I thought the first piece “Vanishing Night” was slightly hostile. The author pretty much just addresses the negative aspects of light pollution and how problematic it can be for people living in cities. He talks about it affecting animals’ circadian rhythms, human sleeping patterns, etc. The author clearly is in support of the decline of light pollution and doesn’t mention at all some of the positive aspects lights in cities bring. He describes light pollution as a result of “bad lighting design” and it speaks of it in directly negative terms. To someone who would not agree with this, this article might illicit a negative, or hostile, reaction because it doesn’t really make concessions so much to the other side of the argument.
I feel that “Apocalypse Now” was a much more balanced piece. The author addresses the differences between the ideas of humanist and religious thinkers but also addresses the similarities of each. The author’s argument is that people must protect the natural environment, whether they be religious or non-religious. He encourages the working together of these two groups towards protecting the environment. He also addresses the success different evangelical groups towards putting together programs to protect the environment and raising money for different causes. I think that readers would react more neutrally to this piece because it doesn’t really attack either side of the argument. It goes about things in a somewhat balanced way, even though it is clearly written through the perspective of a humanist thinker.