Personally, I got really confused after tonight's reading so I don't have that much to say about the reading. Therefore I would like to answer the questions Rachel posted directly. There are some reasons behind the structure of nature, if a place is arid, it is supposed to be that way, which means that bringing water into arid places is not natural. But on the other hand, people are bringing water into arid places because they need to survive, and this desire is human's instinct, which is natural. So this means that the action of physically bringing water into arid lands is not natural, but the motivation comes naturally. This is similar to the rock and pen thing we talked about in the very beginning.
There's one thing I really like about the first reading. It is the last sentence: "...you must either adapt to it or try to engineer it [aridity] out of existence." I believe both ways are equally nature.
And about if water should be a common in places where water is rare. Ideally it should be, but this is probably not possible in real life. If it was common, it means that everyone shares water and nobody owns it, which is more or less like communism; but in reality, there is always a person who has more powers so he has the right and money to buy the water while others die of thirst. (Don't attack me on this point though '-')
My question is: what role does water play in FORMING social structure?
To respond to Rachel, "If water's not available naturally, is it wrong to charge for the privilege of having it unnaturally?"
I think we'd be hard-pressed to find water available naturally in most urban environments, and in many parts of the west as we read tonight...so regardless of its natural availability, I think it's wrong to charge people for water, as it is a basic human necessity. However, abusing water is definitely not a human right- that is, trying to create perfect green lawns in an area where "green has given way to tans, grays, rusty reds, and toned white..."(214) and other "unnatural" excessive uses for water should be extremely expensive (where that $ goes to land conservation/wildfire prevention/other nature conservation projects) or illegal in parts of the world that have limited water access.
Mingewei, great question! As stated in our readings from last night and tonight, water is a mark of wealth and privilege. Joan Didion put it very nicely in the second reading when she said "Water is important to people who do not have it, and the same is true of control." I think those who do not naturally live near an abundant source of water but who have unlimited access are living with the privilege to not have to consider the intricate journey that their water must travel to arrive in their cup. The privilege that comes with upper class citizens drives their attention to making laws that benefit the economy rather than public access to water, but if those who were suffering from drought or dehydration were in power, these laws would sound very different.
Question: Is public access to water a mark of a civilized society?
I as well found the first reading very confusing and my brain hurt within the first few pages. But, I found parts that really jumped out at me and I believe captured the significance of the reading. One line I like was "More by oversight than intention, the federal government allowed the states to assert ownership of the water within their boundaries, and that is actually an ownership far more valuable but more complicated than that of land." When thinking about water, picturing it with boundaries is almost counterintuitive because water takes on the shape of its container. But to think of water as having metaphorical boundaries of ownership as an asset is a way that this reading and the other readings about land and agriculture overlap.
The second reading was more interesting and compelling to me because it was a story. I felt very close to the author and liked how personal it was because it gave a new perspective. Up until now, we have mostly read "academic" text as we talked about in class this morning. But this was less chronological and analytical and I liked this switch in styles. On page 220 of the reading, I really liked when Joan was talking about pools. She said "actually a pool is. for many of us in the West, a symbol not of affluence but of order, of control over the uncontrollable." This idea of control is fascinating and makes me wonder about weather or not pools(man made) are natural. What do you think?
In response to Eli, yes I think think that a swimming pool is still natural. Like Didion said (by the way Eli, are you and “Joan” on a first name basis?), “In fact a swimming pool requires, once it has been filled and the filter has begun the process of cleaning and recirculating the water, virtually no water, but the symbolic contents of a pool has always been interesting…” (63). This stuck out to me, because as I read this I agreed with her that a swimming pool is hardly something to even think about when talking public water supply, and now that I’ve read Eli’s question about whether a pool is natural or not, I’m not sure if I’d even consider pool water to be “water” these day because of its use and all of the chemicals in it and such. But that begs a different question of: then what is it? I’m not sure, but I still think it can be considered natural. I’m going to stick by the thesis of my film paper and say that the atom bomb is the only unnatural thing ever created by man (feel free to argue! I’d love to…)
On another note, while my thesis may not agree with me, I think that Rachel’s question about whether or not it is “natural” to relocate water to where it “naturally” is getting at something (possibly profound). An example: Fabulous Las Vegas is expected to run out of water by 2015 (this was on the cover of Time magazine or Nation Geographic a couple years ago I remember). The first reading talked about something historically similar, maintaing settlement in land where there was not enough water to maintain it. Anyways, now of course they are instigating pipelined aqua-ducts from thousands of miles away to provide the city with water. Is this natural? Is it worth it? Should the world abandon places where there is no way to sustain themselves? People (in large quantities) don’t live in Antarctica...
I'm going to start out by responding to Eli's question about whether or not pools are natural. When I read the section of the second reading where the author mentioned pools, I immediately thought of our discussion in class today about "quads" in New England schools. Yes, quads are made of grass, and often have trees on them, but they are not necessarily "natural". Indeed, quads are supposed to represent a section of nature among developed land, but the grass had to be planted there, and is often treated with chemicals. The trees as well were planted at some point in the area. Connecting back to pools - although they contain water, it is both treated with chemicals and highly regulated. Pools have to be filled up with water from a different source and are constantly being filtered. I would not consider pools to be natural, nor quads.
The second reading was not too intriguing for me and very dry (no pun intended). I looked back on my active reading for last night's homework to compare water in the east to the west, and concurred that in the east, water was more controllable by humans, while in the west, it was more controllable my nature. With multiple bodies of water around Massachusetts & New England, people developed systems to transport water around different cities and towns, and the main concerns were not lacking water, but having clean water for human consumption. In the west, water was not available like in the east, and there was no place to get water from. Westerners relied and focused greatly on nature (rainfall), and simply obtaining water, while easterners focused more on regulating their water supply. Does anyone else see any other differences between water as a symbol in the west compared to water as a symbol in the east?
The first part of tonight's reading focused on the politics behind moving west and water usage. I think the relationship between the federal government's usage of the land and the states' usage was really interesting. On one hand, I agree with the states wanting to control the water supply and what was being built on the land, but I also understand the federal government's right to regulate the water supply so that a person can't single handedly control the water supply.
The second part of tonight's reading focused on the supply and demand aspect of supplying water, which relates to the previous reading we read yesterday.
Ahh today’s readings remind me of Worster. He mentioned human adapts into nature by developing technology, and at the end, change the nature with their tech. He said this is the human nature, and under his account, bringing water to arid region is unnatural for nature, but should be very natural for human. So Isaiah, I think constructing miles of water pipe is a nice presentation of people overcoming nature, which is natural for human? Worster also said “nature offers the humans dwelling there a flexible but limited possibilities for getting a living,” and extreme places like Antarctica doesn’t offer dwelling for human, but only space. I think Stegner mentioned of difference of space and place, but I can’t find it. Does anyone recall of this? or is it only my misunderstanding? (I think so...)
Stovall, I agree with you. Both quad and pool are built for human, not for reproducing or protecting nature. The purpose is to satisfy human desire. For example, Didion said that pools are symbol “of control over the uncontrollable.” Pool can be ostentation of human power over nature, and it is indeed “soothing to the western eye” since people can get satisfaction of subjugating the uncontrollable.
Answer to Stovall’s question; In West where water is scarce thus needed to be controlled, pool can be the symbol of human power over nature. In East, where water is comparatively abundant, water should symbolize other than power, and referring to yesterday’s reading, Boston used water fountain to symbolize morality from water’s purity (more likely its cleanliness).
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:58 pm Post subject:
So I am still reading the first part of tonight’s readning (because it was so boring I fell asleep…)
I get a little bit lost in the reading (because it was a little bit dry). So far in the reading, Wallace Stegner focuses on how the federal and state government play the roles on water’s rights. I really like the way Eli talks about how water has “boundaries of ownership” while water is usually measure in a container. It makes me wonder why so sudden everything that seemes to be “nature” all be measured, or named by “human’s interpretation?”
I am going to answer Naya’s question: Is public access to water a mark of a civilized society?
I would say yes. Civilization is a word that is defined by human and usually it is about human’s society. I think no matter if public can access to water it is both civilized because if water is used as common, human’s action must involve, like the reading yesterday. But, at the same time, if water is used as commodity, lesilation, power…etc are all involved. Like the readings today. Therefore, I think definetely it’s civilized society.
Sadly I found out I did the reading for Monday when I come to post at 10:00, so I try my best to answer Rachel’s question and other people’s question.
For Rachel's first question, i don't really understand what do you mean by water is scare...or do you mean water is sacred?
When water is sacred, water really shouldn't be commodified, and it should be shared by everybody (Just like native American people's way), but in reality it's hard to achieve, just like what Mingwei said "it's more or less like communism", it doesn't co-exist with marketing economic system! so it should be people pay to get water, but the price should be monitored and the same for everyone.
I think charge for the privilege to get water unnaturally is wrong, because human's life relies on water, charge for the privilege to get the water is like to charge for being alive. we can set a limit on the amount of water every people use, but the privilige of accessing water shouldn't be charged.
I agree with Mingwei and Gyonghee, bringing water to a arid place might be against the nature, but it is a human nature to do such things. And sometimes people ended up being in a arid place where can't support their living, for example, the people went to the west for their American dreams, to get a better life. they are in some degree forced to go to that place, when it's forced, everything seems reasonable.
For me, I focused a little more on how the value of land has evolved over the course of history. I found it facisnating that prior to World War II, the federal government attempted to sign the land off to the states, however the states had little interest. Because of this lack of interest, stockmen were quick to pick up the land, which radically changed both the ag. business nationally, and. Ironically, after the discovery of valubale minerals such as coal, oil, and uranium, the states demanded the lands back so that they could transfer the land to developers who would make the "West rich and prosperous."
Additionally, my biggest question for the group is who has jursidiction of the little water that is available in the great west. Is it the Indians who have always lived there, transient white frontier men, business, states, federal gov't., etc.? Because of this lack of water supply, wouldn't it be natural to provide water to those individuals who do not have access to that water, but need it for survival?
The biggest revelation from the reading was when reading about aridity, and how little water in arid lands were diverted from streams for the purpose of gold mining, irrigation, municipal or domestic consumption never found it's way back. For the most part, policies such as the Colorado Doctorine and events such as the Gold Rush all lead to principle that water water would be distributed via "first come, first served." This notion lies within the framework capitalism... and from this, I feel that capitalism, especially when we see it expand into the great west, is too a certain extent, unnatural.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
