Sunday, November 4, 2012

Theobold Reading Hybrid Activity (11/5/12)

Identify one key concept in the Theobold reading (available on Moodle).  State that concept, then explain what it means in your own words.  Lastly, link to a newspaper article that, in some way, relates to this concept..

55 comments:

aagforster said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well."

I believe this passage of the article really hit what America has turned into. No longer are we as a country valuing how we fought for our freedom and where we came from. Instead, there is a profit driven mentality that has overtaken all other motivation and goals in life. We no longer know our neighbors and have to lock our doors at night. The country has grown form trust worthy state where all that was needed was enough for food, to a country of excess and greed with a mindset of want.

Newspaper article:
http://theworldlink.com/news/opinion/mailbag/greed-is-killing-america-s-future/article_399437eb-8fc6-5340-abea-198c363c0e43.html

Vinicius Taguchi said...

A young man will argue that whoever kills a deer should get to keep it, while an old man will argue that everyone should get an equal part of the deer.

Those who have the ability to gain an advantage over their peers will seize it as their right, but those who are unable will strive for equality, in order that they may be provided for.

This article explains how the "Tragedy of the Commons" principle played a role in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Since oil supplies are owned by the federal government, oil companies must compete to extract as much oil as they can, as quickly as they can, since they are not allowed to directly own the oil supply. In the metaphor, BP would be the young man who believes he has the right to all the oil he can extract. Unfortunately, when people have access to a common resource, they overuse and abuse it, just by human nature.

sydney wilkinson said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well. As a consequence, the considerable, though disparate, educational movements well below the current radar, such as project-based learning or place-based learning, are operating to some degree in the dark, unaware of the extent to which these efforts resonate with the worldview captured by the term agrarianism."

Not only does this excerpt explain what the mindset of American has become, it also shows how the individualistic, high efficiency and high consumption mindsets have leaked into our education system. So not only have the agrarian values been lost amongst adults in our culture, the loss of these values is affecting children in the education system.

Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02diamond.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Bryan Britt said...

"All essential (his emphasis) production is for the Mouth . . . hence, consumption is the crown of production; and the wealth of a nation is only to be estimated by what it consumes." This statement means that the main factor in the amount of production needed is the level of consumption that is present. A nation's wealth is determined by how much is being consumed and produced. A nation's wealth is dependent upon the difference between the two. If a nation consumes more than it produces or close to it, then that nation would be consider unwealthy or poor. Newspaper article: http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&hid=102&sid=9a39c283-ec97-4aaa-9c5f-7c9398e74732%40sessionmgr113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=n5h&AN=SYD-5WLLK0PLUWKJJY1AD1J

Lindsey McAnulty said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well."

I chose the passage above because I feel this passage hammered home the aritcle's idea that we have done too much. America has taken everything too far in a quest for becoming better and earning more. Everything we do now is for a higher profit and for more consumption. I feel this article is urging us to step back and realize that having it all is not what we should desire. We should desire a balance with nature and with our neighbors. I picked a newspaper article about the housing market crash in 2007 and 2008 because I think it really fits in with the notion that we are doing too much.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/25/michael-mauboussin-crash-markets-marketsp07-cx_mm_1025mauboussin.html

Tara Lucas said...

“The commons, therefore, was something that had to be meticulously maintained if it was going to be a viable resource for all neighborhood families in perpetuity.”

This quote is about a piece of land called the commons which the people of the area wanted to keep for themselves. They enjoyed the commons beauty and they wanted to keep it the way it was, and not let it become industrialized. The only way this could happen is if the people truly cared for the welfare of the commons and contributed tax money to make sure the land was taken care of. This is similar to many of the amenities Americans have today. People want many luxuries, but often do not realize the effort which must be put into a project to keep up the results they desire. An example is the public school system. Public schools have been around for hundreds of years in the United States and many people see them as a right instead of a privilege. Schooling could be limited to only private schools which must be individually paid for, like the way colleges are. If people want public school system to continue running successfully, tax payers must care for the state of the school and always attempt to keep improving it. An article which relates to this is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/education/29clayton.html?_r=0. In this article, the school system has allowed for board members to be elected which do not meet qualifications for accreditation of the school system. Tax payers must take all decisions in projects which their money is going into, like school systems or an area like the commons, seriously to insure that their money is being well spent and the privilege which they desired is being maintained. Any project in which tax payers money is going into can affect the economy, and therefore it should be planned well and taken seriously.

Adrian Taylor said...

"In other words, the earth is a common treasury. In order for society to tap the benefits that come with land ownership, limits need to be placed on it, lest the land owner lose the ability to adequately care for it."

The concept that Theobald and Shandomo is enforcing is that of land ownership limitations. The earth has only a limited amount of space and therefore the land that is owned should be divvied
up in equal amounts. This would not only help ensure that the wealth is distributed more evenly but it would also ensure that the land that is owned is taken care of. Small pieces of land owned by individuals will be better kept than large pieces of land that is owned by an individual. With the land distribution equalized, the distribution of wealth would also be equalized. This limitations concept would help close the gap between the upperclass and lower class.

Newspaper Article:
http://www.property24.com/articles/foreign-land-ownership-restrictions/12936

Shelby Snedecor said...

“From the deep feudal past, neighborhood commons had been maintained as a resource that could be used by all of those who lived in a given neighborhood. Further, all who used the commons had a right to a voice in the decisions that affected it—meaning that even the most destitute peasant had a political voice, and could be called upon to play a political role in the neighborhood as someone chosen, say, to responsibly monitor grazing levels and grass health.”

Education is very similar to the commons that are discussed in this passage. In today’s world, the public education system is something that every child is supposed to be able to partake in. Education is the one thing in society that should only change to benefit the students learning. Overtime, large organizations become corrupt as power-hungry leaders strive for more personal gain than group benefit. Public school systems nation-wide have become vastly corrupt, whether it be funding discrepincies or unfair school districting. Every class of person should be able to have a say in the education system because education is one of the few things that every single citizen of the United States goes through, not including those members of society who chose to not go to school. Every person has learned addition and subtraction the exact same way. We have all learned to read the same words. It is the basic material that puts each person on a level playing field. The world today puts far too much focus on the economic aspect of life, which is dampening society’s urge to learn and the school system’s ability to keep well-balanced education as a priority.

http://proxying.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=n5h&AN=6FP1291889839&site=ehost-live&scope=site
This article is about education in Canada; however the key points of this article are the same points that many Americans, both the the general public and political leaders, have lost sight of.

Jaleeza Brown said...

"Today, when environmental degradation has become the norm, when economic activity has demonstrably produced serious climactic changes, the concept of a no-growth economy has once again re-appeared on society’s radar screen."
To me this quote means that the various things that negatively affect our economy as a whole is becoming normal and acceptable to some extent. This of course should not be happening because it is producing a "no-growth economy". Not very much is going to change or get better considering activities and degradation taking place.
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/latest/article.php?id=39387

Christiana Tiburzi said...

"From the deep feudal past, neighborhood commons had been maintained as a resource that could be used by all of those who lived in a given neighborhood. Further, all who used the commons had a right to a voice in the decisions that affected it—meaning that even the most destitute peasant had a political voice, and could be called upon to play a political role in the neighborhood as someone chosen, say, to responsibly monitor grazing levels and grass health."

In other words, one main concept to this reading was that back when the commons were present, anyone who was a part of the community had a say in the decisions that were made. Decisions and ideas were not based on the power or wealth of individuals. The peasants had just as much of a right to bring forth ideas as the wealthy did. This is extremely different from today's society where the lower class have little say and the upper class controls much of politics today. The Newspaper article from the New York Times discusses how money buys political power and portrays the inequalities due to this. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/opinion/krugman-plutocracy-paralysis-perplexity.html

Casey Kivett said...

“One of the great contributions of the commons was that it was something shared by the community and therefore not something that could be exploited to one’s own advantage without drawing the attention and disapproval of one’s neighbors.” This excerpt faithfully portrays the idea that the author wishes to go back to an agrarian-like mindset of how people interact with the world immediately around them for the benefit of themselves that protects their place environmentally, socially and economically. This Nepalese article from Republica does well to summarize the issue of capitalism versus agrarianism and provides a little different viewpoint on the matter itself http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=44147

Amanda Averett said...

"The appropriation of things by persons or the distribution of social wealth among men in society is a moral and not an industrial phenomenon."
A healthy young man kills a deer and believes that he is entitled to keep all of it, whereas a less fit elderly man would suggest that the boy needs to share it with everyone. Those who side with the young man embrace an "industrial theory." This defines the relation between man and things that increase wealth. Those who oppose the young man are labeled as agrarians. Agrarianism defines mutual relations between individuals in regards to wealth appropriation.

I interpret this as meaning those who believe people are entitled to only what they acquire for themselves are interested in personal benefits, and those who believe that wealth should be equally distributed are interested in the well-being of an entire community.


The following article discusses how the top 10 percent of America earn about half of the overall income.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/income/income_inequality/index.html

Emily Hines said...

"We will argue that a relatively short list of old ideas—agrarianism, the commons, no-growth economics, and the maximum wage—are experiencing a resurgence today precisely because Americans are looking for alternatives to a status quo that is demonstrably dangerous to life on the planet. "

This excerpt depicts a shift from the previously accepted purpose of education, to a very new academic approach. Currently, the primary goal of education is to create salaries and increase employment. However, throughout this article, Theobald stresses the importance of prioritizing environmental conditions over fiscal matters. He suggests a new concept of education, where academics revolve around discovering sustainable ways to live.
http://www.wce.wwu.edu/resources/cep/ejournal/v004n001/a006.shtml

Megan Angel said...

"Men nearly always speak and write as if riches were absolute, and it were possible, by following certain scientific precepts, for everybody to be rich. Whereas riches are a power like that of electricity, acting only through inequalities or negations of itself. The force of the guinea you have in your pocket depends wholly on the default of a guinea in your neighbour’s pocket. If he did not want it, it would be of no use to you; the degree of power it possesses depends accurately upon the need or desire he has for it—and the art of making yourself rich is therefore equally and necessarily the art of keeping your neighbour poor" (Ruskin 1985, 180-181)

I think that this concept describes Ruskin's theory on the relationship between wealth and poverty. He is basically explaining the different perceptions of wealth between those more fortunate and those less fortunate. He explains that the "freedom of the rich is only acquired through the denial of freedom by the poor." Ruskin believes that simply having wealth doesn't carry as much merit as having wealth and the self-realization of having wealth.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=10882&sr=HLEAD(Wealth+redistribution+won%27t+%27solve%27+poverty)+and+date+is+September+29%2C+2011

Cody Davidson said...

The shift from agrarian to industrial views: As our country has developed and grown, it has not grown in a holistic and sustainable way, but has grown in a way that values profit over most anything else. John Stuart Mill claimed that there must be an end to the expansive economic development. Even though development can be a good thing, it does not mean that it is permanent. Because industrial development cannot be enduring, care and consideration for the environment must be taken into consideration in order to ensure a secure future.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/10/opinion/l-agrarian-philosophy-540757.html

Andrew Benson said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well."


I felt that this excerpt really summed up a key point from the passage. The current society focuses the majority of attention towards maximizing profits and fast production. I really liked how Theobald defined the agrarian worldview. Often we think less of others' wellbeing and more on generating our economy.

Article Link: http://azcost.net/article4.htm

Ben Cogsdale said...

Mill also laid a foundation for the final topic of this paper, for he insisted that the matter of distributing a nation’s wealth was the prerogative of society and not a matter governed by law-like strictures. “I know not why it should be a matter of congratulation that persons who are already richer than anyone needs to be, should have doubled their means of consuming things which give little or no pleasure except as representative of wealth; or that numbers of individuals should pass over, every year, from the middle classes into a richer class, or from the class of the occupied rich to that of the unoccupied” (Mill 1988, 114). In this regard, Mill echoed a long-held tenet of civic republican agrarian theory—extremes in wealth and poverty were to be avoided at all costs.


This passage sums up a key concept in the essay and consumer society in general. Mill's purpose in this quote was to warn people to avoid economic extremes. However, in today's economic sphere that is exactly what has happened. There are the EXTREMELY rich (1%) and now, more than ever, people sinking beneath the poverty level. The middle class is becoming extinct.


http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/08/22/lost-decade-for-shrinking-middle-class/

Perry Fountain said...

Today, when environmental degradation has become the norm, when economic activity has demonstrably produced serious climactic changes, the concept of a no-growth economy has once again re-appeared on society’s radar screen. Former World Bank economist Herman Daly has been a persuasive advocate of no-growth economics for the last two decades. And he has at last attracted a significant following. But the educational component to such a societal shift is huge and, consequently, it has increasingly become a part of discussions about what schools are ultimately for, and how they might therefore function.

I liked this part in the passage because it talks about the present and the future and what we are up against. It depicts the negative changes more then the positive. All the negative things happening in society are becoming normal.

Zeke Hartner said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well."

As America delves deeper into the Capitalist life style,we see certain aspects of what made the country great in the first place being weeded out. The rich exploit the poor instead of supporting their communities, the power hungry bend laws and regulations to exploit more power while accusing those who don't as "unpatriotic." Many are born into wealth and power, and yet still believe they somehow earned their right to be where they are.

The article I found discusses the pros and cons of being born into a powerful political family... http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/10/political.families/index.html

Kristin Snyder said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kristin Snyder said...

"Today, when environmental degradation has become the norm, when economic activity has demonstrably produced serious climactic changes, the concept of a no-growth economy has once again re-appeared on society’s radar screen. Former World Bank economist Herman Daly has been a persuasive advocate of no-growth economics for the last two decades. And he has at last attracted a significant following. But the educational component to such a societal shift is huge and, consequently, it has increasingly become a part of discussions about what schools are ultimately for, and how they might therefore function."

This excerpt from the reading discusses how the recent economic growth and development is creating a world where it is acceptable to destroy the environment in order to keep moving forward. Until recently, this environmental destruction was not seen as a major problem by many. However, people today are beginning to realize that growth needs to slow down or even come to a halt to repair the damage that it has caused. This relates back to educating society about the dangers of expansion and prompting them to make a change.

http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/newsletter/articles-2012/en_GB/09-2012-YH/

Sarah Beebe said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well. As a consequence, the considerable, though disparate, educational movements well below the current radar, such as project-based learning or place-based learning, are operating to some degree in the dark, unaware of the extent to which these efforts resonate with the worldview captured by the term agrarianism."

This excerpt portrays the concept of increased industrial values and how it has become part of the daily American life. High usage and large amounts of consumption have become part of the cultural and educational lifestyles. This new mindset has pushed the United States farther away from agrarianism. The need to be larger and better has caused the US to be in a constant competition financially and industrially. Profits have taken over the minds of business workers and has led to lower regards for environments and cultures. The values in a rural society have been compromised due to the high production industrialism.

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/374312/agrarian-corruption

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/business/in-dairy-industry-consolidation-lush-paydays.html?ref=agriculture

Deneisha Poe said...

Today, when environmental degradation has become the norm, when economic activity has demonstrably produced serious climactic changes, the concept of a no-growth economy has once again re-appeared on society’s radar screen.
The excessive use of natural resources has become what is accepted and has caused devastating changes to the climate. The changes to the climate have in turn caused the planet to become less equipped to support the current ways of human life.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html

Dustin Bizub said...

"But in 1983 the nation’s school system was chastised severely by a presidential commission that condemned the mediocre job schools were doing relative to this task. In fact, the authors of A Nation at Risk argued that “If only to keep and improve on the slim edge we still retain in the world markets we must dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system”(National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983, 7). Though they didn’t bother with an attempt to substantiate the claim that there is a causal connection between good schools and a good economy, they nevertheless hammered this message, with the help of a compliant corporate-controlled media, into the consciousness of the American public. The rhetoric making schools out to be a primary source of global economic dominion hasn’t yet subsided. It is the fuel that drives all of the noise surrounding schooling in the United States today. "

The above quote deals with the poor job schools are doing to prepare the American youth to be productive citizens in the economy. In an article relating to schooling for "Ecojustice", this concept of what the role of schooling is/should be is an important one.

http://www.poplarbluffschools.net/admin/nurturing-the-next-generation-of-good-citizens/

Lynda Bellia said...

"Today, when environmental degradation has become the norm, when economic activity has demonstrably produced serious climactic changes, the concept of a no-growth economy has once again re-appeared on society’s radar screen"

This quote represents the idea that people in today's society do not care about the environment. If there is money to be made, the health of the environment is not a concern. However, this money-making has caused climate changes across the globe. Therefore, people are starting to consider the idea of having an economy that does not need to constantly grow.

The following article goes more in-depth about climate change and the carbon emissions that cause what has come to be known as "global warming."

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html

Nicholas Sheridan, Jr. said...

“For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well.”

I believe that this piece means that the modern views of American people are focused on one task and one task only; making money. American people will do anything and everything they can (whether it is ethical or not) to achieve a “wealthy lifestyle.” I believe that a wealthy lifestyle does not necessarily mean that your house is made out of gold or that you live on your own private island but it is being able to achieve your goals in life “and the psychological profit in work done well.”

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=10882&sr=HLEAD(Wealth+redistribution+won%27t+%27solve%27+poverty)+and+date+is+September+29%2C+2011

Chelsi Oxendine said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well."

This exerpt reminds me of how America has become today. We no longer look at the world as good we always look at profit that is our problmes today. We as Americans always look to make money even though it harms the world.

Newspaper Article
http://ezinearticles.com/?Americas-Culture-of-Greed&id=1581021

Sam Roberson said...

In the article, the idea that the increase of wealth is not infinite and that the growth has to stop somewhere is addressed. Theobold quotes John Stuart Mill saying

"It must always have been seen, more or less distinctly, by political economists, that the increase of wealth is not boundless; that at the end of what they term the progressive state lies the stationary state, that all Progress in wealth is but a postponement of this, and that each step in advance is an approach to it (Mill 1988, 111)."

This is the idea that there is a finite number of resources that can be exploited on our planet and societies cannot always be in a state of constant consumption. This opposes the current American view point of economic gain at all times. This article tries to predict what a no growth economy would look like. It also highlights the fact that it is highly unlikely to come into favor with the current American mindset

Caroline Bojarski said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well."

I feel as though Americans are progressively becoming more detached from nature. The things we do as Americans are becoming scary. All we care about is how we look, and the more money we have the better we look. It's not enough to just have the money, but one has to flaunt the money by means of a fancy car, or the latest style of clothing. Why have we become this way? It's as if as time goes on our society becomes less intelligent. The link below is to an article detailing the ridiculousness of the lawsuits that are won by selfish Americans. It's sickening how much money is wasted on such dumbfounding affairs.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=8176&sr=HLEAD%28Ethics%2C+Wrong+Side+Up%29+and+date+is+October+5%2C+1992

Alexis Cope said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well."

This excerpt from the Theobold reading summarizes how the views of the American people have changed as industrial influence has increased.The feelings of pride and accomplishment in sustainable living has been replaced by the need to rapidly produce mass amounts of products and consume them. The culture of America has moved from a simple, sustainable, friendly lifestyle to one where the ultimate producers and consumers are valued.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/30/arts/in-buying-we-trust-the-foundation-of-us-consumerism-was-laid-in-the-18th-century.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

ErnieR said...

“I know not why it should be a matter of congratulation that persons who are already richer than anyone needs to be, should have doubled their means of consuming things which give little or no pleasure except as representative of wealth”

This excerpt from the article to me is stressing the belief that the rich getting richer is not beneficial the society. The constant growth of the wealthy funds is allowing them to gain more power and live above the law. They are now in position to have predominated say so in which should be established in communities. Not only will this silence the lower class voice, but it will also put more pressure on them to manage daily life while balancing funds.

http://www.quickenblog.com/can-you-be-too-rich-the-negative-effects-of-wealth-2012-08-13/

Kyle Anderson said...

"A non-industrial, that is to say agrarian, worldview can re-emerge in time to check the excesses that are heating the earth’s atmosphere, but educational efforts currently at the margins will need to move front and center “with all deliberate speed.” At the outset we cited project-based learning, social reconstructionist pedagogy, and community-based curriculum as old educational ideas that are enjoying a small, but noticeable resurgence. It is precisely these kinds of educational effort, we believe, that are necessary in order to prepare citizens for the burden of producing solutions to global problems."




This excerpt explains the whole reasoning behind the article, refocusing America into a society that will be able to handle the coming trials that the world will throw at us. This is done through reconstructing our education system to be focused on hands on learning and concepts of using what we have instead of building from scratch.



Newspaper article on hands on learning:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/368109921

Kristen Church said...

"In time, schools could become the kind of research vehicle that helps communities shoulder the burden of ethical consumption Ruskin described in the nineteenth century—knowing “what condition of existence you cause in the producers of what you buy.” Projects of this sort on a nation-wide basis would contribute markedly to an improved Culture, one that raises the well-being of communities and neighborhoods as essential criteria for policy-making. As is the case for some places right now, schools across the country could become catalysts to locally-produced food and energy in the interest of stopping human contributions to an ever-warming atmosphere. "

Schools need to teach the importance of building a sustainable community as far as local food production and energy renewal in order for our communities to survive. Its important to instill this in young people who can help protect the area as they grow into adults!

http://www.fairhopelocalfood.org/home/newsletter_

Molly Casey said...

" We will argue that a relatively short list of old ideas—agrarianism, the commons, no-growth economics, and the maximum wage—are experiencing a resurgence today precisely because Americans are looking for alternatives to a status quo that is demonstrably dangerous to life on the planet."

This is the concept that Americans do not have the knowledge to sustain life on Earth, so the ideas of our forefathers are being brought forth.

Newspaper Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/20/science/earth/20MANA.html?ref=sustainabledevelopment

Ashley Levan said...

"Today, when environmental degradation has become the norm, when economic activity has demonstrably produced serious climactic changes, the concept of a no-growth economy has once again re-appeared on society’s radar screen."

In today's culture it has become normal to hear about the depletion of natural resources and all of our environmental problems. People do not care much when they hear about it because they consider it just another environmental issue. The degradation of the environment has lead to serious climate changes. The economy is also not growing as rapidly because it cannot. It is not an accepted norm to have a no-grow or declining economy but it needs to become one.

http://www.countercurrents.org/czech301012.htm

John Cameron Murray said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well. As a consequence, the considerable, though disparate, educational movements well below the current radar, such as project-based learning or place-based learning, are operating to some degree in the dark, unaware of the extent to which these efforts resonate with the worldview captured by the term agrarianism."

People today are so concerned with being more efficient and fast as possible that things such as taking time to know your neighbors has become a thing of the past for most people. As a result, place-based learning is no longer a big thing because people just don't care about it anymore.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-25/features/sc-fam-0424-know-neighbor-20120424_1_neighbors-social-networking-sites-block-party

Michael Brangle said...

"Today, when environmental degradation has become the norm, when economic activity has demonstrably produced serious climactic changes, the concept of a no-growth economy has once again re-appeared on society’s radar screen." In my opinion this quote means that abuse of the environment has become so common in today's society that it has become acceptable. Slow or even frozen economic growth has become a major problem and continues to stick around due to these environmental issues.


http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-08-30/commentary/30687812_1_new-rules-economists-global-collapse

Josh Jordan said...

"At the risk of oversimplifying things, we will argue that there were two nineteenth century responses to the horrible conditions created by unfettered industrialism. One came from the pen of John Stuart Mill, the other from Karl Marx. But we will further argue that there was a third option—an agrarian option sometimes called the “middle way,” between Mill and Marx. As noted earlier, Mill demonstrated to the world that the wealth generated through industrial production could be distributed in ways that would alleviate the dire social conditions that defined England during the nineteenth century. He called for gradual reforms that would temper the violent nature of industrial production and thus preserve the status quo."

In the time of early America, there were three different views that could be had about the upcoming nature of economic stability. The idea of industrialization, anti-industrialization, and agrarianism, the latter being the least common. However, through this agrarianism, social conditions would be less tense as in strict industrial or anti-industrial movements.

http://neighbornewspapers.com/view/full_story/20365530/article-Column--Giving-agrarian-style?instance=south

AlexMelton said...

The story of the tribe and the deer is a fantastic metaphor for human nature and society:

"‘The deer belongs to the one who has killed it!’ cries a young and active member of the tribe, adding, ‘If you are too lazy or if your aim is not good enough, so much the worse for you!’ An older, weaker member replies: ‘No! The deer belongs to all of us to be shared equally. If there is only one deer in the forest and you happen to be the one who catches sight of it, that is no reason why the rest of us should go without food.’"

Those who have opportunity and advantage over others will try to claim the reward all for their own. Those at a disadvantage or inferior do not want to get "left out". They will try to share with the "victor". A problem with our society is that there are masses of people who are at a disadvantage and want to share. It leaves the few with advantages forced to divide their winnings. One would argue that there is no longer any motivation to succeed if all of your work and earnings will be shared with those who do not work as hard or have such great opportunity.

This article talks about Obama's healthcare plan. Many people are against this plan because they feel that they don't need to fund others who are at a disadvantage. Why should someone else's "wrong" choices and actions negatively affect someone who made the "right" choices and actions?

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html

Rachel Leonard said...

"In other words, the earth is a common treasury. In order for society to tap the benefits that come with land ownership, limits need to be placed on it, lest the land owner lose the ability to adequately care for it. Such limits have the added advantage of maximizing the number of land owners. "

This key point of the article is explaining that there needs to be more of a view that Earth is a common place, not just land you own. The author wants society to go back to believing that the Earth as a whole is for civilization to live on, not just pieces that are claimed by civilians. The author also says that if we limit how the people care for the land they inhibit it will maximize the number of land owners. I believe the author is not only saying it will maximize the number of land owners because of the number of them, but it will also maximize the good keeping of the land that is being inhibited because of the limitations placed on it.

Here is a newspaper article talking about starting to regulate the land more to preserve forests : http://library.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx

Seth Jones said...

"Today, when environmental degradation has become the norm, when economic activity has demonstrably produced serious climactic changes, the concept of a no-growth economy has once again re-appeared on society’s radar screen. Former World Bank economist Herman Daly has been a persuasive advocate of no-growth economics for the last two decades. And he has at last attracted a significant following. But the educational component to such a societal shift is huge and, consequently, it has increasingly become a part of discussions about what schools are ultimately for, and how they might therefore function."

This concept focuses on the fact that a non-growth economy has not been forgotten, rather that even some of the greatest economists in the world see the necessity for such a society. It also highlights the role education plays, and how the focus of the entire education system will have to shift to introduce and promote this new goal in society.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/Manifesto-for-a-post-growth-economy-james-gustaves-speth

Katie Magee said...

"You could count on human self-interest to produce acquisitive behaviors, to seek the maximization of pleasure, etc., meaning that mathematics calculation and statistical probability were thought to be incredibly powerful tools for economic prediction."

This highlights the article's point that while the planet is a shared source, the "tragedy of the commons" scenario is inevitable due to the selfish nature of mankind. In order to maximize one's own profit, one must extract as much profit as possible, often without consideration to the effects of the plan. This has resulted in the terrible environmental downfall that awaits us in the future unless immediate and extreme action is taken. In this essay, that action is argued to be intense education about the problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/business/elinor-ostrom-winner-of-nobel-in-economics-dies-at-78.html

Mitchell Cook said...

One key concept in the reading is the need for a no growth economy. The term no growth economy is fairly self explanatory through its name. It is an economic policy that is focused on maintaining the current level of economic prosperity, rather than having a constantly expanding and growing economy. Seeing as allowing growth to continue infinitely is quite unsustainable and most likely impossible, especially in a world where prosperity is derived from the use of resources, and resources are finite, it would be wise to halt growth before it gets too out of hand.

http://robertdfeinman.com/society/no_growth.html

Trevor Gasdaska said...

"An educational system geared toward workplace readiness that yields little intellectual wherewithal over the interplay of economics and the environment, over the relationship of poverty to wealth, or over the role of community in a Democracy will only reinforce the status quo."

This quote sums up the reason there is a need for a change in the educational system. Our current educational system only perpetuates our current downward spiral of environmental exploitation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/22/AR2010092204653.html

Ivey Griffin said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well. As a consequence, the considerable, though disparate, educational movements well below the current radar, such as project-based learning or place-based learning, are operating to some degree in the dark, unaware of the extent to which these efforts resonate with the worldview captured by the term agrarianism."


This quote explains the problem with our country. In reality many do not see any negative results by doing as they please living out their daily lives. Many of these problems can be related back to the school system.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/01/opinion/oe-gates1

SW said...

"The commons, therefore, was something that had to be meticulously maintained if it was going to be a viable resource for all neighborhood families in perpetuity. Achieving this kind of maintenance, maintaining fertility over centuries, required the achievement of balance—of animals to acres or of crop rotations—so as not to wear out the soil. An agrarian worldview gradually came to prize a kind of steady economic state, recognizing that efforts at intensifying or growing production levels could jeopardize the well-being of the entire neighborhood."

Theobold is describing how balance was achieved in order to preserve the common use of land. It was a difficult and arduous process that benefited all members of the society, both present and future.

The management of common resources is an important factor in sustainability. The government must monitor lands they own to ensure that all parties are using the land fairly. Because everyone who uses the resource wants the most of it they can get, and it is not privately owned, they each believe others will take it if they do not. In this way, communication is necessary for maintenance of these resources.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-11-01/features/bs-gr-menhaden-hearing-20121101_1_menhaden-omega-protein-striped-bass

Kendall Cooper said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well. As a consequence, the considerable, though disparate, educational movements well below the current radar, such as project-based learning or place-based learning, are operating to some degree in the dark, unaware of the extent to which these efforts resonate with the worldview captured by the term agrarianism."

The excerpt explains the American ideal to keep moving forward. We seek only to make our lives easier. The cultural aspect has been lost and therefore holds little relevance. Culture has been lost to adults nd is not beginning to have an effect on children and their education.
Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02diamond.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Emily Boyette said...

"Ruskin revealed the true nature of the relationship between wealth and poverty in a manner that has yet to be adequately answered by the classical economics tradition. Said Ruskin,

"Men nearly always speak and write as if riches were absolute, and it were possible, by following certain scientific precepts, for everybody to be rich. Whereas riches are a power like that of electricity, acting only through inequalities or negations of itself. The force of the guinea you have in your pocket depends wholly on the default of a guinea in your neighbour’s pocket. If he did not want it, it would be of no use to you; the degree of power it possesses depends accurately upon the need or desire he has for it—and the art of making yourself rich is therefore equally and necessarily the art of keeping your neighbour poor (Ruskin 1985, 180-181).""

This fragment of the article is a point-on explanation of how economics plays a huge role in people's life. People are so consumed with the power of money that they will do whatever it takes to achieve the riches. The only way a small percentage of people can achieve wealth is to make sure the majority is poor. When the totem pole is established, freedom is a stake and the wealthy will overrule the poor people's freedom. The poor will always take the bullet for the advantage of the rich.

Here is a newspaper article about what should the focus be on with the economy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066527/

Lina Shahin said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well. As a consequence, the considerable, though disparate, educational movements well below the current radar, such as project-based learning or place-based learning, are operating to some degree in the dark, unaware of the extent to which these efforts resonate with the worldview captured by the term agrarianism."

This is quote I liked from the article for it explains America's problem. It says that the country is moving forward with its technologies and what not. However, people are not taking into consideration the effects that moving forward has.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/22/us/critics-rise-up-against-environmental-education.html

Jack Walsh said...

“For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well.”

With the increase in production and consumption there is no longer a dependence on being kind and sharing. There is no longer a risk because society has so many options for consuming that the risk factor is gone. A main issue is that the feeling of a job well done is gone because it has become normal and a hard day’s work is hard to come by sometimes.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/05/americans-obesity-rate/1684507/

Taylor Morgan said...

"In other words, the earth is a common treasury. In order for society to tap the benefits that come with land ownership, limits need to be placed on it, lest the land owner lose the ability to adequately care for it. Such limits have the added advantage of maximizing the number of land owners."

The growth of personal wealth needs to be kept in check. One person can not adequately care for a large amount of land and the same is true for monetary wealth. The astounding level of inequality of America is a perfect example of growth that was not kept in check. The most wealthy have so much that they do not have the capabilities to utilize all of it or even take care of all of it. Pollution from the energy business (fracking, oil spills, etc) is a good example because more profit is the only concern and the land that they utilize is not cared for at all.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/americans-want-to-live-in-a-much-more-equal-country-they-just-dont-realize-it/260639/

Geoff said...

"Our embrace of industrial values has sent us headlong into a period of global Environmental Crisis of the sort the world has never known. Few hold much hope that the a governmental system dominated by the nation’s wealthiest citizens, and one beholden to corporate interests for their very seat in the halls of power, will take a proactive policy stand related to the exigencies to come."

Policies have been made to minimize the extremities between the rich and poor. With the wealthy being in control, the concerns of the poorer are not taken into consideration and it shows itself in many forms. Also the industrial American has caused environmental damage to the world and seem to take pride in their ways. Immorality is the reason behind the damage done to the country.

Gregory Fields said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well. As a consequence, the considerable, though disparate, educational movements well below the current radar, such as project-based learning or place-based learning, are operating to some degree in the dark, unaware of the extent to which these efforts resonate with the worldview captured by the term agrarianism."

The key concept from this excerpt is that we have strayed from many important things that shape the way we think and in turn educate. I feel like this is saying that we as Americans have focused too much on the scientific and industrial aspects of living rather than the actual cultural ones. This has made it harder to educate our children appropriately.

Here is a link to a newspaper article that focuses on this topic: https://prox.lib.ncsu.edu/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1741143207087773

Mikeyd said...

"Recall that Smith legitimized English poverty by pointing to their possessions, the glass in their windows, the silverware on their tables, then compared these possessions to those owned by the poor in Africa, thereafter pronouncing England’s poor to be better off than African kings. Malthus, Ricardo, and even John Stuart Mill berated the poor of England for their moral shortcomings, claiming definitively that they bring on their own circumstances by their inability to contain their “procreative impulses.”"

This concept from the reading talks about how the poverty in one country may be better off than the poverty in another country. The main idea behind this concept is that those stricken with poverty in England were better off than those who had to suffer poverty in third world countries. Though this concept may hold some merit that the people who are in poverty in England at the time it was written may have been better off, I think that comparing the two countries poverty status isn't quite as equal.

Newspaper Article: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=8075&sr=HLEAD%28Poverty+and+Wealth+in+America%29+and+date+is+September+30%2C+1991

Karina Gomez said...

"For the past century America’s cultural embrace of industrial values: ever-increasing production, ever-increasing levels of efficiency, and ever-increasing levels of consumption, have been so dominant that the American public scarcely retains any cultural memory of the values that defined an agrarian worldview, values such as frugality, good neighborship, the avoidance of risk, and the psychological profit in work done well."

Industrialization is crushing agrarian views in society today, with hardly anyone knowing what the term "agrarian" actually refers to. Generations after generations of families are losing touch with the environment. In the article I linked, children's book have gotten rid of "natural environments" and "wildlife" almost completely. Man-made environments such as parks have taken over children's books and as a result, less people in the world that cherish the agrarian views.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/childrens-books-lose-touch-with-nature/