Biodiversity and Extinction Denial

Short Response Task
Your Name
Subject and Section
Professor’s Name
Date
* According to this article, how are issues of certainty and uncertainty related to science denial? (200 words)
The issues surrounding the certainty and uncertainty of the science of denial are based on various stakeholders’ objectives and gains. Specifically, large companies and enterprises continuously deny the scientific explanation and pieces of evidence that contradict their course of action (Lees et al., 2020).
An example of literal denial is the persistent denial of large companies about possible human extinction. It states that this is uncertain because scientists connect the present from the loss of historical flora and fauna, disrupting the biodiversity on earth. However, the phenomenon indeed persists secondary to human actions (Lees et al., 2020).
Conversely, interpretive denial provides a different angle of interpreting the facts to make these inapplicable. They stated that economic improvements could balance environmental losses. It justifies the impact of people’s actions on the environment based on the economic gains of the activities, confusing the readers, making it uncertain of the adverse effects of human activities on the environment, which has a long-term, irreversible impact. An example of this is the carbon emissions from companies and other technological inventions. It makes the reader uncertain of the actual irreversible impact of the emissions that change the ozone layer and denies that this contributes to global warming despite the economic gain (Lees et al., 2020).
* To what extent do you agree or disagree with the authors that it is essential to actively shape narratives about certainty and uncertainty when communicating science to the public, and why? (400 words)
Scientific evidence is based on the perseverant and tedious studies made by many researchers. The public must understand the consolidated information without alterations of any kind since the minor detail will impact the earth and all of its inhabitants. However, the world is composed of diverse individuals who have different purposes. Thus, it is essential to find the middle ground among all opinions to prevent the lack of organization that may lead to the left and correct arguments that cannot propose an effective solution. It is critical to shape the narratives about the certainty and uncertainties about the environment when communicating science to the public and let them decide the significance of each factor. In line with this, I significantly agree with shaping the certainties and uncertainties in presenting scientific evidence.
Without truly understanding the opinions of various sectors, the public will have difficulty siding, which is just for themselves and for all the stakeholders. The public’s knowledge must not be manipulated, but they must be presented with truths and manipulated truths and let them decide the best option since not everyone has a single purpose in life.
Lees et al. (2020) discussed the importance of literal denial. Large companies state that the environmental issues at present were mainly secondary to historical environmental problems and mask the certainty that human activities largely contributed to the drastic changes related to the environment globally.
Both sides must actively shape their narratives for everyone to fully see the benefits of continuous innovations that damage the environment versus the total arrest of these novelties. From a ...