UIUC RST 242 - Discussion 6

RST 242 Discussion 6 - Humans have - and will continue to have - negative impacts on the natural environment if our society continues to progress in the fashion that ithas over past two centuries.After reading this weeks learning materials and watching the videos, I have concluded that I agree with this week’s argument “Humans have - and will continue to have - negative impacts on the natural environment if our society continues to progress in the fashion that it has over past two centuries”. A quote that stuck out to me in this week’s readings was, “The American landscape was not as beautiful as Americans perceived it had once been. Its shores were covered with broken glass, its highways littered with food wrappers and bottles” (Rothman, 2000, p129)”. Knowing that humans are taking these land and natural environments for granted, by tainting them with their garbage. Human’s decisions to have more building developments by destroying the environment is another reason I stand by my agreement. I know when I look around my own neighborhood there are numerous construction sites knocking down trees and putting up new buildings and factories. It’s not only the land that we are losing but the amount of pollution we are breathing in on a daily basis, and the amount of water that is being polluted is also detrimental, “Air and water pollution was everywhere in the late sixties. Leaded fuels, chemicals, wastes, and other sources seemed to threaten everyone's quality of life""(Rothman, 2000, p126)”. In the video lecture The Rive on Fire, it stated, “Rivers so clogged with rubbish that they have been declared a fire hazard”. Though there are celebrity environmental activists, and individual tirelessly working for change,there has not been the revolution that we have been hoping for.Rothman, H. K. (2000). Saving the Planet. Ivan R Dee., Chicago, IL. Darling, Lukas, director. The River on Fire. PBL, 21 May 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpm_DP3Y7nQ&feature=youtu.be.Responses:1. I liked your response and perspective. I felt that your argument about the effects of the “Love Canal” was strong. It used the evidence from the video to support your claim. I too found this saddening when they talked about in The Rive on Fire that “Rivers so clogged with rubbish that they have been declared a fire hazard”. Your only argument was talking about the Love Canal, if you were to use another example to support your argument I believe that it would have been stronger all around. Lastly, someone could argue that in fact human are trying to change this cycle of This study source was downloaded by 100000840810060 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 21:55:11 GMT -06:00https://www.coursehero.com/file/28735753/Discussion-6docx/having a negative impact on natural envoirmant with the help from celebrity activists and so many non-profit organizations. I thought your whole response was great! I too agreed with this week’s statement for similar response. I believe that your strongest argument was talking about how humans are unwillingto trade in comfort for the environment. You supported this claim with the lesson materials well and gave good references. However, I too believe that your argument about the Cuyahoga River was strong as well. I too was shocked when I watched this video and how it stated “Rivers so clogged with rubbish that they have been declared a fire hazard” (Darling). You used the information from the video to support your claim. I talked about this in another response, however, someone could argue that human are actually trying to change the way we treat the environment by having celebrity activists and many non-profit organizations.Darling, Lukas, director. The River on Fire. PBL, 21 May 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpm_DP3Y7nQ&feature=youtu.be.This study source was downloaded by 100000840810060 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 21:55:11 GMT -06:00https://www.coursehero.com/file/28735753/Discussion-6docx/Powered by TCPDF