DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 167--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: mayafb Date: January 17, 2019, 8:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to resources, what's the difference between a
common and a commodity?
This is often something I personally struggle with. When
thinking about the definition of commodity, I associate it with
profit. Profit associates itself to business and then I think
about the "invisible hand in the marketplace" model of
capitalism. This especially came to the forefront of my mind as
Rawson discussed the economic factors of privatizing water
sources. One argument is that the water companies "could develop
a water supply much more cheaply than municipalities because
profit-driven entities always search for the most inexpensive
solution" (187). This makes relative sense to me, but also it is
known that the sometimes the cheapest way is not always the most
effective and investing in the future can be extremely
beneficial. That is what the Bostonians pro-public water
thought. This tension in the economic part of this debate seemed
to be viewing water as a commodity. Rather, when looking at the
morality part of the debate, this seems like it is more of a
common. When I think of common, I think of two things primarily.
One, the famous environmental and economic model of the "tragedy
of the commons" and I also think of the "common good." Both of
these have to do much more morality and thinking about how
communities function. The idea of the alcohol abstinence is born
out of the idea of purity, especially when looking at the
archetypal connotations of water. The idea as water as "rebirth"
in many religions as well as literary texts, makes me also
believe in the "water as a common" perspective. If water is seen
as rebirth over and over, doesn't that make the use of water as
this symbol common itself?
I think I am starting to come unfastened from this topic and the
definition of common, so I will pose a question.
How is the idea of common resources used across cultural
boundaries?
8)
#Post#: 168--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: mayafb Date: January 17, 2019, 8:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=alainah link=topic=9.msg164#msg164
date=1547772129]
How might the story of water in the city be different from water
in the country?
I feel as though there are so many more factors built into
cities than in the country. First of all, the number of people
concentrated in the cities cause more dynamics within the
people. For example, economic status cause issue with water as
we read in the reading. Some people will get more access to
water than others. Even if the water was a public resource,
there will still be disadvantages somehow. In the country, there
will be better access and in my head, people can control the
environment better.
The water in cities would get dirtier more easily and make the
water in a worse condition because of all the spaces around
surrounded by so many people. Channing believed “that the
hardness of the city’s well water made cleaning almost
impossible to accomplish” (188). I think this tells me that
there was nothing to do about the cleanliness of the water, it
was a never-ending cycle. The country has a more open space and
probably fewer wells for water, so people have cleaner options
for their water. I feel like the two just contrast on every
level. I think that is what the stories might look like a
surface level glance. Water in cities would be more dangerous
and people would deal with the level of uncleanliness, while
water in the country would be in a more equal atmosphere and
cause fewer illnesses and conflicts between classes.
[/quote]
This makes me think in depth about how landscape can contribute
to water quality. Thinking like an environmental historian, I am
thinking about water quality based upon land. Even at CSW, I
would really not like if the water we drank was from that swampy
place down by the FIT entrance that always floods and gets
ducks. However, if you told me that the water was some sort of
volcanic perfectly ph balanced magic liquid that would be
different. I think that the land around water sources directly
affects water quality and so in some cities, it may be easier to
find clean water than other cities. Higher elevations tend to
have clearer water because it has not traveled and collected
sediment as much. Places where water still allows for the
filtering out of particles. Then of course where the water is
located latitudinally has a great effect. Too warm water means
more bacterial growth and colder water with fewer nutrients
means less bacterial growth. Disclaimer: all of that being said,
there are still great discrepancies when it comes to all of that
information so it is just a general guideline that I have
learned and not a fact.
I also just think that somewhere in this thread there needs to
be a mention of Flint, Michigan. So Flint still doesn't have
clean water....
#Post#: 169--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: Reed Date: January 17, 2019, 8:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Rawson wants you to believe that "urbanization played a more
complex role in shaping ideas of nature than we often believe."
Does his essay support this claim? How do you think living so
near a metropolis has shaped your view of the natural world?"
Rawson’s essay provides gallons of support for this idea.
I’ll define urbanization as the function of high population
density in a very man-made environment. Cities mean that people
from all walks of life are put together in relatively close
quarters and made to interact in a meaningful way. There’s more
diversity, more income inequality, and in my experience, cities
amplify a basic judgement and tension between people that exists
they’re different from one another.
People choose to live in cities because cities are made for
people, if that makes any sense. Living rurally almost always
requires the work of subsistence because it’s expensive and
difficult to get things when you’re far away from most people;
you have to make do with what you have. In that way, ruralness
is an equalizer. Everyone, wealthy and poor, is sort of
surrounded by nature, interacting with raw resources each day,
witnessing the creation of value, of commodities. In this way,
poor rural people are better off than poor city people. Living
in a city, you must rely on the market or on the government to
deliver the resources you need. There’s also this way that
separation from things means you come up with ideas about how
they work that aren’t necessarily true. The romantic era in New
England combined with the natural human drive to seek fresh
water might prompt anyone to come up with some pretty fanciful
ideas about how water is a magical substance (as detailed by all
the religious ideas about water as “nature’s nectar” and all the
faith in fountains to make the sinners repent).
At the same time, in cities, water ceases to be a vast,
eternally shifting, glittering source of life and inspiration.
It’s something that comes out of a faucet or a hydrant that you
drink, cook, and clean with, that you still have to pay a bill
for. It seems obvious that separation from the rural aesthetic
experiences of water might encourage thinking of water as just
another thing on the to-do list. As evidenced by all the folks
against water reform in Boston.
#Post#: 170--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: liamf Date: January 17, 2019, 8:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Rawson wants you to believe that "urbanization played a more
complex role in shaping ideas of nature than we often believe."
Does his essay support this claim? How do you think living so
near a metropolis has shaped your view of the natural world?
I think Rawson’s essay does support this claim. For me, living
near a metropolis has definitely had a large impact the way I
view nature. I live 10-15 min from Boston, and that’s resulted
in me not really having the same connection with nature that
someone who lives in a more rural area of Massachusetts might
have. The fact that if you go outside at night you can’t see the
stars because of light pollution, and also that it never really
is silent, makes you feel sort of far from nature. In addition,
the only wild animals around are squirrels, rabbits, and small
birds.
When I go to my grandparents house in a more rural area of New
Hampshire, it’s kind of amazing to be able to go outside and
see/hear nothing “man” made. In a way, it’s a lot less
overwhelming. I’ve grown up in suburbs of cities my whole life
(Seattle and Boston), and I think if I were to grow up in a
different place, perhaps more rural and more connected with
nature, I think I would have a profoundly different view of the
natural world, as it’s not obscured by everything humans have
built up around it.
#Post#: 171--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: jterry2020 Date: January 17, 2019, 8:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How might the story of water in the city be different from water
in the country?
I think the story of water in the city would be greatly
different from the story in the country. In the city, there is a
much larger population in need of water, but also a larger
capacity of wealth to attain it. I would argue that it would be
easier to get water in the city, as their is money and power to
bring in water from outside sources if there are none in the
area. In the country, it would likely be very expensive and/or
time-consuming to get water if there is none in the area. This
brings up an interesting contrast because it is probably easier
and cheaper to get water in the country IF it is nearby, whereas
in the city the price is not affected by one's own ability to
harvest water.
Rawson argues that water existed in a gray area between commons
and commodity; are you convinced?
I am convinced, because it seems as if it was impossible to make
it purely common, and therefore it had to exist somehow as a
commodity. It was impossible to make it purely common because it
was expensive and people weren’t willing to take a significant
rise in taxes. With water’s status as not fully common, there
had to be populations without it that would need it as a
commodity. It is important note that water existed in the gray
area in this reading, but not in all examples; I would think
there are places were water exists as fully within commons and
places were it exists fully as a commodity.
#Post#: 172--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: JTodd Date: January 17, 2019, 9:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, so I am very mad right now because I typed a 400-page
response and it didn't post when I tried to post it so here I am
with only 20 minutes to get it all back.
Before I get to the text, I would like to bring in some of my
personal experience and beliefs.
I have lived in towns sustained by the Snake River and the
Colorado River (and its tributaries). These are high-desert,
mountainous areas.
That means I have lived through some pretty severe droughts,
which I might not have lived through if water wasn't viewed as a
commons. water is something I am very passionate about. However,
I commodity and commons do a poor job of defining water. It is
such an essential resource to all life that it should be
considered a not as a commonality or a commons, but as something
that, because it applies to all life, does not adhere to human
structures of use. That being said, I also believe that
governments need to protect and provide water for both the sake
of the environment and for the sake of people who need water. A
free market water industry would fail to self regulate with
respect to both people and the environment. It is one of the few
resources free market would fail to regulate.
Okay...
Tying this into the reading. I derived from the reading that,
essentially, water as a commodity is an argument for a
free-market water industry; while water as a commons is an
argument for governmentally-provided and protected clean water.
I would say, from the sounds of the reading, water in Boston has
been a commons since 1848, with some debate and competition
beforehand.
I wish I could remember more of what I had, but I am out of
time.
[move]Good night.[/move]
OH! The screenshot at the bottom is some data collected on how
our water is used. I think it's worth noting how much goes to
daily public use vs. agriculture, industry, etc.
#Post#: 173--------------------------------------------------
Re: #8: Rawson's The Nature of Water
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 17, 2019, 9:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Reed link=topic=9.msg169#msg169 date=1547778514]
At the same time, in cities, water ceases to be a vast,
eternally shifting, glittering source of life and inspiration.
It’s something that comes out of a faucet or a hydrant that you
drink, cook, and clean with, that you still have to pay a bill
for. It seems obvious that separation from the rural aesthetic
experiences of water might encourage thinking of water as just
another thing on the to-do list. As evidenced by all the folks
against water reform in Boston.
[/quote]
The reading mentioned that public fountains were thought to be
beneficial to public health, but didn't go into depth in
explaining that. I think your comment here shows why fountains
play a necessary role in an urban community. As you explain,
water "ceases to be a vast, eternally shifting, glittering
source of life and inspiration" because it is being piped
through the ground. A fountain then serves to bring water back
into people's environment (apart from when it is there to simply
drink/clean with), which explains why American designers would
create more seemingly natural fountains when compared to the
ones in Europe. I suppose it is somewhat similar to the function
of trees in a city. Most vegetation in an urban environment has
been through a trade route; it has been commodified. Trees and
fountains serve to represent/remind us of these natural
resources as a commons.
Previous readings have looked at how humans have shaped their
environment in the interest of economic gain and/or survival,
and I find it interesting that now we are beginning to look at
the aftermath, where humans began to bring nature back through
man-made (i.e. unnatural, depending on your definition) means.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page