Cradle to Cradle

This essay by William McDonough and Michael Braungart starts out by describing an item and as the reader follows the description they come to discover that the item is a book. The authors then point out that although paper comes from trees, books are not biodegradable. I think they introduce the story this way to catch the reader's attention. They describe how the book jacket "cannot be safely composted, and if it is burned, it produces dioxins, some of the most dangerous cancer-causing material ever created by humans." I think this is supposed to appeal to the reader's emotions and to surprise them, I know that I was surprised.

Then they contrast this information with the idea of an "eco-friendly book" that is recyclable, doesn't require cutting down trees, and is even water proof. In order to make this idea seem more realistic they compare it with a Cherry Tree. They discuss how cherry blossoms decompose while nourishing insects, plants, animals and soil. Another point they make is that, "although the tree actually makes more of it's 'product' than it needs for it's own success in an ecosystem, the abundance has evolved...to serve rich and various purposes." I think the point they are trying to make with this comparison is that abundance is not a bad thing as long as any excess can be reused productively.

Furthermore, in the section of the excerpt about growth, the growth of nature is referred to as "beautiful" and "healthy", while urban and industrial growth is referred to as a "cancer". "Urban and industrial growth is often referred to as a cancer, a thing that grows for it's own sake and not for the sake of the organism it inhabits." This comparison shows that there are conflicting views of growth that environmentalists are calling into question.

I think the points that I have drawn from the article show that the main rhetorical strategy used in this piece is comparison and contrast.