· In response to our world’s growing reliance on artificial light, writer Paul Bogard argues that natural darkness should be preserved in his article “Let There be dark”. He effectively builds his argument by using a personal anecdote, allusions to art and history, and rhetorical questions.
· Bogard starts his article off by recounting a personal story – a summer spent on a Minnesota lake where there was “woods so dark that [his] hands disappeared before [his] eyes.” In telling this brief anecdote, Bogard challenges the audience to remember a time where they could fully amass themselves in natural darkness void of artificial light. By drawing in his readers with a personal encounter about night darkness, the author means to establish the potential for beauty, glamour, and awe-inspiring mystery that genuine darkness can possess. He builds his argument for the preservation of natural darkness by reminiscing for his readers a first-hand encounter that proves the “irreplaceable value of darkness.” This anecdote provides a baseline of sorts for readers to find credence with the author’s claims.
· Bogard’s argument is also furthered by his use of allusion to art – Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” – and modern history – Paris’ reputation as “The City of Light”. By first referencing “Starry Night”, a painting generally considered to be undoubtedly beautiful, Bogard establishes that the natural magnificence of stars in a dark sky is definite. A world absent of excess artificial light could potentially hold the key to a grand, glorious night sky like Van Gogh’s according to the writer. This urges the readers to weigh the disadvantages of our world consumed by unnatural, vapid lighting. Furthermore, Bogard’s alludes to Paris as “the famed ‘city of light’”. He then goes on to state how Paris has taken steps to exercise more sustainable lighting practices. By doing this, Bogard creates a dichotomy between Paris’ traditionally alluded-to name and the reality of what Paris is becoming – no longer “the city of light”, but moreso “the city of light…before 2 AM”. This furthers his line of argumentation because it shows how steps can be and are being taken to preserve natural darkness. It shows that even a city that is literally famous for being constantly lit can practically address light pollution in a manner that preserves the beauty of both the city itself and the universe as a whole.
· Finally, Bogard makes subtle yet efficient use of rhetorical questioning to persuade his audience that natural darkness preservation is essential. He asks the readers to consider “what the vision of the night sky might inspire in each of us, in our children or grandchildren?” in a way that brutally plays to each of our emotions. By asking this question, Bogard draws out heartfelt ponderance from his readers about the affecting power of an untainted night sky. This rhetorical question tugs at the readers’ heartstrings; while the reader may have seen an unobscured night skyline before, the possibility that their child or grandchild will never get the chance sways them to see as Bogard sees. This strategy is definitively an appeal to pathos, forcing the audience to directly face an emotionally-charged inquiry that will surely spur some kind of response. By doing this, Bogard develops his argument, adding gutthral power to the idea that the issue of maintaining natural darkness is relevant and multifaceted.
· Writing as a reaction to his disappointment that artificial light has largely permeated the prescence of natural darkness, Paul Bogard argues that we must preserve true, unaffected darkness. He builds this claim by making use of a personal anecdote, allusions, and rhetorical questioning.
Every person has his or her own idea of ethics and morality, regardless of objective truth. Authority figures, whether teachers, heads of nations, or other positions of power, may not always be in line with that morality. In order to determine whether an authority figure is doing what is just, individuals must speak out when they perceive injustice. Oftentimes, that means questioning authority.
Dystopic novels often portray systems of national leadership in which questioning governmental authority is explicitly forbidden. George Orwell’s novel 1984 is such a story. The government is known collectively as “Big Brother,” who is a symbolic entity continually watching over every citizen. The language, Newspeak, is constantly being updated to control people’s expression and thereby control their thoughts. Anyone caught even thinking something other than Big Brother would want them to think are arrested by the Thought Police. Under this regime, there are virtually no independent thinkers. Every piece of information given to the people comes through the government, which has the power to change facts and history with utter impunity. The main character, Winston, manages to catch on, but in the end, he is finally brainwashed by torture. In this society of obedient drones, truth is irrelevant because there are no lies.
When a student goes through formal education, he must be on his guard when it comes to what he absorbs. In the midst of objective facts, all too often a teacher may attempt to indoctrinate him with the teacher’s own ideology. One need only look at the majority of United States universities. There are thousands of easily-accessed articles exposing documented incidences of teachers boldly instilling in their students the liberal ideology. Universities are cesspools of leftist professors who punish students who express differences of opinion. Yet without those few questioning students, the rest of the student body would be subjected to unadulterated liberal lectures, with nary an opposing view in earshot. In order to form proper opinions, students must be exposed to both sides of an issue, and both sides must be questioned so as to ascertain the truth of each.
Leaders of other countries must also be questioned by nonresidents so as to discover precisely what is happening under their authority.