DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 184--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: ccogswell Date: January 22, 2019, 7:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=renee link=topic=10.msg182#msg182 date=1548207468]
[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.
[/quote]
I agree, but this raises more questions for me - Could humans
ever adapt/evolve to require less water? Or even no water at
all? If this were to happen, would we still be "humans", or
would this make us a different species entirely? How much of our
humanity is defined by how we live and survive?
#Post#: 185--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 22, 2019, 7:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it unnatural to bring water to arid places, and people to
places that can't naturally support them? Why or why not?
I believe that this is natural, though it may be pushing the
limits of what it means to be natural. Long before modern
technology, humans spread across the globe, and some groups
settled in quite harsh areas (e.g. the arctic circle). Thus, I
believe that white Americans traveling into the American West
and setting up communities there is simply a progression of what
humans have done since ancient times, and therefore natural.
Furthermore, I think that the fact that humans settle in places
that cannot naturally support them is also fully natural — I
cannot think of a specific instance at this moment, but I have
to imagine there have been times when a species other than
humans has used up the resources of an environment in some
capacity. The difference for humans, of course, lies in the fact
that we have been able to overcome this lack of support by
employing tactics such as bringing water to arid places. Humans
have long used tools to better survive, spears being the common
early example. Perhaps the advanced mechanisms implemented to
transport water are merely tools to survive, much like a spear,
and therefore natural. On the other hand, this practice reshapes
nature, and perhaps this is what it means to be unnatural.
Ultimately, it seems that the answer to this question must lie
in an unsatisfying gray area, but I believe it directly relates
to the more broad question of how far humans have distanced or
separated themselves from nature, if at all.
#Post#: 186--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: kellyf Date: January 22, 2019, 8:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=10.msg180#msg180
date=1548205869]
Is it wrong to commodify clean water in a region where water in
general is scarce?
Capitalism aside, would it ever be right to commodify something
people require for survival?
[/quote]
Christine! What a question! My first thought is no, it is never
right to commodify something people require for survival, but
then why is that so for most if not all of the world? Taking
water as an example, maybe it is not so wrong to commodify
water... Take the example of Eastern water law, specifically in
dry land. A farmer may be able to divert a stream for
irrigation, but " little of the water diverted from a stream for
any purpose ever finds its way back." (210) Commodify that
water, selling drinking water, and then more people have access
to something people require for survival. Another reason - who
gets to decide who gets water and who doesn't if there is no
outside force? That would be a tough moral decision, no?
Commodification 'fixes' that by providing the force as simply
who has more money.
#Post#: 187--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: mayafb Date: January 22, 2019, 8:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When l think of how the commodification of resources works for
survival in an area that does not have that resource, the first
part of me is to immediately question the decision to live
there. If there is not an essential element for survival, why
not move? However, if this was the case all living organisms
would eventually congregate in similar areas, therefore,
exhausting the area. So, as always, I turn to evolution. If the
rest of the species were able to evolve over many many many
years to optimally live in their environment, are humans
essentially doing the same but in a reverse way? The theory of
evolution is based partially upon the idea of natural selection
and how the survival of an individual gene pool. So if the
humans act in the way nature does and modifies the land over
time to better fit them how does this fit into the grand scheme
of the world? Bringing it back down to earth more so, the way
that humans have viewed land differs immensely based upon the
intended use or potential use (to read a rather decent book
about this I recommend "Encounters with the Archdruid" by John
McPhee). Because of this, the commodification of land
drastically changes. For instance, if we are looking at the west
and that arid landscape, land near a river or a large body of
water might be very expensive because of the natural benefits
that come with living near water. In class today we were talking
about how the properties near resources have higher cost and
then the resources allocated to that region are nicer. If
thinking about this in a water-driven way, the places near water
might get not only the best access to water but the most
reliable access. I am pretty sure none of that makes sense. 8)
#Post#: 188--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: jterry2020 Date: January 22, 2019, 8:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
I think it is still true in a region where water is scarce,
because if not, water would be a commodity for everyone. The
nature of a commons is that everyone has equal access. If water
was a commodity for some people, it would be unfair (although
many things are unfair) for it to be a commons for other. Also,
it would be hard to decide what regions where water is
considered “scarce”, and therefore hard to decide in what
regions water would be commodified. It could lead to a situation
where all water is commodified and price or access for everyone
is determined by the degree of scarcity in their region.
Is it unnatural to bring water to arid places, and people to
places that can't naturally support them? Why or why not?
In theory and by definition, it is unnatural. In reality, it's
not. It's simply another example of humans exercising control
over the environment for their benefit. It's the same as
controlling the temperature inside or shipping food across the
globe. Although it might be inefficient, it's another step in
human survival in places where they shouldn’t be able to.
#Post#: 189--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: Shi Shi Date: January 22, 2019, 8:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=10.msg184#msg184
date=1548207747]
[quote author=renee link=topic=10.msg182#msg182 date=1548207468]
[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.
[/quote]
I agree, but this raises more questions for me - Could humans
ever adapt/evolve to require less water? Or even no water at
all? If this were to happen, would we still be "humans", or
would this make us a different species entirely? How much of our
humanity is defined by how we live and survive?
[/quote]
This is an interesting idea to think about because I feel like
now humans are encouraged to drink more and more water
~Hydration nation. I seem to be connecting your theory/idea to
the issue of water droughts, and I feel that with climate change
looming over us, the number of droughts in the world will
inevitably increase. More directly in response to your
questions, I think that we will be forced to adapt to these
types of situation, but not in the way you may be thinking.
Adaptations do not necessarily have to be biological. I think
humans will try to figure out a way to change their way of
living in a way which attempts to solve/eliminate the issue of
limited water supply (I think Stegner says this somewhere in his
writing but I can't find it).
#Post#: 190--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: kellyf Date: January 22, 2019, 8:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
link=topic=10.msg185#msg185 date=1548207886]
Ultimately, it seems that the answer to this question must lie
in an unsatisfying gray area, but I believe it directly relates
to the more broad question of how far humans have distanced or
separated themselves from nature, if at all.
[/quote]
I would argue that bringing water into an arid environment is
unnatural. Water is scarce in the West, thus to bring water/make
a dam/force water in a certain way changes the environment by
human intervention. This is the same as in New England and
basically beating the land into being grazing land. Take
rainfall for example, that is natural since humans cannot
control it, they may be able to collect it and use it, but not
force rain to fall. Creating a dam is unnatural, since humans
are forcing water to be in a certain place, which it would not
collect otherwise. I guess at the end of my argument is just
because it is 'natural' for humans to settle somewhere that
cannot fully sustain them without intervention, doesn't mean
that the methods used to sustain such humans are natural as
well.
#Post#: 191--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: alaina.h Date: January 22, 2019, 8:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
link=topic=10.msg185#msg185 date=1548207886]
Is it unnatural to bring water to arid places, and people to
places that can't naturally support them? Why or why not?
I believe that this is natural, though it may be pushing the
limits of what it means to be natural. Long before modern
technology, humans spread across the globe, and some groups
settled in quite harsh areas (e.g. the arctic circle). Thus, I
believe that white Americans traveling into the American West
and setting up communities there is simply a progression of what
humans have done since ancient times, and therefore natural.
Furthermore, I think that the fact that humans settle in places
that cannot naturally support them is also fully natural — I
cannot think of a specific instance at this moment, but I have
to imagine there have been times when a species other than
humans has used up the resources of an environment in some
capacity. The difference for humans, of course, lies in the fact
that we have been able to overcome this lack of support by
employing tactics such as bringing water to arid places. Humans
have long used tools to better survive, spears being the common
early example. Perhaps the advanced mechanisms implemented to
transport water are merely tools to survive, much like a spear,
and therefore natural. On the other hand, this practice reshapes
nature, and perhaps this is what it means to be unnatural.
Ultimately, it seems that the answer to this question must lie
in an unsatisfying gray area, but I believe it directly relates
to the more broad question of how far humans have distanced or
separated themselves from nature, if at all.
[/quote]
In response to this same question and adding onto Tommy’s
comment, I just wanted to start of by agreeing with the fact
that it is not “unnatural” to move somewhere that doesn’t have
optimal conditions for people. I’m still grappling with the
definition of natural. What is natural in this context? People
had to support themselves and the only way to do this was bring,
find or follow the resources needed for survival. I would think
that bringing water to places that wouldn’t support it is
somewhat useless, but I don’t think that it is unnatural
per-say. I would say it was an attempt of survival and I think
that is considered natural. Going back to the question Tommy
posed, i think that using the tools found within the natural
environment is natural and so if people brought water, their
main resource, to another place that would be the same. Over
time, the definition of what “natural” means is changing as we
become more developed as humans. As this happens we are
definitely separating ourselves from nature. We’re making it
harder for ourselves to have resources, even water, that you
would think should have easier access.
#Post#: 192--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: kellyf Date: January 22, 2019, 8:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Shi Shi link=topic=10.msg189#msg189
date=1548211126]
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=10.msg184#msg184
date=1548207747]
[quote author=renee link=topic=10.msg182#msg182 date=1548207468]
[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.
[/quote]
I agree, but this raises more questions for me - Could humans
ever adapt/evolve to require less water? Or even no water at
all? If this were to happen, would we still be "humans", or
would this make us a different species entirely? How much of our
humanity is defined by how we live and survive?
[/quote]
This is an interesting idea to think about because I feel like
now humans are encouraged to drink more and more water
~Hydration nation. I seem to be connecting your theory/idea to
the issue of water droughts, and I feel that with climate change
looming over us, the number of droughts in the world will
inevitably increase. More directly in response to your
questions, I think that we will be forced to adapt to these
types of situation, but not in the way you may be thinking.
Adaptations do not necessarily have to be biological. I think
humans will try to figure out a way to change their way of
living in a way which attempts to solve/eliminate the issue of
limited water supply (I think Stegner says this somewhere in his
writing but I can't find it).
[/quote]
Biological adaptation? Maybe not. Environmental adaptation? Yes.
Shi Shi is on a roll with the "change their way of living in a
way which attempts to solve/eliminate the issue of limited water
supply" however, it doesn't seem that adaptation is happening
very fast. Or at least by the upper classes. (I am thinking
about Kylie Jenner watering the pavement) Stegner does say, "Not
even yet have we fully adapted our water law to western
conditions." (210) But hopefully, at some point we will be able
to conserve more water than at present. (the Nalgenes are
helping???)
#Post#: 193--------------------------------------------------
Re: #9: The Dry States
By: kellyf Date: January 22, 2019, 8:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I know this is late, but can someone help me unpack this -
"If... most Americans are not placed but displaced persons, then
western Americans are the most displaced persons of all." (215)
(got it in before 10)
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page