The Giving River
This past week, we read Who Killed the Los Angeles River and learned about the turbulent and eventful story of the Los Angeles River. Most of the chapter seems like a critique of the way the government, flood management companies, and individual citizens seemed to both minimize the importance of the river to the city’s landscape and history and capitalize on its limited resources; water companies tried to manipulate natural resources, adding reservoirs and building in an infiltration gallery in order to accommodate for the water needs of the rapidly growing population. The reading stated that this human interference with the natural flow of the river actually ended up running the river dry by the late 1800s, way before the U.S. Army Control of Engineers began constructing the concrete river we know today, which took place between 1935 and 1959. The chapter explains that developments like the ones described above were at the center of Los Angeles public and political debate at the time. There were those who argued that the growing needs of a spiking human population should take precedence, and there were those who believed that the natural river should be protected. After all, there were communities and industries that depended on the river water and its flow in order to operate. However, the needs of the population and economy ended up being considered more immediately important, as the need for water in Los Angeles was actually urgent for those living there. Because of all of these separate but conscious choices about the LA river, today, we enjoy a small stream running in a concrete path through the middle of LA.
While reading this story of the LA river, I was reminded of the children's book The Giving Tree, by Shel Silverstein. The book, for anyone who doesn’t remember, tells the story of a boy who takes a tree’s apples for selling for money, its branches for building a house, its trunk to make a boat and sail away, and in the end is left with nothing but a stump to sit on. To me, this parallels with the Los Angeles River, since in both cases, nature is compromised at the expense of human activity.
Some questions:
When is this human interference with nature justified? When is it not justified?
Do you understand the decisions that the water and flood companies made throughout Los Angeles’s history regarding the river? Do you agree?
Where else, if anywhere, have you seen this ‘Giving Tree process’ take place?
During coronavirus, how has this idea of panic over resources (like the LA panic over water that led water companies and the government to manipulate the river) manifested itself in our political and personal spheres? *resources could mean anything from toilet paper to ventilators to a potential vaccine.
When is this human interference with nature justified? When is it not justified?
Do you understand the decisions that the water and flood companies made throughout Los Angeles’s history regarding the river? Do you agree?
Where else, if anywhere, have you seen this ‘Giving Tree process’ take place?
During coronavirus, how has this idea of panic over resources (like the LA panic over water that led water companies and the government to manipulate the river) manifested itself in our political and personal spheres? *resources could mean anything from toilet paper to ventilators to a potential vaccine.
I think we have to start by questioning our relationship with nature as a sort of limbo in which we try to strike the right balance between take and ease-up so that our industrial needs are satisfied immediately but will also be assured in the future. And it doesn't need to be that either nature or humanity thrives at once while the other's growth stagnates I hate to pull the capitalism card, but it's the only card I know personally, and it does seem to be at the root of your question about justification. The problem is the capitalist model is based on an infinite expansion of production while economics also tells us that natural resources are finite. There are economic models (socialism) which acknowledge instead the limits of production and some respect for the earth, rather than framing its natural bounds as something to be overcome by man. So, I do understand the decisions that the water and flood companies made throughout LA's history because they were made in the same frame of mind most business executives and politicians adopt now. But I don't see why a city can't grow alongside its environment. Rather than trying to dominate the river and its floods, settlers could've taken a decade to study the river's course, learn from people who had been living alongside the river for generations, maybe even, see if they could use its flood patterns to their agricultural advantage thereby enriching the soil with their crops which I would think means the ecosystem thrives. Obviously this is quixotic when applied to the 19th century, but now seems like a good time to accept, even embrace, our fragility as humans.
ReplyDeleteBut back to the justification: If we're thinking that the assurance of our basic needs is in competition with environmental integrity, then sure, let's get everyone fed. Yet our economic model now isn't feeding everyone and it's still degrading the earth. There are frameworks that don't require justification because they are based on coexistence and not pillaging.
I think if you asked “When is this human interference with nature justified?” fifty years ago, many people would have emphatically responded with “all the time!” But if you ask that same question today, I think the answer has dramatically changed because we now see the effects of those people responding with “all the time!” and are forced to clean up their messes. There will still be some people today who think that nature’s purpose is to serve the needs of the human population and can be sacrificed at any expense, but there are rapidly increasing numbers of people who see nature as “giving people permission to live here” in a way. They respect its power and its beauty as well as its ability to provide certain things for humans, but they recognize the latter as respectfully borrowing from the Earth. I think there are certain times where human interference with nature is justified, but there are also plenty of times where human interference with nature is unjustified. People need to drink water and they need to eat, but we are taking for granted the tools nature has lent to us. I think our economic system, like Lucy mentioned, has caused serious repercussions. With capitalism, the essential goal is to make a profit (and to some people that translates to "by any means necessary"), so people think they can just take and take and take and expect there to be more by the end of the day. People have lived in harmony with nature, it’s not like it’s impossible. It’s the lifestyle that people have become dependent on that harms nature. I feel like people have become accustomed to the idea that the resources we use are boundless. People assume that because we haven’t hit the finite amount of trees, we must have a never-ending supply that just replenishes itself. But I fear that we will ignore nature’s signs and turn into a Lorax-esque world. This idea can be applied to the pandemic we are facing. Never have I seen empty shelves in a store until a month ago. I always assumed that there was a never-ending supply of toilet paper in stock, but seeing the empty shelves quickly proved me wrong. Hearing about medical professionals having to make decisions about who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t has made me realize that there is a finite amount resources in the medical field too. I wonder who will get the first vaccines? Will it be celebrities who can pay thousands of dollars to skip to the front of the line? Will it be the sickest of people or those with mild symptoms? How quickly will they be able to replenish the supply of vaccines? People stocked up on toilet paper because they knew the resources were finite. I wonder when people will start applying that same thinking to nature’s resources.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that human interference with nature is justified if it aids in the overall survival of humans. For example, I think that cities and housing in general are both very important aspects to keeping people alive, and they both involve interfering with nature. I do not think that it is good to interfere with nature when there are negative repercussions that not only affect nature drastically but also human life.
ReplyDeleteI do understand the decisions that water companies made initially. Los Angeles needed a water source and flood control. I don't really know if I agree or disagree with what they did. The changing of the LA river to function for human needs served a purpose at one point, but now the LA river seems useless. The river would be much better off if it was brought back to its more natural state.
There are very few places in this world that are inhabited by humans that have not been through some sort of "Giving Tree" like process. For example, majority of major cities have been changed from green and scenic areas to grey concrete jungles. In order to make a skyscraper infested areas, a person must take and take and take from many natural resources around them until there are none left. If we look at current events, we can still see people buying an excessive amount of products due to the Coronavirus. Masks, paper products, soap, hand sanitizer, canned goods, dried pasta, and gloves are a few examples of products that people have been buy excessive amounts of.
As far as the first question, I completely agree with Keara's analysis that peoples opinions on the fairness and justification of alterations to the river have changed pretty drastically in recent history. I think this is mainly due to scientific advancements that allow us to not only measure the scope of human influence on environment, but quantify its severity on the ecosystem at large. Simply put, people 100 or even 50 years ago did not have all the knowledge and data that we would hope to have today when making decisions that would affect such a large system for generations to come. When conversations were being had to evaluate the pros and cons of permanent changes to the river, planners truly had little information to go on so it logically follows that they made decisions that we would never dream of making today. In general, I think that a model similar to the one we use for Eminent Domain could be applied to human interference with the environment. Eminent Domain is just a fancy term for a compulsory purchase by the government, but there are certain requirements. For example, when Caltrans wanted to buy homes along Fremont and Pasadena Avenues all throughout 73s, 81s, and 31s districts, they identified which homes would be in the way of the 710 Long Beach freeway extension (Alhambra's Valley Blvd to the Pasadena 134x210 interchange). Once the physical space to be altered was established, they had to pay fair market value to the homeowners in compensation. They then had to use the land only for the prescribed purpose (this is why many of those homes continue to just sit there abandoned, except for a few where Pasadena has begun to house some of our transient neighbors which is super exciting!) I think that a similar model of identifying precisely what natural land should be used (to eliminate waste), followed by an investigation into the environmental effects would be extremely beneficial to ensuring fair treatment of the land. It would then be incumbent on the land developer to essentially compensate the land for its contribution by restoring as much normalcy to the surrounding ecosystem as possible. Nonetheless, human interference on the environment remains to be one of the most delicate of endeavors, and should be handled with the upmost care.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that human interference with nature can sometimes be justified and sometimes be not justified. Nature should be respected and when there is a need for human interference, humans should try to go about it in the kindest, best way possible. Nature can provide so much, including happiness and a sense of peace to those who witness it. I think human interference is justified when it is done to help humans maintain their basic needs of survival.
ReplyDeleteYou can see this idea of panic over resources today with people selling essential needs such as toilet paper or food for a crazy high price. People are taking advantage of this situation to price gouge on items like food or toilet paper, which have been in high demand lately. You can see this panic in grocery stores as well, where many people have been buying way too much food, leaving not much food for other people to buy.
I think it's hard to know when human interference is completely justified, because even if something is extremely well thought out and planners think they know what the outcome will be, when you're dealing with nature, not everything can be predicted. It's difficult to justify actions if you don't know what the end result will be, but you often times don't know the end result until you carry out the action. In regards to nature, I think intent is the one thing you can really judge before something happens. Granted, I've never been involved in major environmental manipulations for any reason, nor have I been able to vote on them, but what sparks a "feeling of disagreement" in me is when large corporations start destroying environmental resources for only economic gain. I also recognize that nature is in no way ours to own or claim, but I do understand that in some cases using or manipulating nature will end up helping more people/things than it harms, and in those cases I agree with it.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of coronavirus, I'm sure we've all seen or experienced the same fear over a lack of resources, especially toilet paper, rice, pasta, flour (now that everyone has a sourdough starter), etc, which is interesting because stores are open and appear like they will remain open as far as I've heard. It's weird to see how quickly we all have flocked to cling to our resources, despite the fact that many of them are still readily available, and our increased panic-driven consumption is what has caused their availability to decline.
I feel like a common trend in American history (as well as throughout the course of mankind as a whole) has been exploiting nature and its resources until something happens that makes us stop for a moment. I’m not an expert on renewable energy or eco-friendly industrial practices, but I do know that a thriving world and a thriving environment can coexist. In fact, for a world to be “thriving,” meaning it has things like a strong world economy, booming industry, and a happy world citizenry, the environment must be thriving too. For the environment to thrive, we need to start talking about and confronting environmental issues proactively. For example, when a company begins the process of working on a project, the topic of the project’s possible impact on the environment must happen early on in the project planning process (if not first thing). We see so many companies making efforts to be more eco-friendly and sustainable nowadays, but what were they doing before their success? Were they making sustainability plans? Probably not. I think that being eco-friendly means making the effort to try to coexist with nature. When we subjugate nature and exploit it to the point of depletion or destruction, both humanity and nature are mutually harmed (although nature in a very more physically devastating manner). In summary and in a more concise response to Mady’s first question, I think that human interference with nature isn’t justified. For it to be justified, it needs to look more like human collaboration with nature.
ReplyDeleteThe question of human involvement in nature is one that I ponder often. On one hand, I lament the image that has been done to the environment in the same way of convenience for human beings. On the other hand, I realize that industrialism and growing infrastructure was just a natural progression of the human race. But, then I am left wondering whether we had to make a decision between the environment and humans at all. Wasn’t it possible to have the foresight to consider the environment before we did all of this damage? Regarding the decisions made for the LA river, for the most part, while I understand them, I do not agree with them. It seems to me that throughout history, there has been an urgency to profit that ignores the long-term effect on the environment. Most people will acknowledge that most of earth's resources are finite, yet as a society, we have still not done anything about that acknowledgment.
ReplyDeleteI think we see this “giving tree” scenario play out in many different situations. I think it can be applied to deforestation, fracking, sand mining, and many more. I think that while it seems like an obvious lesson, our capitalistic society often ignores the future and any repercussions might bring in favor of in-the-moment profits.
I think COVID-19 has brought to light many of the concerns our generation has grappled with for years. All of a sudden, everyone is feeling the strain and stress associated with dwindling resources. There is also the fact that many of the largest-polluting industries have halted production. This, in more ways than one has allowed the earth to breath for a minute. This has also drawn attention to the environment in the context that it gives proof that recovery is possible. Whether this realization will have lasting impact is still unclear, I suppose we will have to wait until we are living in a post-COVID-19 world.
The justification of human interference with nature is not very easily answered with notions of "right and wrong" times to do so. Public opinion of when it is ok to interfere with nature has changed a lot from when the story of the Los Angeles river began. Two centuries ago, the only goal was to survive in a new area that appeared to have limited resources. They were unable to exhibit much forward thinking because they were working to secure the possibility of a future existing at all. More recently, maybe we've been paying the price of the lack of future planning in the 1800s, but I think it's easy to look back from our vantage point and say that they should've done this or that. But maybe if they hadn't come up with ways of getting water to the growing city there wouldn’t be a city today. This could be a too-shallow way of thinking about this hot topic, but I think that there's always some sort of "in the moment" justification that is easier to look back on with an attitude of "why would they do that >:(" when we weren't living with the problems that were present at the time. Now I'm starting to feel hypocritical because I also don't believe and am not trying to say that interference with nature is ALWAYS justified but that we should also consider the situation at the time the decisions were being made.
ReplyDeleteI think the most obvious panic over resources that we've seen in the midst of the pandemic is the toilet paper/paper towel frenzy. Additionally, pasta, instant noodles, water, and baking supplies were difficult to find (and sometimes still are). I thought the response in terms of those resources was funny. Something doesn't add up around the amount of people who seemed to plan on never leaving the house and the amount of people I still see out and about. Like the people who exhausted the LA river's water supply, people acting in immediate survival mode in response to coronavirus exhausted stores' supplies, which down the line made things worse for people who couldn't afford to stockpile and potentially cause a lot of waste as stores overstock goods after the panic died down and people's personal hoards can't be used fast enough.
I believe that human interference with nature can be justified at times as well as unjustified. I believe the relationship humans have had with nature has significantly changed as time has progressed. Humans used to utilize nature while still maintaining its pure form, but as technology advanced so did the manipulation of nature. Human manipulation of nature was at its peak during and post industrial revolution, but now people have begun to the importance of untouched nature. I believe that the manipulation of nature can be necessary when it has to do with the well being of the human race. That being said, when the usage of nature gets excessive, the manipulation of nature can cause real harm to the planet.
ReplyDeleteI do understand water companies' initial decisions to "control" the river. Los Angeles, and any major city, needs a water source for the population, and the LA river projects also provided flood control. I don't believe anyone could say with 100% certainty that the manipulation of the LA river was either good or bad. The original projects on the LA river helped control the yearly flooding of parts of the city which seems very necessary to me.
The panic to obtain resources such as toilet paper and water due to COVID-19 illustrates the capitalistic relationship mankind has with resources. People are making huge profits by reselling necessary items due to the their high demand.
When is this human interference with nature justified? When is it not justified?
ReplyDeleteHuman interference with nature is justified when it concerns human lives in my opinion. If a river needs to be dammed to help save a local community then I think that's ok or if climate change is causing sea shores to rise and threaten a community then building up "defenses" for that sort of stuff is good. There are always repercussions when someone changes nature, but if the negative aspects of doing so can be mitigated for both people and then environment then its ok. When greed, profits, and people are not concerned I think that is when it's not justified to interfere with nature. For example: Tiger King, sure Joe Exotic claimed he was helping tigers but it was his own personal interests and profits that were concerned not the animals.
Do you understand the decisions that the water and flood companies made throughout Los Angeles’s history regarding the river? Do you agree?
I mean at this point I would have to agree? Without those decisions im not sure LA would be what it is today without them.
Where else, if anywhere, have you seen this ‘Giving Tree process’ take place?
The giving tree process has taken place in a lot of countries where mining is present. In places where strip mining is present the landscape is often destroyed and cannot be used for anything else. In the US during the industrial revolution this happened a lot and not only were the landscapes destroyed, water sources, local economies, and the quality of living for everyone was too.
The justification of human interference with nature is complex because an action which might seem completely necessary to one person or group of people might seem unnecessary and harmful to another. I think the most "justified" instances in which nature is modified is when it is being changed to keep people safe and/or prevent disaster, but who or what defines what is a disaster or safety issue? When it comes to the LA River, I understand the decisions of the water and flood companies, but I don't necessarily agree with them, especially when viewing them under a contemporary lens. The situation with the LA River seems like a domino effect of terrible decisions, like a cycle of taking more water so that more people could live in LA and then not having enough water for everyone subsequently taking more, until it all ran out.
ReplyDeleteWhile staying at home during coronavirus has done good for the environment in terms of air and water quality, I have noticed that preexisting efforts to help the environment have been thrown out the window. Because of concerns regarding the transmission of the virus, a lot of stores no longer charge for plastic and paper bags, and people are frequently using plastic cups and straws.
Personally, I think that human interference in nature is not justified. While there are groups who do have nature’s best interest in mind, most of the human interference is motivated by money. This is why I can never justify large corporations polluting and/or extracting most of earth's natural resources. This being said, I do understand human interference if it is for the betterment of the population even if I do not completely agree with it. Natural disasters, such as floods, can be devastating for cities and not only cause many casualties but also damage to the city. So while I think there are other ways to deal with the flooding of the Los Angeles river, I do understand why the city decided to cement it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that humans should not have to interfere with nature, however with the relationship we have with it today, sometimes this interference is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI believe that humans should not have to interfere with nature, however with the relationship we have with it today, sometimes this interference is necessary. In my opinion, if this interference with nature is essential to the wellbeing and safety of humans, then it is justified. Although it harms wildlife and the ecosystem, us humans are always putting ourselves before others, and in some cases I think this can be justified.
ReplyDeleteHowever, thinking about the "Giving tree" concept, at some point of humans putting themselves before nature, our Earth will give out and we can no longer go about interfering with nature as we have been. We've already dealt with so many examples of this, such as using up water and oil resources, and having to find eco-friendly alternatives.
I think an interesting point about this which is relevant to today's world is the way that the Corona virus lockdown has effected the Earth. Because so many people in the world are staying inside, not driving, etc., the Earth has had a moment to breathe and has been relieved of lots of pollution. The air has been cleaner than ever, and pollution levels have dropped dramatically. In certain parts of the world, specific mountains and landmarks are being seen for the first time in years, due to air clearing up. This effect of COVID-19 is very interesting to observe because it shows us that if we are able to lessen our pollution even after the lockdown, we will be able to save the Earth from all the frightening consequences of global warming that have been looming over us, especially recently.
I think human interference with nature is justified when performing a calculated decision that will result in the betterment of mankind. I understand that this idea would be tremendously difficult to define, but I think there’s an understanding that the more advanced our society becomes, the greater interference we tend to have with nature. I would like to think I understand the decisions companies made throughout Los Angeles’s history regarding the river, but it is difficult for me to put myself in their shoes and blatantly say their decisions were wrong or right. Clearly, mistakes and rash decisions were made, but you have to ask yourself about knowledge and experience they had at the time. We have seen this “giving tree process” occur in the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s in the event called the dust bowl which resulted from us taking this “man vs nature” idea too far. You would think after events like the dust bowl, people would undergo some serious reflection and think about the long run impact of their decisions, but greed has caused many giving tree examples to be ignored.
ReplyDelete