DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 174--------------------------------------------------
#9: The Dry States
By: TeacherRachel Date: January 21, 2019, 9:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Wallace Stegner, "Living Dry," from The American West as Living
Space (pages 206-216)
Joan Didion, "Holy Water," from The White Album (pages 217-221)
Consider:
After the last reading, many of you talked about the fact that
it was wrong to commodify water (clean water should be a right,
not a privilege). Is that still true in a region where water
(not clean water) is scare?
If water's not available naturally, is it wrong to charge for
the privilege of having it unnaturally?
Is it unnatural to bring water to arid places, and people to
places that can't naturally support them? Why or why not?
These are really just starters... go crazy. Ask a question and
answer a question, of course.
#Post#: 175--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: Cale is not me. Date: January 22, 2019, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to be responding to this question: Is it unnatural to
bring water to arid places, and people to places that can't
naturally support them? Why or why not?
The main reasons I find this topic interesting is because the
concept of what is natural and what is not is one with no clear
answer but lots of implications for the future and stuff.
Personally, I don't think there is anything unnatural about
humans going to places where they can't easily survive. Afterall
adaption, evolution, and spreading to new environments is common
in natural things. Many animals and plants live in the west and
other locations with little water because they overtime made the
best of it through evolution or learning how to survive there
despite the obstacles. What is not natural on the other hand is
to change your environment to better fit you at the moment. In
fact, I would argue the opposite of natural is to transform your
environment which is exactly what it would take to get reliable
amounts of water in such an unproviding place.
#Post#: 176--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: juliab Date: January 22, 2019, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that it is wrong in theory to commodify water, but I
think that because there are so many places that either don’t
have access to water or don’t have access to clean water it is
hard to treat it otherwise. It is a process to transport water
to places that need it, and that essentially costs money.
Without commodifying it, the system that would get the water
there would be expensive and would not generate revenue, making
it far more complicated. Though it should be a right to have
clean water I can’t imagine a system that would make this idea
easily possible.
Something from this reading that I found really interesting was
when Didion talked about the journey that water takes to get to
us. While I have a general idea of where the water I drink comes
from, I’ve never thought about where exactly it may go on its
way to me. The attitude that people in more arid places have
towards water is extremely different because they don’t take it
for granted, and I found it really cool to see that in action.
#Post#: 177--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: JTodd Date: January 22, 2019, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the first reading is kinda stupid to define the West by
its "inadequate rainfall." Like the author, I have lived in the
West for the better part of my life. Even from a perspective of
environmental history, I find this definition falls short. If
the goal of this history is to gain a holistic view of the human
experience, in this case in the Western U.S., then why focus
only on rainfall? Certainly, water and rainfall are major
environmental influencers, however, they are not the only
influencer. This reductive definition frustrates me. Use of
words like “inadequate” and “deficiency” fail the West and all
of its beauty and positive influence. Defining the West by a
“deficiency of water” is like defining oceans and seas by a
deficiency of land. A lack of land is a key characteristic of
oceans and seas, but it would be foolish to leave the definition
there. These reductive definitions do away with the holistic
view, which I think to be contrary to the motives of
environmental history.
I know the West for its mountains, plains, flora, fauna, and so
many other things, including droughts, rivers, and lakes.
I know this definition functions well in geographic definition,
but for recounting an area and its holistic influence on humans,
I think it falls short of its purpose.
#Post#: 178--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 22, 2019, 6:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=JTodd link=topic=10.msg177#msg177 date=1548198938]
I think the first reading is kinda stupid to define the West by
its "inadequate rainfall." Like the author, I have lived in the
West for the better part of my life. Even from a perspective of
environmental history, I find this definition falls short. If
the goal of this history is to gain a holistic view of the human
experience, in this case in the Western U.S., then why focus
only on rainfall? Certainly, water and rainfall are major
environmental influencers, however, they are not the only
influencer. This reductive definition frustrates me. Use of
words like “inadequate” and “deficiency” fail the West and all
of its beauty and positive influence. Defining the West by a
“deficiency of water” is like defining oceans and seas by a
deficiency of land. A lack of land is a key characteristic of
oceans and seas, but it would be foolish to leave the definition
there. These reductive definitions do away with the holistic
view, which I think to be contrary to the motives of
environmental history.
I know the West for its mountains, plains, flora, fauna, and so
many other things, including droughts, rivers, and lakes.
I know this definition functions well in geographic definition,
but for recounting an area and its holistic influence on humans,
I think it falls short of its purpose.
[/quote]
Do you think it would be accurate to say that this definition of
the West functions more to distinguish the region from the rest
of the country? I feel that the first reading focuses on the
fact that a deficiency of water was instrumental in shaping the
West, in terms of how and where people lived in the region. I
don't think that the text is saying that the region has nothing
to offer other than its aridity, it is rather working to explain
one crucial factor in the settlement of the West. Defining the
oceans "by a deficiency of land" would certainly fail to
accurately describe them in full, but if you are looking at how
humans live in the ocean (fisherman? mermaids?), and
specifically how they live differently from others, it is that
deficiency of land that would surely be a logical starting point
in analyzing their environment.
#Post#: 179--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: Casey A Date: January 22, 2019, 6:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would like to touch on the idea of adaptation as referenced in
the first part reading. I would like to connect adaptation of
the west with the ideas of justification and stubborn optimism
which was referenced in the reading that went with the Grapes of
Wrath. The connection I am seeing is that because people could
not bear to leave their land, they justified staying put by
trying to adapt to the conditions, because we would all rather
adapt that leave part of us behind. There is a specific part of
Grapes of Wrath that makes more sense after reading tonights
homework, when the Joans want to leave except Grandpa who wants
to stay, all of his relatives ask him questions such as, how
will he live, who will cook for him, etc, but he justifies them
all by saying he will somehow manage. People like their own
land because it is theirs. I see this in both the Grapes of
Wrath and tonights reading, in the part where people abandoned
lands and then minerals were found there, and everyone wanted it
back.
#Post#: 180--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: ccogswell Date: January 22, 2019, 7:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it wrong to commodify clean water in a region where water in
general is scarce?
I don't believe it is right. It might make sense economically,
but that doesn't make it right. If there are humans living in
that region, they deserve the same access to life that humans
living elsewhere deserve, simply because they are human. Of
course, it is easy to think that maybe humans being in a
waterless region is unnatural - this ties into another one of
the questions as well - and there isn't a moral issue of asking
these people to pay a premium on something that is more
difficult to provide under their geographic circumstances. The
result of this is obviously a socioeconomic imbalance based on a
region's accessibility to clean resources... which we already
have. So, I don't think this is an unreasonable (or even
unfamiliar) situation in our current society, but I still
believe that there are deep flaws to commodifying resources
humans need to live. Capitalism aside, would it ever be right to
commodify something people require for survival?
#Post#: 181--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: Shi Shi Date: January 22, 2019, 7:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was particularly interested in the idea that civilization in
the west was "a civilization in motion, driven by dreams"
(Stegner 21). While reading, I found myself largely connecting
this idea to Henry David Thoreau's essay Walking. In it, he
talks a lot about the idea of walking westward, and how western
landmarks have some type of unbeknownst freedom, beauty, and or
future. I believe that some of his thoughts correspond well with
Stegner's ideas--specifically relating to the notion of westward
expansion/civilization as a result of an American dream. I'm
curious as to whether or not Stegner was influenced by Thoreau
while writing this piece, for they certainly draw some
parallels.
I am also very interested in the idea that people in the west do
not have place, but instead have space. However, I am having a
bit of a hard time trying to understand it. What is place? What
is space? How/why are they different? When I think of space I
think of an undefined area which exists. However, when I think
of place, I think of a particular point. Why do people in the
west not have a place? Is everything in the west "undefined" or
"unfixed"?
#Post#: 182--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: renee Date: January 22, 2019, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Cale is not me. link=topic=10.msg175#msg175
date=1548190368]
I'm going to be responding to this question: Is it unnatural to
bring water to arid places, and people to places that can't
naturally support them? Why or why not?
The main reasons I find this topic interesting is because the
concept of what is natural and what is not is one with no clear
answer but lots of implications for the future and stuff.
Personally, I don't think there is anything unnatural about
humans going to places where they can't easily survive. Afterall
adaption, evolution, and spreading to new environments is common
in natural things. Many animals and plants live in the west and
other locations with little water because they overtime made the
best of it through evolution or learning how to survive there
despite the obstacles. What is not natural on the other hand is
to change your environment to better fit you at the moment. In
fact, I would argue the opposite of natural is to transform your
environment which is exactly what it would take to get reliable
amounts of water in such an unproviding place.
[/quote]
I don’t think it is unnatural for people to move to places that
don’t easily support them. When people move to places that
initially cannot naturally support them, over time they adapt to
these new conditions so that they can survive. People are
naturally adapted to the type of environment they live in. For
example, when people who normally live at sea level travel to
high elevations they experience altitude sickness for a few days
before they get used to the air. But people who have always
lived in the mountains have no problem with the less oxygenated
air.
The first settlers in any area will experience challenges in
living in a new environment. Emigrants on their way to the west
coast experienced aridity around Grand Island when “their
nostrils dried out and their lips cracked” (214). They found
that the West was a completely new land. In order to survive in
the aridity they would have to change their habits. They would
have to begin new agricultural practices and even their bodies
would adapt, unconsciously, to the dry air. If it was unnatural
for people to move to places that couldn’t naturally support
them, then the human population would be very confined.
Evolution is natural so moving and adapting to new environments
is also natural.
#Post#: 183--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: liamf Date: January 22, 2019, 7:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If water's not available naturally, is it wrong to charge for
the privilege of having it unnaturally?
I think at one point in time, charging for having water in a
place where you wouldn't normally have access to it would be
fair, however, today I don’t think it’s okay to do this. If
we’re going off the idea that geographical location is the main
indicator of whether water is naturally accessible, then
charging for it is definitely not right, as some can’t afford to
move to a location where it’s cheaper. I think this idea ties
into this question very nicely:
Is it unnatural to bring water to arid places, and people to
places that can't naturally support them? Why or why not?
If people didn’t live in arid places, I think it would be
unnatural, but In order to support the people in Aird places,
moving water to them is natural, as it allows people in those
places to survive. The need for survival is natural, and if
moving water to places where it’s not easily found allows for
survival, then it is definitely a natural thing. Some might make
the argument that living in places without water is unnatural in
the first place. Is it? Is it not?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page