I was impressed by her moment of reverence for the land she was lecturing on. The act of acknowledgement is rare, and created a nice atmosphere in which she planned on perceiving the past through the present as interdependent. Overall, I felt as if her lecture was less based in philosophy and the embedded complexities of animal rights, and more so in urging for shift from anthropocentric thought to increased respect and adequate action. She wanted us to not be weary of amphibian health for the sake of human health, but for the frogs on their own. She also wants us to avoid concern with gender tropes that create harmful narratives on why amphibians necessitate concern. Instead, the norm should shift to a rise in concern for Earth's ecosystems from "at home naturalists". Shotwell teared up while discussing her hometown and the effects of toxins, displaying her strong ethos as a caretaker of home/place on Earth. She discussed efforts being made by average people to track frog populations, and seeks participation from the rest of the general human populations. If we can recognize change in our environments, we can work to preserve them with what Shotwell called, attunement. With a rise in awareness of the hazards of Atrazine, we can be more educated in our choice to buy products that rely on it. She stated, "frogs have their own lives", and power games make us forget about their significance. Though we cannot speak amphibian, we can learn how to better perceive them for their sake as species. I enjoyed her talk, but wish it was based in a more linear progression of arguments rather than just an appeal to ethos. Though increased attention would perhaps create better Earth citizens, which is undoubtedly beneficial to Earth, what is killing the amphibians is largely due to systems that encourage mass chemical use that are much grander than the effect of individuals solely.
Megan J. Conley-Frasca