#SustainableFarming
#Crops
#WaterAvailability
#GMOsAreFaux
#Renewable
#LandUse
#Preservation
#Plants
#Fertilization
#Production
#Organic
#NaturalVsUnnatural
#Acreage
#BackToTheSource
#Soil
#CropRotation
#SeasonalFarming
#WhatIsNonrenewable
#ConsumerSatisfaction
#TruthInTheLie
#Conservation
#Economy
#Ethics
#Ethical
#Deadzone
#EcologicalFootprint
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Library Visit Reflection
I really enjoyed our class visit to the library because it gave me a chance to find some really great sources and articles. Finding a good source always stresses be out because what if the information isn't reliable or you can't even find out who wrote it and/or where it came from? This library visit also made me realize that I have many topics I can discuss on this next paper and helped me brainstorm these ideas. I'm so glad that I now know how to use the resources that the library gives us so I can better my research.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Class Participation 2/21
1) One topic that can be brought up from "Compromise, Hell" is that if we love our land as much as we say we do, then how can we keep destroying and ruining it the way we are be not being sustainable with the way we use our resources.
2) Claim: The way Americans proclaim and pride ourselves on about how much we love our land does not match with the way we actually use our land and our farming resources.
3) For example, using a confined animal-feeding industry, which is what most companies due to be able to produce food quicker, exploits everything that is involved in that process. The way we are producing food at this time and speed can ruin most of land of our country in years to come, to the point where there won't be any resources left for us to have. One solution to this would be to actually enforce laws to make industries produce the way we should and to not keep animals in confined-feeding areas. This would also go into staying true to what the labels say when companies say that products are "organically" raised or "all-natural"
4) The way Americans proclaim and pride ourselves on about how much we love our land does not match with the way we actually use our land and our farming resources, because using a confined animal-feeding industry, which is what most companies due to be able to produce food quicker, exploits everything that is involved in that process- the animals, people, and the land. Producing food at speed can ruin most of the land of our country in years to come, to the point where there won't be any resources left for us to have.
2) Claim: The way Americans proclaim and pride ourselves on about how much we love our land does not match with the way we actually use our land and our farming resources.
3) For example, using a confined animal-feeding industry, which is what most companies due to be able to produce food quicker, exploits everything that is involved in that process. The way we are producing food at this time and speed can ruin most of land of our country in years to come, to the point where there won't be any resources left for us to have. One solution to this would be to actually enforce laws to make industries produce the way we should and to not keep animals in confined-feeding areas. This would also go into staying true to what the labels say when companies say that products are "organically" raised or "all-natural"
4) The way Americans proclaim and pride ourselves on about how much we love our land does not match with the way we actually use our land and our farming resources, because using a confined animal-feeding industry, which is what most companies due to be able to produce food quicker, exploits everything that is involved in that process- the animals, people, and the land. Producing food at speed can ruin most of the land of our country in years to come, to the point where there won't be any resources left for us to have.
Blog Post 10
Berry's reading was a little confusing to me. Although he made a lot of good points about how we need to use our resources wisely and what not but he took it all to a new level. He pretty much compared the problem of how we use our resources to the problem of being invaded by terrorists. Berry states, "The governmental obligation to protect these economic resources, inseparably human and natural, is the same as the obligation to protect us from hunger or from foreign invaders. In result, there is no difference between a domestic threat to the sources of our life and a foreign one." That was the most troubling thing for me with his article. The government doe shave laws against how we use our resources and how foods are produced, the laws just aren't as enforces as they should be. Of course, that is a big problem but I do not think it should be compared to terrorists. In my opinion Berry takes his examples a little to far.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Compromise, Hell!
Berry brings up the discussion about how Americans have lost the motivation to maintain our land because we have increased pollution by using so many fuels. We don't take control of how our food is produced and some don't even care to know how it's produced. He uses rhetorical devices such as red-herrings to get his point across. He states "towns and cities have been gutted by the likes of Wal-Mart, which have had the permitted luxury of destroying locally
owned small businesses by means of volume discounts" but he fails to mention how these discounts greatly help people who don't have much to spend. Berry also uses pathos to appeal to the reader by saying, "The governmental obligation to protect these economic resources, inseparably human and natural, is the same as the obligation to protect us from hunger or from foreign invaders. In result, there is no difference between a domestic threat to the sources of our life and a foreign one." That is a very big exaggeration. There is an enormous difference between foreign invaders and not using resources properly in America. I see that how we use or resources but being compared to foreign invaders is a little dramatic.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Class Participation 2/7
1. When it comes to hunting I feel as though I am somewhere in the middle. I think hunting is alright and in some cases good for the environment if done so sustainably. But when it gets to the point that people consider it a sport and kill over the limit of some animal that they are supposed to is where I get a problem with it. Killing animals shouldn't be for a sport but to keep civilization going.
2. By using secondary sources I am going to show an argument from the pro-hunting side by Ted Williams and an argument from the (sort of) anti-hunting side by Michael Pollan's story on hunting in omnivores dilemma. Both sides of this argument go into detail about why they feel the way they do and give personal anecdotes to their reasoning.
3. One counter-claim that I could use to strengthen my ethos would be address wheat each author says about a certain topic such as how one person might say that it is un-Christian-like to hunt while the other person might say it's un-Christian-like to not hunt. Looking at both perspectives of a story will boost up my ethos greatly.
4. Hunting is both good and bad and if not handled properly can be very harmful to the environment.
5. One reason that hunting is good is because if a species is over populated it could make the food chain get out of whack. For instance if there are too many foxes in an area and not enough rabbits to sustain the foxes then the rabbits will either die out or the foxes will from not getting enough food. Then whatever the rabbits like to eat will increase rapidly because nothing will be able to stop them from reproducing if nothing it eating them. One reason hunting is bad is when it is taken to an extreme and people just hunt for the fun of it. There is a law that says you can only kill a certain number of the animal and if everyone doesn't follow that law then the species could be wiped out completely.
6. Hunting is necessary to keep the environment in check but if taken to an extreme can also have a negative impact on society.
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20071013120158/http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0203.html
2. By using secondary sources I am going to show an argument from the pro-hunting side by Ted Williams and an argument from the (sort of) anti-hunting side by Michael Pollan's story on hunting in omnivores dilemma. Both sides of this argument go into detail about why they feel the way they do and give personal anecdotes to their reasoning.
3. One counter-claim that I could use to strengthen my ethos would be address wheat each author says about a certain topic such as how one person might say that it is un-Christian-like to hunt while the other person might say it's un-Christian-like to not hunt. Looking at both perspectives of a story will boost up my ethos greatly.
4. Hunting is both good and bad and if not handled properly can be very harmful to the environment.
5. One reason that hunting is good is because if a species is over populated it could make the food chain get out of whack. For instance if there are too many foxes in an area and not enough rabbits to sustain the foxes then the rabbits will either die out or the foxes will from not getting enough food. Then whatever the rabbits like to eat will increase rapidly because nothing will be able to stop them from reproducing if nothing it eating them. One reason hunting is bad is when it is taken to an extreme and people just hunt for the fun of it. There is a law that says you can only kill a certain number of the animal and if everyone doesn't follow that law then the species could be wiped out completely.
6. Hunting is necessary to keep the environment in check but if taken to an extreme can also have a negative impact on society.
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20071013120158/http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0203.html
Intro, Thesis, Outline
Thesis: The first, a side of an active hunter and the second, a side of a animal rights activist. I believe myself to be somewhere in the middle of both of these extremes.
Article [b]
Intro: Hunting has been a controversial topic since the beginning of time. Hunting used to be a necessity to staying alive and still is. However, people have taken hunting to an extreme level and consider it to be a "sport." To analyze this argument I am going to look at two different sides. The first, a side of an active hunter and the second, a side of a animal rights activist. I believe myself to be somewhere in the middle of both of these extremes.
Outline:
Paragraph A: Intro
Paragraph B: Analyzing Sustainability
1. Article [a]
3. Article [b]
Paragraph C: Analyzing Morality
1. Article [a]
3. Article [b]
Paragraph D: Analyzing Animal Rights
1. Article [a]
3. Article [b]
Paragraph E: Analyzing hunting as a "sport"
1. Article [a]
Article [b]
Paragraph F: Conclusion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)