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 views is deeply rooted in misconceptions . In doing so, Wilson highlights how unproductive so-called “debates” about environmentalism are. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Wilson expands on both passages in the same way. They both begin with a label: “ecologists or conservationists” for the first passage, and “critics of the environmental movement”. Then he gives the labels that each side calls itself. The labels that each group imposes on themselves tend to carry derogatory connotations. For example, “critics” of the environmental movement call environmentalists “wackos,” and environmentalists call them “brown foggers.” By emphasizing the sense of exclusivity and protective feelings on both sides, Wilson captures his audience's attention from the first sentence, and thus begins his argument about the unproductiveness of "debates" over environmentalism. Wilson continues both passages by describing the misconceptions that each group uses to base their opinion of the opposing group. Wilson points out that critics of the environmental movement believe that environmentalists have hidden agendas and are constantly imagining new ways to gain more power under the guise of "environmentalism." Wilson then traces the logic of a critique of environmentalism back to its main argument. Presenting himself as a human rights advocate, Wilson writes that environmentalists will find "an endangered red spider mite on your property, and before you know what happened, the Endangered Species Act will be used to shut you down.” Since this is the case, Wilson writes: “A strong free market economy, not creeping socialism, is best for America…and…for the environment too.” » as criticisms of environmentalists who privilege people, as well as the “slippery slope” fallacy they employ to rationalize their beliefs. While Wilson presents himself as a people-oriented critic, it becomes clear that the critics are not investigating the real facts behind the environmentalists' goals. Instead, they make assumptions that may or may not be true and use the worst case scenario in order to rationalize their beliefs. Wilson also points out the slippery slope logical fallacy that the People First critics believe. Not only do critics wrongly assume that environmentalists only want power, but they also assume that since environmentalists are power hungry, they will take their land, resulting in a deficit. in the economy due to lack of resources. Wilson clearly illustrates that people-oriented critics believe this will all happen without any way to stop it, in order to rationalize their beliefs. However, environmentalists are guilty of the same misconceptions and mistakes. As Wilson writes in the guise of an environmentalist, it becomes equally clear that both camps, the critics and the criticized, use the same logical fallacies to qualify their beliefs. Neither party attempts to understand the other's core values ​​or desires. Rather, both make incorrect assumptions and then base their actions and words against the opposition on logical errors and assumptions. In.