My Response to Madsen's Article

           While reading Kyle Madsen's response to my paper "Why Bother?", I came across some arguments against my article that I found to be rather ignorant. Madsen claimed that my argument "loses impact by not discussing more realistic alternatives such as pursuing smart consumerism and better environmental education for children."   While Madsen is entitled to his own opinion, I feel as though I did convey an ample amount of solutions that don't require the labor of growing your own food. In paragraph 18 I state "Driving an S.U.V. or eating a 24-ounce steak or even illuminating your McMansion like an airport runway at night might come to be regarded as outrageous to human conscious." Here, I propose that doing any of these anti-green activities may one day be frowned upon by society. Indirectly, I am advocating the use of fuel-efficient vehicles, a diet consuming of something other than meat, and a bit of thought when it comes to lighting your home. Obviously, not everybody can plant a garden, but I see it as "realistic" to consider fuel economy when purchasing your next car, eating a bit more fruits and vegetables, and turning your lights off when nobody is using them.
         
          Aside from not mentioning "realistic alternatives", Madsen claims that my "angle of vision may be too intense for some readers." Also, he states that I assume my "New York Times readers already share (my) agreement with most of the serious views of climate change held by many scientists and environmentalists." Although I have a specific point I would like to get across, I do not believe my angle of vision is so acute that it only includes such professionals. I do assume the readers of the New York Times are intelligent enough to understand the references I make and facts I give, but I am not saying they have to agree with my viewpoints regarding the causes of global warming. My goal was not to persuade, but to inform, and by me using the planting of a garden as my primary example throughout the text, I was simply trying to say that one person, despite the task, can make a difference.