Critical Essay on TED Talk on What a Planet Needs to Sustain Life, by David Brain

Introduction

David Brain, in his lecture on "What a planet needs to sustain life" claims that humanity is in the right place, time and space when it comes to life-sustaining aspects of the planet. The author explores critical elements of the earth that supports life by comparing the absence of such features in other planets like Mars and Venus (Brain). David talk was delivered at a scientific event held at the University of Colorado in 2016. The speech targeted the general audience with scientific background knowledge. In his analysis, David includes scientific facts such as the presence of water particles on earth, temperatures of the planet and the magnetic field of the earth to prove why our world is just ideal to sustain life. He is a scientist with a vast knowledge of the universe and astronomy, and this makes his talk not only exciting but one full of logical reasoning and practical examples. Therefore, Brain puts a simple yet a reasonable explanation of the critical aspects that are needed to sustain life on a planet, the use of humor, imagery, and simplicity in his presentation makes his lecture exciting and educative.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Brain indicates that "it is only on earth that scientists have been confident that life exists." This forms the central issue of his analogy with other planets and galaxies far beyond the Milky Way. He identifies critical aspects for the sustainability of life which are water, sun's location, chemical elements and the magnetic fields. However, David's use of images to reinforce his claims can be demonstrated in a case where he displays a setelite images from Mars which shows the existence of dried up valley networks. He demonstrates that these conditions are prone to changes over time and uses these facts to launch a logical appeal of humans taking care of our world (Brain). The call is reasonable as it relies on facts and data which has been obtained from planets like Mars and Venus which indicates clearly that due to environmental changes. Life-sustaining elements were depleted making life in those areas inhabitable and if similar changes occur

To ensure the credibility of his analysis, Brain uses factual data from missions which have been carried out on the planet and the outer space. For example, he indicates that "for water to exist as a liquid, it must require a pressure of ~ eight millibars which is equal to 1% of the atmospheric thickness." Therefore Brain compares the atmospheric pressure with that of mars which could not allow the water to exist as a liquid and thus meant that the water evaporated into the deep space atmosphere. He also uses the strategy of engaging his audience through the use of imagery and humor to make the presentation exciting at the same time important. Using images allows the viewer to understand the argument better and ensures that his words are supported and reinforced by the pictures of the universe and planets (Brain). The images are sourced from the NASA's missions in the outer space and are highly credible as a source of information.

The Possible Fallacies in David’s Argument

Bandwagon fallacy - this is assuming something is true because many people agree to it. David first use of this assumption is when he claims that "scientists infer that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor" (Brain). He takes that claim to be valid without offering much scientific proof to support the claim. The other suggestion that he makes based on the current assumption is when he says that, "the species on the earth's surface are about 8.7 million" (Brain). However, based on the fact that on a daily bases approximately ten new living organisms are discovered, this figure which he assumes to be precise could be inaccurate.

False dilemma fallacy - In a false dilemma argument, the facts laid out limits the options to only a few choices while ignoring other areas that could provide proper decisions. This ultimately creates a crisis which presents a dilemma of arriving at the correct conclusion. Example of such instances in David's argument can be shown by even though he acknowledges that there are 40 billion to 100 billion planets that could be habitable, he narrows the down to concluding that only earth has life (Brain).

Use of Language to Build Common Ground

Despite David being a scientist, he simplifies his speech by using imageries, examples, and humor to pass his message to the audience effectively. He also uses the following strategies to ensure that his word is clearly understood

• Reinforcing his message with Visual Aids
• Avoids too many statistics which could confuse the crowd
• Focuses on the needs of the audience
• Occasionally taking time to catch his breath and let the crowd digest the information
• Speaking in a calm level voice

By observing those qualities in his communication, he ensures that the audience remains attentive and can understand his argument without getting lost on the way.

Conclusion

In conclusion, David combines vital communication skills to effectively communicate with the audience and keep them focused. By employing simple communication techniques such as similes, metaphors and the use of stories, he ensures that the audience can relate the scientific information to the everyday life and thus better the understanding. What I like most about his argument is that it is simple yet detailed and it relies on scientific data to support most claims that the author makes.

Works Cited

Brain, David. "What a Planet Needs to Sustain Life." TED: Ideas Worth Spreading, www.ted.com/talks/dave_brain_what_a_planet_needs_to_sustain_life/footnotes?referrer=playlist-how_microbes_shape_our_world#t-1796.