Thats not really a question you know. Anyway, if its like a respond to this statement kind of thing i would talk about :
- the fact that both the texts are concerned with humanity severing its ties with nature in different ways according to the context in which the texts were composed. The fact that two texts, composed 50 years apart, essentially link back to the idea that humanity needs nature in order for humans to be 'human', strenthens the idea that this is a 'signifigant concern'.
- i would define what it means to be 'human', what the 'natural world' is and what the true meaning of 'wild' is in these texts.
- remember that this is 'comparitive study of text and context'. you need to look at the different ways that the human relationship with the natural world is portrayed in each text and how context has effected this. for example, Ridley Scott presents a dystopic hell on earth where nature is destroyed and as a result humanity has fallen and science and technology are relied upon to fix problems. This is pertinent to a 1980s society where humans were destroying the earth through pollution, war (atomic weapons) and scientific advancement. Huxley on the other hand, has satirised a society that is programmed to hate nature and fear it. Keeping in mind that in the late twenties and early thirties consumerism and mass prodiction were on the rise - huxley has been effected by his time and hence has created humans that have lost their humanity through their lack of connection to the natural world. Both texts have humans that lack a connection to this 'natural world' but the composers have expressed the concern in different ways according to context.
there is heaps more you can write about....i hope that helps you...it should!
