economy due to lack of resources. Wilson clearly exemplifies the fact that people-minded critics believe that all of this will happen, with no way to stop it, in order to rationalize their beliefs. However, environmentalists are guilty of the same misunderstandings and mistakes. As Wilson writes in the guise of an environmentalist, it becomes equally apparent that both sides, the critics and the criticized, use the same logical fallacies to qualify their beliefs. Neither side makes any attempt to understand the other's core values ​​or desires, instead, both make incorrect assumptions and then base their actions and words against the opposition on logical errors and assumptions. Emphasizing that both sides are deeply rooted in assumptions and fallacies, Wilson then presents his main point: that any.