I felt as though that the readings this week was another spoonful of humans trying to redefine the ocean to the humans who crafted its definitions and boundaries prior. Each text attempts to combine oceanic history with human history; supposing that there should be no distinction between the two. In my pessimistic view on this situation remains the same: to solve the problem of humans intrinsically destroying our own environment, we must convince people that they should care. In order for this to happen any producer of literature should aim to romanticize the ocean or anthropomorphize it. Many people care about things other than themselves like animals, but the world isn’t 100% vegetarian, though some are, and that niche population helps more than not. The only way people will do anything is if it immediately, or in a short amount of time, gives them a reward in return. The world faces so many environmental issues created by humans, but the average person living their daily life will not concern themselves with what happens to the planet when they drive their car to work, what happens to the trash when they throw it in the bin, what happens to the single use plastics they use after going out for a bite to eat, because why would they? If the effects of these decisions seem harmless then why bother to make sure? In my opinion there is one introduction that I felt missed the mark in terms of successfully pulling in the reader to ultimately make them care about the ocean.

The intro for The Ocean Reader had a strong first page as it directly spoke to the reader and dramatically challenged preconceived notions. One being that, “—the Ocean [has] also seemed unchangeable, inexhaustible, and impervious to the onslaught of the harvesters. But such is not the case.” (Duke UP, 1). I feel as though many people, including myself, have seen the ocean to be this huge, mighty force, that couldn’t possibly be affected by tiny little humans. Therefore, by debunking this perception of the ocean, the author shifts the perception to the idea that we are hurting, for lack of better words, the ocean by the things we do in our daily lives ie: pollution, CO2 admissions, overfishing, etc. This take is very effective in my opinion, but where he lost me as a reader, and in effectiveness, is when he goes on a spiel of numbers on the depths and reach the ocean has. As a reader, I cannot even fathom such numbers and if I can’t imagine it, then it’s not real, in tern not having an effect on me. Therefore, the direct approach to make me rethink my own ideas or to make me see the ocean in a new light is much more effective in terms of making me want to get up and save the ocean.