Rhetoric 3371 Questions

Hi.

I haven't read the chapters yet, but I just can't wait to tell you about this great new investment you just cannot miss out on.

Build wind generators in the Gulf of Mexico to replace oil rigs damaged in Hurricane Katrina. These have already been constructed in the North Sea near the Netherlands.

Put weather gauges on these wind towers and have surface-level wind speed readings without flying an Air Force jet through the storm.

"expensive machines can only be erected by companies, which soon form monopolies. this prevents competition, which is the life of all infant estblishments." That sentnce was uttered by a man hundreds of years ago and it can still be said today. somebody said a quote in our class that was around the lines of "every society's goal is to gather energy." i would argue that money equals energy in our society. it is the incentive that drives growth. is their truly a need for the mill for people to survive? no. but for more people to survive you need to mass produce things. to mass produce things you often need "expensive machines." This is the system we have created. the goal is the same for almost every industry. more. without it people would be lost. the only problem with the system is that you can't grow forever and for some reason the system doesn't make it that much easier to live fruitfully.

"expensive machines can only be erected by companies, which soon form monopolies. this prevents competition, which is the life of all infant estblishments." That sentnce was uttered by a man hundreds of years ago and it can still be said today. somebody said a quote in our class that was around the lines of "every society's goal is to gather energy." i would argue that money equals energy in our society. it is the incentive that drives growth. is their truly a need for the mill for people to survive? no. but for more people to survive you need to mass produce things. to mass produce things you often need "expensive machines." This is the system we have created. the goal is the same for almost every industry. more. without it people would be lost. the only problem with the system is that you can't grow forever and for some reason the system doesn't make it that much easier to live fruitfully compared to living in an egalitarian agricultural society or any other form of living for that matter.

"expensive machines can only be erected by companies, which soon form monopolies. this prevents competition, which is the life of all infant estblishments." That sentnce was uttered by a man hundreds of years ago and it can still be said today. somebody said a quote in our class that was around the lines of "every society's goal is to gather energy." i would argue that money equals energy in our society. it is the incentive that drives growth. is their truly a need for the mill for people to survive? no. but for more people to survive you need to mass produce things. to mass produce things you often need "expensive machines." This is the system we have created. the goal is the same for almost every industry. more. without it people would be lost. the only problem with the system is that you can't grow forever and for some reason the system doesn't make it that much easier to live fruitfully compared to living in an egalitarian agricultural society or any other form of living for that matter.

oops

Sorry, but that was just so long and boring and frustrating. It’s amazing our country has survived at all. I agree there were many problems, both environmental and human, and there continue to be problems. Many of the problems were solved, disappeared or changed with additional technological and societal progress. Maybe that’s just what it’s all about. We make a mess, we clean it up. And then we do it all over again. There will always be more problems to fix or adjustments to be made so that we can keep functioning. I’m curious to see how the negatives are presented at the Mill City field trip.

I like stephanies point in saying that we make a mess and then clean it up and repeat. This is exactly what I have been seeing through the course of this class as we look at the growth in technology. We waste our resources, realize that we are wasting them and then find a new resource, we waste that resource and realize it and find a new one. Once we find a new resource we realize that wow there is so much of it that we could never possibly run out but then of course the inevitable happends and we begin to run out.
This idea obviously also takes part in pollution. A while ago we had the biggest ozone layer hole in history and then we decided that that probably was not a good thing so we began to clean up our cars, factories, and so on... We were good for a while and then we began to go back to our old ways and now again this year we have the biggest hole in the ozone layer again, and now we are trying to think up new ways to be enviromentally friendly. History happends in cycles.

What is the goal here? Is it to conserve and preserve the environment and keep things the way they once were? Or is it to use these resources to prosper? I would think the only way would have to be a compromise. We can’t be living in the woods forever, although some may want it that way. To advance as a society through new technologies, many resources are going to have to be consumed. This seems to be the story with the mills. It seems that some people were bothered about moral dilemmas such as clearing the forests around new towns, or displacing Native Americans. However, at the time, this was the means of advancement, and without this advancement, you’re stuck out in the woods. The same can be said today, for those who oppose many forms of pollution. Yet, they can’t find it in themselves to give up their car, or their heated home or their electricity. So, where is this perfect balance between consumption of resources and preservation of resources? Is there a balance?

Wow. I have about the same thing to say as everyone else it looks like. I just get fustrated to read about what we are doing to the environment. I like Richard's question above, "is there a balance?" Pretty strong question and I have one to add to that one: If there is a balance, are we ever going to find it? Our human nature is to conquer, conquer, conquer, then prosper, prosper, prosper. We are going to be our own demise, but isn't that the way we would have wanted it anyway. I mean, then that way we all are in control (just the way we started I guess). Kind of depressing. Happy Tuesday everyone!

I would agree that the objective of every society is to gather energy and resources. The train made it possible for people to live in desolate areas but the mill really caused these people to say there. What I mean is it gave them a source of energy to go forward and do all of the daily things that need energy to work. I think that all previous and present forms of energy will eventually become a big waste. History has already showed us how the mill, and dams are now sitting empty, eroding down rivers, and just contaminating the envirnoment as they serve no purpose. Sure, some of them are made into stores or resturantes but not very many of them. I am sure in the next 100 years that all of the new ethanol plants will sit empty, and all of the energy and resources that were put into them to keep them running will go to waste as we find alternative sources of energy. But.. on the other hand its not a bad thing that they fail. I see it as a stepping stone, "you always need one to cross the river." In the 19 and 20th centuries the mill served as a energy source stepping stone that eventually got replaced. How long do you think it will take for the minnesota wind mills, and other current forms of energy will become replaced?

In response to Eric’s blog, when he says that all forms or previous and present energy forms will become a big waste. I completely agree and don’t see why this is such a shock. As new forms of energy are found, or rather new ways of harnessing energy the old ones will be left for dead. This is pretty much a natural cycle, why would we keep old less efficient methods when new ones are created. So as the old forms of energy are taking up space, and we are destroying new parts of our environment it would appear that our “balancing skills” are not up to par. As someone asked in a previous quote is there a balance? I believe that we already know what the balancing point is and probably how to reach it, but that is where I’m thrown off, why don’t we work at our balancing point if it is known?

America as Second Creation: Chapters 5 and 6

Several interesting ideas were discussed in this reading. However I found the most fascinating to be the fact that cities or towns relied almost solely on natural sources of power or energy. While it should have been mostly obvious after discussing dams I did not truly realize how dependent we were upon these natural resources. Mills were the seeds of towns and a very productive mill soon produced a large economic push in the region. I found this to be very different from life today. Today, the success of a growing city almost never has to do with a natural resource near by.

It seems to me that our "abundant" energy sources and our technological advances have blinded tantalized Americans. We tend to view issues as static because we dont see an immediate change. But, energy is a perfect example of how people have grown accustomed to an unsustainable way of living, and we don't want to change. We like being independent, right? But that's just an illusion as we are very inter-dependent, and at the center of it all is energy. Where is it coming from today, tomorrow, next year. We don't know and we don't care, so long as it gets there to heat our house, fill our car, and cook our food. Soon enough we will be forced to care, until then enjoy the energy binge, I know I do.

I agree with several others who posted about the fact that development inevitably leads to destruction. To avoid taking resources, we would have to give up our beloved progress. Yet, the problem with a mindset that accepts destruction as inevitable is that it ignores the extent of the destruction. There's an obvious pattern of humans taking too much of whatever resource they think they need in order to attain progress. We will always favor progress over green space, and I don't think that there's anything necessarily wrong with that. But greed and/or short-sightedness get thrown into the mix and thats when the problems start. We think we need more technology, more resources, when oftentimes it seems to just makes us feel more powerful. In the end, I think we all just have to become better and analyzing what it is that we need and then using no more than that. If we're ever to achieve any sort of balance, it seems that we'll have to start there.

I found it interesting that some people viewed the new technologies, such as the mills, as weapons used to destroy the existing habitat, and not as tools to make a second creation. Towns were being built all along the rivers and streams as a source of power. Where there was water power and lumber there were mills. The lumber could be floated down the river and the water falls could do the work for the milling companies. To me this is a great way to use energy. But some people argued about how it was devasting to the forests and how the fish in the rivers were being affected. With any technology there will be some type of controversy. Some people viewed the mills as oppurtunities while others viewed it as destruction.

After reading chapter 6 in Nye, “Pollution and Class Conflict” it become clear that many technologies in the ninetieth century were developed because people as Nye states, “were convinced that nature as an undeveloped space could be made more fruitful by human intervention.” Accordingly, trees and forest were disappearing. The mill system contributed to an increase in the workforce, but created conflict among the workers. Though the Lowell Mill System was mechanized, workers, mainly women lived in boarding houses, worked long hours, and received reduced wages. The mill system contributed to the production of cotton, but the dramatic effect on women and children was devastating.

Oh how I wish I had the internet at my house. Nevertheless after braving the chill I find myself glad be out of it and back inside in front of this glass box I mean to put my thoughts into. These thoughts that have sprung up from Ch 5 and 6 go like this:
Something happened in the antebellum United States, and that was an enormous growth of cities predicated on mill power. There is ample evidence for this. Where the ambiguity comes in is with respect to how this happened, and why it happened. The discrepencies between 5 and 6 seem ample evidence for this. Are we to think that ch 5 is right or that ch 6 is right? I want to make the claim that both are right. Perhaps I should have gotten this sooner, but seeing such a stark contrast between the narratives of these chapters, where the mill is either a cause of virtue, and busymaking or the mill is a machination that the bosses force workers into because the side of the law and the guns of national guard are on their side made this claim apparent to me this morning. It is both, because these persepectives actually existed around the 'objective' facts. The narratives happened, and their existence has had an enormous impact onto how we interpret our own existence today. The process of story making still goes on. THis kind of seguis into my next thought that really a question. How does Nye decide to term the foundation narrative, narrative, and all the rest counter-narrative? Proportions of people believing it, its bearing on 'objective' historical facts, what? It seems arbitary and I would recommend just using narrative for all the different stories because each have the same status as to how these technologies were 'wove... into the history of the settling nation.'

During this reading, I started to notice a pattern that’s has shown consistency throughout all the technologies which have contributed to the second creation. Justifications such ass, “Man’s duty lay in completing God’s original creation.” Somehow give us the go-ahead on such major constructions, and impositions on nature. Our projects bring prosperity, booming cities, and increased populations for a decent time period. However, it doesn’t last forever. At this point we see the negative effects of our “Mechanisms.” When will we learn that our creations are not compatible with nature?

As was the case for the railroad, automobile, canal, and every other technology we have discussed, and probably will discuss there is a conflict between progress and destruction. Can any technology exist without the conflict of destruction? It seems as though any technology will carry some baggage. Take the invention of the wheel for instance. It seems innocent enough and I imagine most people would say that its invention was a good thing. However, if the results of the wheel, such as the mill, are extrapolated negative results and destruction take center stage. Does that mean progress should stop because all development, as mentioned earlier, leads to destruction? Isn't death and destruction in so many cases needed for life and growth? Don't the results of conflicts, both positive and negative, with the mill positively affect the way that we live life today? I do not think I would be in Minneapolis right now had it not been for the mills presence here.

This book is hard for me to read because although it describes narratives, it really doesn't have one. Despite my qualms with the text, however, here is what I got out of this weeks reading. Much like a rail station, the mills became hearths for town development. The mills attracted anyone within a few days travel. Again, as with all technologies that we have seen so far, the transformation of land, be it beneficial or not, was overlooked for the mills because they provided a savings in time and effort for all those around. A quote I liked that accurately described the phenomenon these novel technologies had (and continue to have) on subsequent generations was this: “With the young the story has become a kind of instinct. The hammer and the file of the machine shop, the dizzy whirl of the yarn-spindle, and the rattling of the weaver’s shuttle answer the questions” (Nye 99). Generations need to accept new technologies so they do not fall behind. And, they do so willing because they become more reliant and comfortable with them. The major thing I have been confused about over the past few weeks is this: where the hell are we supposed to get our power? Nye says that, “The large mills of the nineteenth century inherited the foundation story of colonial mills… the widespread perception that water power was natural.” Wait, until we started critiquing the Hoover Dam among other hydraulic power sources, I thought that water power was a much cleaner form of energy for us to use. We are not going to stop consuming power, so is there no solution? Were mills just the first technology to start this ‘false propagation’ that water power is natural?

The water mills seem a logical transition from "going where we were led" (trains, roads) to going where "creation leads us" (natural power).

At the time, mills were an active power drive—gears and belts transferred the energy directly to the machines. The Steam Threshers Reunion at Rollag, MN gives an example of one power source (in the case of threshers, steam engines) powering several operations at once. This dictated the condensed model of industrial development around the primary mill... and later contributes to concentrated areas of pollution.

I can align myself with the pollution counter-narrative much more than that of the Native Americans. Careless industrial development fueled by greed and financial gain, it's not surprising to see the church emerge as the final structure in a town. The community may correlate the book of Genesis to the building of their town: the cornerstone of the church signifies that the community is complete and they are pleased with their accomplishments.

As innovation reveals the flaws of past technologies (pollution, adverse environmental impact), society shifts from the church and returns to the focus of nature as our best resource. We understand weather systems and ecology more now than ever. We can create “Earth Friendly” industry... until we find a new, unimaginable form of damage that results.

There's a song from a local Minneapolis group that features a comparison of the Six Days of Creation in the Book of Genesis to the four billion years of geologic time:

Compare the six days of the Book of Genesis to the four billion years of geologic time.
On this scale, one day equals about 666 million years.
All day Monday until Tuesday noon creation was busy getting the Earth going.
Life began on Tuesday noon and the beautiful organic wholeness of it developed over the next four days.
At 4:00pm Saturday the big reptiles came.
Five hours later when the redwoods appeared there were no more big reptiles.
At three minutes before midnight, man appeared.
One-fourth of a second before midnight Christ appeared.
At one-fortieth of a second before midnight the industrial revolution began.
We are surrounded by people who think that what we have been doing for one-fortieth of a second can go on indefinitely.
They are considered normal, but they are stark raving mad.
--Six Days to Madness, Cloud Cult, http://www.cloudcult.com, August 11, 2006

Happy Halloween...

Yes we keep making messes and cleaning them up, but either soon we will make a mess so big we can't clean it up, or the earth will just die. It's like a VHS tape: you can only record on it so many types before the video and audio becomes incomprehendable - then it is useless.

Mills seemed to be a large step in the advancement on technology. However, it was at the cost of nature, much like all other new technologies. While the mills used the existing natural resources around it; it destroyed some sort of natural environment to build the mills. I do not believe that any new technology will have only positive impacts on the world. With every advancement there is always going to be a negative aspect. It is obvious that we are never fully satisfied with what we have. If that were the case, technology would not have continued to grow and we would not have read about America having all of these second creations.

Once again we see that there is more than one side to a story. The mills provided us with independence from European manufactured goods and jobs for many people. However, they were associated largely with damaging the ecology of waterways and forests. Another problem with mills was the working conditions for laborers employed at them. Human quality of life issues seemed to be only discussed as it pertained to cotton mills but iron works and sawmills also had their share of worker related problems. This is the first time that eminent domain has been brought up in Nye’s book even though I know that railroads used it plenty to put in lines. I found it interesting that the Mill Act of 1713 allowed mill developers to flood out anyone’s land they pleased because it was economically good for the community. This is still going on today, although not to build mills, and is still a very controversial area of law. In other posts the idea of a balance between consumption and preservation of natural resources was addressed. Many felt that there is no way to balance these two as we as tend to want more no matter how much we have. I agree that we will ultimately be the cause of our own destruction through our thinking that someone else will take care of the problem. Is there ever going to be a way to convince everyone that they don’t need to live better than everyone else? Or, is that the problem? Do we always see what someone else has and figure it is better than what we have even if it isn’t?

Thats I have --

[url=][/url]

Thats I have --

[url=][/url]

Thats I have --

[url=][/url]

I want to tell you about
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]

For your information,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]