1.On pages 3-4, Franzen compares scientific climate modeling with…

Question Answered step-by-step 1.On pages 3-4, Franzen compares scientific climate modeling with… 1. On pages 3-4, Franzen compares scientific climate modeling with “my own kind of modeling,” based on “the prescriptions of policy-makers and activists,” which seems to a kind of social modeling (a prediction of what humans and human societies will do). I have two questions:Franzen’s list of the things we must do (page 4 to the top of page 5) seems long and hard. Do you think he actually believes humans can or will do them? If not, why would he spend so much time listing them like this?Is it fair to compare this kind of social modeling with scientific climate modeling? Is human behavior predictable in the same way as the natural processes we measure using scientific methods?2-Franzen suggests on page 7 that we pursue “a more balanced portfolio of hopes,” that we “keep trying to save what [we] love specifically—a community, an institution, a wild place, a species that’s in trouble—and take heart in your small successes.” Unlike Whiting, Markman, and perhaps also Solnit, Franzen urges us to focus on what’s right in front of us, rather than on long-term outcomes. In your view, is this the same as giving up on the future, or on people in general? Or do you think it’s simply ‘realistic’ in its estimation of what motivates us and what doesn’t? 3-ultimately, because Franzen accepts that human beings will not—or cannot—change, he encourages us to embrace a pessimistic view on climate change, and to pursue the best solutions we can produce, which he contends will be better than no solutions at all. Do you agree with this? Why or why not? [Feel free to bring in Solnit as backup if you disagree]  Arts & Humanities English ENG 101 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)