10 September 2013
Eco-Defense
Is the defense of trees equivalent to the defense of our families? Edward Abbey would have you think this to be true. In his speech Eco-Defense, he begins by making the reader feel threatened and ignites a need to put up some kind of defense. For example, in the first sentence he poses the scenario “If a stranger batters your door down with an axe, threatens your family and yourself with deadly weapons, and proceeds to loot your home of whatever he wants” (344 Abbey) it is a crime, which connects with the reader on a deeper and more emotional level. This, however, is not the main point of Abbey’s speech. He attempts to bring the readers to arms to save the forests and trees, but he does so in an unconventional way that could have dire consequences.
Abbey was born in 1927 and lived in Pennsylvania until he joined the army after graduating high school. He grew up during the depression, which caused his family to be on the brink of poverty. Ironically, his father worked as a lumberjack when Abbey was a child. Growing up during the depression and watching his father work as a lumber jack could have helped spur on his desire to save the wilderness. He feels so passionately about his cause that the reader should question what ignited that passion to begin with. As a child, he was probably taught to save resources at all costs, but as an adult realized the resources he should be saving are the natural ones. As well-meaning as Abbey is, it is hard to consider him as a credible source. He never gives the reader actual evidence to support his claims. He tells the reader about all of the tragedies that are occurring in the American wilderness such as: the use of heavy machinery, chainsaws, dynamite, and beef industries moving onto public land. He then throws out claims against recognizable names when he states, “This is for the sake of short-term profits in the corporate sector and multi-million dollar annual salaries for the three piece-suited gangsters (MBA-Harvard, Yale, University of Tokyo, et alia)” (Abbey 344). This could be considered the logical fallacy hasty generalization because he does not give the reader sufficient information. Abbey could also be employing the use of a red herring. He makes the reader focus on the government and how he believes it doesn’t support the public or voters. He does this to make the reader doubt the government’s choices and ultimately lean towards his side. His tone in this essay is harsh and accusatory, continuing to name several politicians who in his words would, “sell the graves of their mothers if there’s a quick buck in the deal” (Abbey 344). When Abbey makes this remark, he is attacking the character of the politicians instead of their actual stances on environmental issues, by doing this, he is employing ad hominem. He does not give the reader any information on what the politicians believe, but instead targets their character which he believes to be dishonest. He does not try to utilize logos in his speech, which could have helped him out tremendously with his audience. He only uses pathos, and saturates his essay with his emotions on the subject. Abbey’s character also comes into question during his speech. He urges people to take action, which is not a bad thing on its own, but he asks them to do something illegal. He tells people to start practicing Eco-Defense, which he says is “risky but sporting; unauthorized but fun; illegal but ethically imperative” (Abbey 345). This request shows that Abbey would do anything for the cause he believes in. The “sporting” activity he is asking the reader to participate in is called spiking. Spiking can be dangerous to the loggers and can damage a saw mill if the tree is felled. This could be considered an either/or logical fallacy. Abbey is implying that you either support the government and the ruin of the American wilderness, or you engage in an illegal activity to save the land. Abbey’s essay utilizes many different logical fallacies. He tries to draw out the reader’s passion and use it to manipulate them to his purpose. He cannot imagine the wilderness he loves so much ever disappearing and because of that he is overly zealous in his essay. If Abbey had made use of logos or ethos in his essay, then people might have been more apt to jump on board with his cause. Instead, he gives us an impassioned plea with no other alternative to save the forests except by doing something illegal. If he would have given the readers’ facts to base his claims off of, a safe and legal alternative, and a positive view of his character, he may have been successful in his goal. Instead, his speech was ineffective in its purpose and turned people away from his main purpose, which could have been seen as an important cause under other circumstances.

Works Cited
“A Brief Biography”. Ecotopia. n.p. n.d. Web. 11 Sept 2013.
James, Missy, and Alan P. Merickel. Reading Literature and Writing Argument. Custom Edition for Oklahoma City Community College. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 2008. 12-14. Print.