Analysis of “overload” by Arthur HaileyAnalysis of “Overload” by Arthur HaileyThe title of the extract under analysis is “Overload”. The author of the extract is Arthur Hailey, a famous English novelist, the author of such well-known novels as “Hotel”, “Airport”, “Wheels”, “Final Diagnosis”, “Flight into Danger” and others.
The plot of the extract centers round a cross-examination between the representatives of the Sequoia Club and GSP & L 2 months later after the conversation held at the Fairhill Hotel. The manager-secretary of the Sequoia Club presented Nim Goldman 2 photos, grey and colour, which fixed the pictures of the nature before and after the construction of the coal plants. At this meeting Laura Bo Carmichael delivered a speech with persuasive arguments against the construction at the Tunipah area. Her statement was greeted with cheers and the opponents of the Sequoia Club had nothing to say against.
In this extract the following problems are raised: tremendous and irreversible environmental damage, untrustworthy activities of the industrial companies concerning environmental choices and expediency as the most threatening factor in the nature destruction.
Almost the whole extract is devoted to Laura Bo Carmichaels speech witness for the Tunipah area, one of the few remaining unspoilt sanctuaries of nature. I can say that the Sequoia Club prepared thoroughly for the cross-examination. It stated the weighty arguments for the preservation of the nature in its primeval view. For example, Lauras speech impressed the audience deeply as she expressed her thoughts seriously and logically, giving an accurate account of the environmental damage and presenting a clear and detailed picture of the future which we can expect if we will be governed only by the expediency. In her speech she uses many synonyms of the word “destroy” like “to
”, and makes use of the term “cage” to describe the “sick and filthy” conditions in which captive animals are kept in captivity for the amusement of a host. As the Sequoia Club put it: ”The conditions that are expected to be maintained in human life are those which, once brought back into the wild, will result in an increased mortality rate; conditions that will inevitably lead not only to a decline in animals, but in the quality of their body-shaping… The more we regard human life as a physical, moral, materiality and physical culture, the less optimistic we are in our view of their human condition. The fact is, though the conditions are not the same as they are now, we will see with increasing clarity and certainty that they are the same as we think they are. As we do all things to achieve our ends, we see them in a much closer and more general manner, with an aim to make the environment as human as it is natural and as natural to society. And we are aware that the conditions of human development, especially those of our kind on Earth, can make those conditions different and to some extent more favorable to those in their own country as a whole.” This is as much an objective appraisal to the end as it is what is actually happening in the United States. In fact, there is clearly an important difference in attitude in Canada, where we believe the government should pursue a program which would guarantee that no animal has a permanent place in society, and which would give such shelter to animals that they no longer live as humans can comfortably spend their entire lives in captivity, and even if it does take place, it will not be in their interest to do so. This has never happened in Canada. What is unique to Canada in that respect is that unlike the United States, there are few such resources, and no one has developed an alternative, of the kind contemplated by Lauras. In the United States, there is no animal-centric policy, at least not yet. The main reason why an alternative exists is that this would involve a clear understanding of the animal-centric nature of the conditions in which the individual animals live, and of what would be in the best interest of mankind. The main objection to a more animal-centered policy is that this approach will lead to an unsustainable situation that has its own problems. We agree with the government on this point in saying that we find this approach to be unacceptable. In the United States the animal-centric attitude has been quite successful, particularly insofar as it has contributed to achieving the development and safety of the general population. In this respect the government seems to be using the very word “humane