EXTINCTION IS A PLAY ABOUT COMPROMISING VALUES. TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE? PDF Free Download
1 / 2/2
100%
Victorian play, ‘Extinction’ by Melbourne playwright Hannie Rayson revolves itself around the
ideological and pragmatic moral disputes that follow the lives of the four main individuals and
their varying beliefs on how the human race should conduct themselves in regards to the
environmental and economic issues of our time. From the mining industry being involved in
many ethical debates on whether it is sustainable in its practices, the funding within
environmental conservation efforts and the economic impact of prioritising one over another.
In the play, Rayson explores the instiled complexities of relationships and the occurrence of
compromising values in order to validate personal and professional agendas. Through
Australia’s and the world’s natural resources being used for monetary gain and the effects of
relationships with one another and creating havoc. Furthermore, the notion is not absolute
as in recent years there has been increased funding and public interest in protecting the
environment, this is shown within the play, which demonstrates an opposing view of
transparent and progressive values. ‘Extinction’ validates the plight of environmentalists and
their good willed and transparent values and the balancing act with the complex business
world and economic importance, this emphasises the internal debates that humans are
conflicted with.
A frequent notion that is discussed in Extinction is the matter of economic power and how
this conflicts with the natural world being used for monetary gain. This is demonstrated
through the character of Harry Jewell, an Australian mining mogul who utilises a pragmatic
mind-set. Harry was involved in ideological conflicts with the morally absolute characters of
Piper and Andy. He justifies his stance through stating “I can’t save the world… but I can
bring jobs and people back to my hometown” (act one, scene three). Therefore,
demonstrating that though his company is not protecting the environment, he places concern
on creating more jobs for Australians and being able to assist individuals and families in
sustaining a reliable income. He understands that people of the likes of Piper and Andy
disagree with mining, but his pragmatic approach believes that money is a resource that
allows for people to survive. Furthermore, Professor Dixon-Brown shares a similar pragmatic
approach to the environment through admitting “no point squandering your money on a
creature that has passed the point of no return” and that her profession is “an ecologist, not
an environmentalist” (act one, scene five). This demonstrates economically, that it is not
feasible to save every single species that is endangered, as the money invested could have
been directed to employees with families to feed and mortgages to finance. That
economically and pragmatically, her job is to research and save the animal species that are
feasible to do so, not bask in ideological purity which hinders the livelihoods of many who
depend on the CAPE Institute for their livelihood. Therefore, Rayson makes clear the notion
that there is a presence within the play about compromising values based on economic
power and the pragmatic ideals that create internal conflicts for people.
In response to this, the play explores how Harry, Piper, Dixon-Brown and Andy fraternize
with each other and the impact that their respective ideological differences have had with
one another. Harry and Dixon-Brown represent the wider Australian society, focusing on the
economy and finances, whereas Piper and Andy represent the natural world, and a result of
the association to suit personal and corporate agendas, the compromisation of values occur.
This created conflict among the group as morals became questioned and loyalties shifted.
Andy and Dixon-Brown debate over each other’s stances and whether one is more beneficial
to Australia and the world than the other, Harry and Piper engage in an intimate relationship
which compromises her long term relationship with Andy and her plight to save the
environment and furthermore, Harry and Dixon-Brown engage in an intimate relationship
which leads to further conflict in the overall dynamic among the individuals. These
relationships create havoc for each other but also in the grand scheme of things, it
represents the complexity of moral standpoints and how this is represented in a play with the
main individuals questioning their values and how their actions either validate or invalidate
their stances. When Dixon-Brown states that “[she] did something very unethical” (act two,
scene four), due to her affair that she engaged in with Harry. Her role as an executive at the
ecological based institute and Harry’s role as an executive of a mining company
demonstrates the occurrence of Dixon-Brown compromising her values as a key figure
within the environmentalist’s world. Furthermore, Dixon-Brown accepts an “offer of 2.8
million to restore the tiger quolls habitat” (act one, scene five). This focuses on the further
unethical actions that arises in the play from the complex agendas of Harry Jewell and
Heather Dixon-Brown, that an institution whose prime focus is on protecting the environment
has accepted a donation from an industry who hinders the natural world and environment.
Additionally, when Piper encourages Harry to keep their affair a secret by stating “I don’t
want her knowing about this” (act two, scene one). This illustrates the immorality present in
the play due to Piper engaging in an intimate relationship outside of her long term
relationship with Andy. This vividly highlights the lack of values that is demonstrated through
certain actions in the play. Rayson instils the notion that these relationships among the
characters represent pragmatic and ideological outcomes that can hinder some people and
benefit others. However, the complexity present dismantles the individuals and their plight to
do what is considered to be morally correct. For that reason, Rayson makes clear the notion
that the complexities from personal relationships can present the message that ‘Extinction’ is
a play that is concerned with the compromising values of the characters.
In spite of the aforementioned, the play is not absolute in its representation of compromising
values. In recent years and decades, there has been increased funding and public interest in
protecting the environment and natural world, this demonstrates morality within people. This
notion has been represented by characters such as Andy and Piper who are heavily involved
within environmental work and bask in an ideological mind-set that allows for their desire to
protect the natural world at all costs. The pair live this through their work and their
involvement in their mission to protect the environment. That the pair prefer to work without
the money deriving from questionable sources, such as a mining company. This verifies their
absolute values as people. Piper introduces the importance of protecting the natural world by
stating that “millions of tiny relationships hang off the fangs of the quoll.” (act one, scene
one). Therefore, insinuating the importance of redirecting efforts into protecting every animal,
instead of analysing the economic impact of doing so as demonstrated through the efforts of
Dixon-Brown. Piper explains the significance of the links between animals in the natural
world, that animals cannot live without other animals, this emphasises that each animal
holds a high degree of importance and should be protected. Furthermore, Piper expresses
her passion in protecting the natural world by arguing with Dixon-Brown that “what’s it matter
if we wake up and half the species on earth are dead” (act two) due to her analytical and
pragmatic approach to the environment. Piper and Andy represent many individuals in
Australian society who disagree with engaging in compromising values, who vow to do their
best to protect nature, Piper and Andy exhibit this through their occupation and career,
whereas some individuals exhibit this from lobbying and political measures. Rayson
consequently indicates through this notion that the entirety of the play is not saturated in
individuals making discredited decisions.
To a certain extent the play ‘Extinction’ is about compromising values. Though on the
contrary the play is not absolute in this message, Rayson illustrates that characters can be
morally absolute and that characters can be immoral in their actions to certain extents. While
the world can be extracted of its natural resources for economic and monetary gain,
strengthened by complexities based on opposing agendas and occupations. This does not
describe every single individual and that individual characters should not be unfairly
categorised as being the same as another. Rayson’s play, ‘Extinction’ demonstrates both
types of individuals, those who are morally ambiguous and those who are morally absolute.
