Rhetoric 3302 Questions

“Cedar Keys” by John Muir

This was an interesting story to read about one man and how he sees and describes the world, particularly the Cedar Keys in Florida. In the chapter, he talks about the views of who the Creator is. He then talks about sheep to be an easy problem when it comes to food and clothing for humans. Muir states, “…food and clothing ‘for us,’ eating grass and daisies white by divine appointment for this predestined purpose, on perceiving the demand for wool that would be occasioned by the eating of the apple in the Garden of Eden.” I found it quite interesting that he made the comparison with the apple that was eaten in the Garden of Eden, which was a horrible occurrence that happened, so with the animal situation it must to be a bad. Not only does he mention sheep, he talks about the whales and other animals, plants, iron, and many other living and nonliving things in our world. Lastly, at the end of the chapter he talks about how he stated earlier that “man claimed the earth was made for him”. It is clear to see that the earth was not made for man. Or was it? But in our world there are venomous beasts, thorny plants, and deadly diseases of certain parts of the earth that prove that the whole world was not made for man. Overall, this was an interesting story to read about humans and nature of the world.

“The Ecozoic Era” by Thomas Berry

Berry stresses that our future is very important with the environment. He talks about two eras, such as the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic and the number of species living during that time period. Many things die or become extinct because of how our environment is being lived in or used upon, such as pollutants that are put in the atmosphere, the soil, and the water. Results of many carbon compounds are lost due to fossil fuels, especially petroleum for fuel and energy. We can clearly see we need fossil fuels nowadays, but we are not conserving them properly. We need to start conserving and recycling, otherwise our world will slowly diminish. It is so simple to turn off a light when you leave a room, recycle, or even take a bike ride or walk on a nice day instead of driving. Berry states, “…we seem to be achieving magnificent things at the microphase level of our functioning, we are devasting the entire range of living beings at the macrophase level. The natural world is more sensitive than we have realized.” I think that is the problem in our world that people don’t realize that by not conserving energy and fossil fuels, or just cleaning up our world, it is hurting the environment, the world, and everything in it, big time. Also he suggests that steps must be taken and there must be a new era in human-Earth relations. But when will this come? Will these steps be taken effectively and continue to be obeyed? Nature has its own technologies. Does our world today, have more or less acceptable or unacceptable human technology? Our human technology may not be compatible with the nature’s technology, which could arouse problems in the world. What sort of problems could happen? What I don’t seem to understand is that these events of such castrophic proportions are happening only because of technology, but with us having such knowledge and technology about how it affects are environment, shouldn’t we be able to decrease the pollution? Is petroleum our biggest factor we need to worry about in our environment, or are there more? I think people will not start to take all of this into consideration until our Earth is on its last layer, and when we are almost at the point where we can do nothing anymore. With the new era, Ecozoic Era, Berry goes through and talks about the conditions needed. As a whole, is it possible to make the transition successful?

Cedar Keys

This article reminded me of Charles Darwin’s documentation of the Galapagos Islands because Muir was describing the local vegetation and wildlife. He seemed very interested in the surroundings especially because it reminded him of his childhood. I could not imagine being that sick for that long. It would really suck having to fear such common medical problems like malaria and typhoid fever. I don’t think that nature was created for man to dominate and exploit. I wish we could find a way to blend harmoniously with nature and learn to respect the necessary balance required to keep the environment healthy. I don’t think we should look at nature as something to dominate and conquer.

The Ecozoic Era

I think it is good that people are giving presentations and spreading the word about all the destruction people have caused to the environment in the past. It is important that people are concerned with the well being of the environment and learn to live cooperatively with it. I think the human population is out of control and we will be the cause of the end; we will be our own destroyer. We should not think of us as dominate over the Earth, we should look at it as “the earth is primary and humans are derivates.” The whole ecosystem is so delicate, and we have probably already done irreversible damage. I think there will have to be some huge, devastating disaster to make people realize that we only have one planet and we need to take care of it. In this new era, we are responsible for our own destiny which will be greatly influenced by the way we treat our Earth.

The first thing I though when reading the Muir piece was how lucky Muir was, well not in the whole typhoid thing, but just to be able to wander the Florida Keys, exploring and learning about the land, the plants, and the animals that live there. I think it raises a question though, does becoming an environmentalist require developing a sense of community with the natural world?

It would be easy to dismiss Berry as a friggin' eco-nut and tree hugger, but it seems that he is only advocating for the Gaia theory, the idea that the Earth as a whole is a living system. After playing Sim Earth I am also a staunch advocate for the Gaia theory, and even the idea humanity is merely a derivative of the Earth. I would argue to the contrary of Berry though, the Earth isn't as fragile as Berry makes it out to be, and all things on the Earth, humans and rain forests and coral reefs are all temporary, all of them. Gaia is always trying for equilibrium, but it never reaches it, animals over extend, glaciers go too far. Gaia then corrects and changes the whole planet. Question is though, what happens when the Earth tries to compensate for us?

I thought “Cedar Keys” brought up a good point when Muir wonders whether man-eating animals, insects and poisonous other bits are proof that the world was not created for man. You would assume that if some Creator tailor-made the Earth to meet all of man’s needs and be supremely useful to him, why in the world would some of these animals to exist? Muir sort of answers it when he describes how easy it is to conclude if any animal taken out of its natural habitat and is relocated (and subsequently dies), well obviously the animal wasn’t made for the environment it was placed in a vice versa. But if you do the same thing for man, we somehow have this stubborn refusal to simply admit that maybe this entire world wasn’t made specifically for us.

In the “Ecozoic Era”, Berry has some good ideas. I mean, wouldn’t it be great if humans could live as one with the Earth? Yeah it would, but honestly, how likely is that going to happen? As Berry outlined in his conditions for the Ecozoic Era, humans essentially have to neglect society/civilization as we know it and “fix” the Earth. Sure, people like the idea of helping the planet but as we discussed in class, they don’t like it so much when it directly and significantly impacts them. In some way, part of us believes that by the time the really bad stuff hits, I’ll probably be dead, so why should I change the way I’m living now? On a different note, I found it interesting that Berry equates Descartes and the scientific view of the world with the current apathetic view of the Earth’s health. As he wrote, “Descartes, we might say, killed the Earth and all its living beings. For him the natural world was mechanism…The real value of things was reduced to their economic value. A destructive anthropocentrism came into being.” To me it does make a bit more sense than saying that Christianity and “dominion” is the reason behind our attitude; however it can also be argued that the scientific view helped us realize what we’re doing to the planet and made us a bit more conscientious and so forth.

Muir: The overarching theme here seems to be that man is subject to the will and power of nature. Examples like the pricky plants, predator animal species and disease are all excellent in proving this point. I have to agree with Mr. Muir that human beings are not the epitome of all life on the planet, and are certainly subject to the will of the natural world. Humans seem far more vulnerable to most things. Our food needs to be cooked to obtain the highest nutrient value; we need clothes to protect us from the cold; something claim that they need airconditioning and central heating to survive. Our species seems to be the only one with such large weaknesses that have to be overcome by human creation.

Berry: I disagree that science and scientific view points have created break between humanity and the natural world. Conversely, I would argue that in Western society such views had long existed, and that science is a return to earlier concepts of viewpoint regarding nature. I see no empirical proof that science created this "failed sense of reverence". I would argue that Christianity, capitalism, materialism, etc. did that. For everything science explains, there are new ideas, new reaches of life that evoke further mysteries. I do not need Genesis to appreciate the natural world and be concerned about the impact of humanity upon the earth. Science has given us the understanding to SEE how humans have destroyed things, even if it has also increased what we are capable of doing in harm. Where is the line between science and technology in this article? The author seems to suggest they are one in the same.

These articles make me want to watch "Ferngully"!

Cedar Keys: At the beginning of the Keys article it made me think of the journey Christoper Colobus made to find America with the ship and planning. Then it gave me a sense of Darwin when he got to the Florida Keys because he was explaining the wildlife and vegetation on the Florida Keys. The days that he spent sick were hecktick days for him I thought it was weird and unkind of the watcher to not help him because he thought that he was drunk that is terrible. Why would the watcher just assume that he was drunk and not really making sure that he wasn't? I thought this reading was very interesting to read on the Florida Keys I would love to go there sometime and see everything there.

Ecozoic Era: I like the fact that people are doing presentaions and speeches on the environment and ecosystem to teach people about what we are doing to our world and all the infumane things we do to it!! I appreciate people that they are beginning to understand the distruction we cause on the emvironment when we do certain things in everyday life. The human population is growing so much were are going to be the distruction of earth all together if we don't start doing something about it we are always building new houses even though people aren't even buying houses that much because they are way to expensive so why build all of these new houses when people aren't even buying them it just does not make any sense to me. Well I think we should do something about all of this.

It was interesting to read Cedar Keys, with all of it's imagery. It seemed that the southern states he described were much different that the states we know now days. Is this from our failure to take care of the earth? In the second reading, Berry pretty much makes the point that we are not caring for this earth and taking it for granted. While I would agree with this, I also think it is impossible to not cause any damage if we want to advance. Where do you draw the line?

Cedar Keys: Even after reading this chapter - I still think of “man” as being the dominant creature on the earth. I consider the fact that we are on top of the food chain to be the main reason. Sure, there are alligators or tigers that may attack and eat us - but we are not by any means their main food source. Muir goes on to claim that “venomous beasts, thorny plants, and deadly diseases of certain parts of the earth prove that the whole world was not made for him [man].” I do agree that the “world itself” was not made specifically FOR man – humans are just considered “dominant.” However, every organism has some sort of natural defense system against those who may eat it (like a snake’s venom and thorns on a plant). It is just an adaptation of survival. This does not mean that these adaptations were SPECIFICALLY derived to exclude man.

The Ecozoic Era: This article seemed to base more on the “spiritual” presentation of the earth compared to other articles we’ve read. I found one of the phrases especially interesting: “Not even with all our medical sciences and technologies can we establish well human beings on a sick planet.” And it is true. How can we manage to sustain ourselves when the things around us are deteriorating? However, when the article stated that all we need to do is ‘celebrate’ and then things will become possible – it seemed sort of a passive solution to problems. All we have to do is ‘be happy’ and then everything will work out??

cedar keys-
this was a fairly interesting read about john muir's experience on the florida keys. i'm not sure when this took place, but i found that when i was reading it, it seemed to be describing a distant land that hadn't yet been discovered. everything sounds so exotic and untouched. it's strange to think of the condition of florida now. all that really comes to mind is overpopulation and retirement homes. i also enjoyed the rant at the end of the chapter about man's arrogance and certainty in their importance. i agreed with the author's humble approach to our position on the planet, and he makes some very valid points, such as the multitude of poisonous and dangerous organisms that threaten man.

CEDAR KEYS

This article does a good job raising the question of “just how does the earth seem tailored to serve human ends”? While I’ve thought that it seems so convenient that all the minerals, oxygen, nitrogen, sunlight, edible foods, etc. exist for our use in such a ‘deliberate’ (designed?) way, I guess we wouldn’t really notice a lack of many of these things either. They seem tailor-made just for human use only because humans have found a use for them. I think no matter what matter exists on the surface of the earth, humans will find a way to exploit it for gain (for better or worse), thereby making it seem tailor-made by God for our use. Things that we can’t use don’t even cross our minds in the context of this question. I think Muir does a good job of making the case that there ARE lots of things in the world definitely not designed to meet our wants (thorns, predators, poisonous animals, etc.).

I would agree with the general assessment that humanity is out of touch with nature. Whereas through much of history, most people probably had a working knowledge of plants and animals and their natural communities (useful for hunter-gathering type of activities), today there is no deep connection to nature. Kids sit inside playing video games or surfing the internet, activities very disconnected from the natural world! Interesting that environmentalism is on the rise even as real contact with nature seems, in my mind, to be decreasing.

THE ECOZOIC ERA

Concerning the ecozoic era: “The Ecozoic is the period when human conduct will be guided by the ideal of an integral earth community, a period when humans will be present upon the Earth in a mutually enhancing manner.” This whole notion of an environmentally considerate ‘ecozoic era’ seems, unfortunately, a little late in coming. I think out of necessity, there will *need* to be some sort of shift in priorities if human beings want to be able to cling to today’s remnants of Earth’s former glory.

The field of restoration ecology (by which ecologists ‘restore’ sites to native plant an animal communities as best they can) is a growing field, but one fraught with a lot of controversy. For example, what constitutes a ‘true restoration’ is the topic of considerable debate, because many times the original plant and animal communities of a restored site cannot be supported anymore, no matter to what extent the restoration attempts to remedy the site (‘substitute’ communities must then be installed instead). Also, buying plant species that would ‘naturally’ occur on a site and planting them in a restoration usually mixes up the genetic structure of natural plant communities when plants from, say, Kentucky are planted in a restoration in Minnesota. Same species, but the genetic integrity of the ecosystem is compromised, even in the best of restorations. While the interest in restoration ecology is promising, it is really a distant second to the prevention of environmental degradation.

Concerning the “biocide” of the earth, who do we owe for our actions? Do we owe it to future generations to maintain the ecological integrity of the earth, or do we mostly owe it to the natural world itself? Do we owe, collectively, all the plant and animal communities that have been destroyed, and all that will never be? Is the destruction of global ecosystems a tragedy because of the impact on future humans’ quality of existence or because of the impact on future ecosystems themselves? I personally would consider the major destruction of the world’s ecosystems more of a tragedy than the worst of wars, because it is a tragedy that goes beyond mere human circles and human timescales.

Cedar Keys: I like how this story talked about the man's time in nature and how he really felt towards nature. The thing is though; I lived in the country all my life, so I think that I really take nature for granted at times. The thing is when he described the trees in Wisconsin; I live with them every day for 18 years, so they are everyday things for me. I really like that even though the author is sick he still makes his way to the woods in order to enjoy the beauty around him. The woods really have that effect on most people. The whole vastness of the woods really makes you think of how you fit in the world and what part you play (or should play) in the world.
The Ecozoic Era: I like this article with its ideas of helping the earth. The thing is that with all they suggest the majority of people don't really think about the earth, and what we are doing to it. The idea that we are the top dogs on this earth, and the earth is our playground. The thing is that all playgrounds that are not kept up eventually become damaged and then children don’t want to play on them. The only bad thing is that when the earth gets damaged there is no other playground we get to play on. This is one playground, and when it gets ruined we will have to still have to play on it. So the logical answer is to keep up the playground we must keep the earth livable.

"the ecozoic era"-
this reading had some good points, and some that seemed possibly a little too idealistic for me. i think that you would have to be kind of an ass to come out and say that you fully condoned the destruction of earth through the use of petroleum, but at the same time, what the author is presenting isn't something that everyone has heard about by now. i found it fascinating how he basically states that the birth of scientific thought killed the earth by employing a mechanized view of everything. to me, this assertion seems a bit rash. once again, an assumption is being made that embracing scientific thought destroys any ability to find beauty in the natural world. i would have to disagree with this based off of my own beliefs. but back to the over-idealized theme of the reading. this hit me the most when the author starting listing off specific methods to slow the destruction of the planet. one specific statement that got to me was when he said something like, "beings need to respect the space of others". i felt like i was being lectured by my parents, or a teacher or something. once again, you'd have to be kind of an ass to blatently disagree with this statement, but it is a very vague idea that probably will never materialize. it doesn't seem that the industrial age will stop until it collapses on itself. its the great rise and fall that is akin to most civilizations.

i meant to say "what the author IS presenting is something...."

Cedar Keys: Muir’s article seems to be doing two main things. The first is to draw attention to the complexity and beauty of the natural world. The second is to point out that viewing all aspects of nature as being tools designed to serve man is not supported in reality. Both seem fairly self evident to me and I can’t do much aside from agree.

The Ecozoic Era: I was a bit mystified by Berry’s assertion that “our scientific story of the universe has no connection with the natural world,” shortly before he goes on an extended discussion about the beauty and complexity of the universe and the natural world, none of which we would be aware of without the “scientific story.” He seems to be suggesting that science has somehow diminished people’s reverence of nature. While I can see where he’s coming from, in that science can appear to take the mystery out of some things, I would argue the opposite: that science has increased people’s reverence of nature by making them aware of its tremendous diversity, complexity, and interconnectedness. There is no reason that someone aware of the world on a scientific level will somehow appreciate it less. In fact, I’d suggest that ignorance of scientific implications is among the prime reasons that people mistreat the environment. (That, and just not caring.)

I do like the overall theme of the article, even though Berry strikes me as sometimes being a little overzealous and over ambitious. His main point is that ecologically, everything is interrelated, and that humanity needs to view itself as a part of the system and not something entirely separate. Damaging one aspect has effects throughout the entire system, and will usually come back to bite us one way or another. The sooner we realize this, the better off we will be in the long run.

I thought the Muir reading was a very relaxing piece of reading, which also raised good points about the place of man in the world. We, the same as the animals are vulnerable to injury or death in conditions that we are not created to withstand. We drown in water, or contract disease in the jungle, we are no better suited for the world than any of the animals that live along side of us, or should I say below us? It makes you wonder why we really do believe ourselves superior. Yes we have a mind and all, but physically, we are no better of than any other animal. I thought the argument that the Earth was not made specifiacally for man was very valid after rading these points. I also enjoyed the last sentence, "But, glad to leave these ecclesiastical fires and blunders, I joyfully return to the immortal truth and immortal beauty of Nature." The truth is out there!

As for the Ecozoic Era, I'd like to see what the speaker looks like. It's a very interesting speech, but many of his statements and arguments went right over my head. I did, however, connect with a few. I believe that there is a consciousness that we all possess that connects all living beings. It's a life based connection, and as the Earth maintains all of our life, it could be true that the destruction and disregard for it could lead to problems for us down the road. Is it true that we are but deriviatives of the Earth? Who knows, but I can believe that we are hurting ourselves by disregarding the overall well being of the Earth, in whatever way that will be.

Cedar Keys
This is a good story about a guy that realizes humans are just 1 ingredient in the recipe of the world. There is so much out there in creation, and if we observe the plants, animals, and the balance of everything it is easy to see there is Divine Intelligence. I think the author may have been on acid, maybe not, but his insight is definately out of this world. For a person to percieve things the way he does is remarkable, because we all get caught up in our own lives and forget the unity and balance in creation. The world was made for us. This is our earth. We all share this planet with everything else, and we are all 'one' in a sense because of it.

The Ecozoic Era
This piece of literature made me think about the state of the world today. People don't care about things that do not immediately affect their own lives. The era we live in is not dark or anything, but it is a different kind of darkness where people are all about 'them'. I can walk down the street and cross paths with 100 people, and none of them will say hi. Nobody would notice my existence if I did not interfere with there time or space. The Ecozoic era is supposed to bring meaningful change to our existence, but does it? Does time pass by and nothing really happen? I would hope that by the end of this era we, as people, grasp the concept of a community and include the whole world as part of this.

Do you hear about
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]