USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Read carefully David Christian’s article on the Industrial Revolution of c. 1750-1900 and how it marked another threshold in human history. Then answer the following questions:
1. Look at Table 13.1 on p. 407, giving details of industrial output between 1750 and 1980. In your opinion, what was the most significant or outstanding development or change in the century between 1800 and 1900? Then, what do you think was the most outstanding change that occurred between 1900 and 1980?
2. Then, look at Table 13.3 on p. 412, which gives changes in National Product (i.e. the value of all goods and services produced) and in National Product per Head (i.e. the average value of goods and services produced — and consumed — by each individual) for Britain between 1700 and 1831. Between 1700 and 1760, the average growth rate for National Product was 0.69% per year; at that rate, the economy would double in size within 100 years. In the same period, the average growth rate in National Product per Head was 0.31% per year, implying a doubling of output person within 223 years. In your view, what does this suggest about the nature of industrial productivity in the early 1700s.
Then compare the figures for 1700-1760 with those for 1801-1831, by which time the Industrial Revolution has had its initial impact. In your view, what has changed? On the basis of Christian’s article, what factors might account for this change?
3. Finally, the Industrial Revolution was possible only because of the intensive exploitation of a non-renewable source of energy i.e. coal. In your opinion, on the basis of this fact should we view the Industrial Revolution of 1750-1900 as a major threshold in human history, or as a short-term exception to the Malthusian Cycle?
————————————————————————————————————————————–
In the first chapter to his book, The Hundred-Year Lie, Randall Fitzgerald identifies 5 ‘Myths That We Cherish’ about our daily exposure to toxins and other harmful environmental risks. Of these five, which THREE do you consider most alarming, and why?
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
This piece is taken from Kunstler’s book, The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-Made Landscape, and as such forms part of a larger argument. That said, this chapter can profitably be read as a stand-alone critique of the post-1945 emergence of a car-based suburban model of city life.
With that in mind, please attempt brief responses to the following questions . They are taken from the guideline to critical reviews that I gave you, which means that if you answer each separate question you will, by the end, have constructed a brief but to-the-point critical review of Kunstler’s chapter.
1. In ONE sentence, summarize what you understand Kunstler’s thesis (i.e. main argument) is in this chapter. Please use you own words rather than copy Kunstler’s.
2. Identify TWO examples or illustrations that Kunstler uses to support his argument that you found particularly persuasive, saying why.
3. Identify ONE example or illustration that you felt to be weak or unconvincing.
4. Overall, what did you find to be (a) a strength and (b) a weakness of this chapter?
Part one: Read carefully David Christian’s article on the Industrial Revolution of c. 1750-1900 and how it marked another threshold in human history. Then answer the following questions:
1. Look at Table 13.1 on p. 407, giving details of industrial output between 1750 and 1980. In your opinion, what was the most significant or outstanding development or change in the century between 1800 and 1900? Then, what do you think was the most outstanding change that occurred between 1900 and 1980?
2. Then, look at Table 13.3 on p. 412, which gives changes in National Product (i.e. the value of all goods and services produced) and in National Product per Head (i.e. the average value of goods and services produced — and consumed — by each individual) for Britain between 1700 and 1831. Between 1700 and 1760, the average growth rate for National Product was 0.69% per year; at that rate, the economy would double in size within 100 years. In the same period, the average growth rate in National Product per Head was 0.31% per year, implying a doubling of output person within 223 years. In your view, what does this suggest about the nature of industrial productivity in the early 1700s.
Then compare the figures for 1700-1760 with those for 1801-1831, by which time the Industrial Revolution has had its initial impact. In your view, what has changed? On the basis of Christian’s article, what factors might account for this change?
3. Finally, the Industrial Revolution was possible only because of the intensive exploitation of a non-renewable source of energy i.e. coal. In your opinion, on the basis of this fact should we view the Industrial Revolution of 1750-1900 as a major threshold in human history, or as a short-term exception to the Malthusian Cycle?
————————————————————————————————————————————–
Part two: In the first chapter to his book, The Hundred-Year Lie, Randall Fitzgerald identifies 5 ‘Myths That We Cherish’ about our daily exposure to toxins and other harmful environmental risks. Of these five, which
THREE do you consider most alarming, and why?
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Part three: This piece is taken from Kunstler’s book, The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-Made Landscape, and as such forms part of a larger argument. That said, this chapter can profitably be read as a stand-alone critique of the post-1945 emergence of a car-based suburban model of city life.
With that in mind, please attempt brief responses to the following questions . They are taken from the guideline to critical reviews that I gave you, which means that if you answer each separate question you will, by the end, have constructed a brief but to-the-point critical review of Kunstler’s chapter.
1. In ONE sentence, summarize what you understand Kunstler’s thesis (i.e. main argument) is in this chapter. Please use you own words rather than copy Kunstler’s.
2. Identify TWO examples or illustrations that Kunstler uses to support his argument that you found particularly persuasive, saying why.
3. Identify ONE example or illustration that you felt to be weak or unconvincing.
4. Overall, what did you find to be (a) a strength and (b) a weakness of this chapter?
Part one :
First example to answer part one: 1. Look at Table 13.1 on p. 407, giving details of industrial output between 1750 and 1980. In your opinion, what was the most significant or outstanding development or change in the century between 1800 and 1900? Then, what do you think was the most outstanding change that occurred between 1900 and 1980? The most outstanding development or change between 1800 and 1900 is the agrarian sector being transformed as a profit making displaced subsistence as the primary goal of agriculture production. Wide spread innovation during this century raised agricultural productivity. Though the actual technology changes were not as startling as those in the industry, their impact was much greater. Agricultural productivity rose as rapidly and technological advancements, sometime more rapidly. In the early eighteenth century 37 percent of national income came from agriculture. The most outstanding change that occurred during 1900 and 1980 is the impact of science on innovation and the spread of the industrial revolution out of England and to Western Europe and North America. The nineteen hundreds also was the first time you would see large differences in wealth across the world.
2. In your view, what does this suggest about the nature of industrial productivity in the early 1700s. Then compare the figures for 1700-1760 with those for 1801-1831, by which time the Industrial Revolution has had its initial impact. In your view, what has changed? On the basis of Christian’s article, what factors might account for this change? The industrial productivity was low in the early years of the 1700s. Most of the population was living in rural towns. Until the 1720’s England’s population growth was steady due to harvest failures and disease such as influenza and smallpox. The main changes that occurred in the early 1800’s when the Industrial Revolution had its initial impact were three interlinked aspects including economic, political and cultural. Christian’s article focussed on England whose social structures already conformed closely to the model of a capitalist society to a rapidly growing class of wage earners. Productivity first came in agriculture followed industrial breakthroughs due to the invention of steam power in large factories. Growing wealth and the need to manage market economies, and the protection of wealth brought on new challenges for governments.
3. Finally, the Industrial Revolution was possible only because of the intensive exploitation of a non-renewable source of energy i.e. coal. In your opinion, on the basis of this fact should we view the Industrial Revolution of 1750-1900 as a major threshold in human history, or as a short-term exception to the Malthusian Cycle (as we’ve discussed it in class)? The Industrial Revolution was possible only because intensive exploitation of a non-renewable source of energy i.e. coal. This lead to a large increase in agricultural productivity which allowed more people to be fed by fewer farmers. This proved as an exception to the Malthusian Cycle but only on a short-term basis. Eventually the intensive exploitation of non-renewable resources will have to be replaced with new technologies when our supply runs out. With a rapidly growing population there may not be enough food to feed everyone.
:Second example to answer part one
1. Look at Table 13.1 on p. 407, giving details of industrial output between 1750 and 1980. In your opinion, what was the most significant or outstanding development or change in the century between 1800 and 1900? Then, what do you think was the most outstanding change that occurred between 1900 and 1980?
The changing balance of industrial power revolutionized the balance of military and political power. By 1800, European powers controlled some 35% of the earth’s land area. Between 1800 and 1900, the industrial potential of UK and USA increased by almost a 100%. Between 1900 and 1980 the industrial potential of the entire world increased 20 folds. USA was the leading country in terms of industrial potential, followed by Russia and Japan.
2. Then, look at Table 13.3 on p. 412, which gives changes in National Product (i.e. the value of all goods and services produced) and in National Product per Head (i.e. the average value of goods and services produced — and consumed — by each individual) for Britain between 1700 and 1831. Between 1700 and 1760, the average growth rate for National Product was 0.69% per year; at that rate, the economy would double in size within 100 years. In the same period, the average growth rate in National Product per Head was 0.31% per year, implying a doubling of output person within 223 years. In your view, what does this suggest about the nature of industrial productivity in the early 1700s. Then compare the figures for 1700-1760 with those for 1801-1831, by which time the Industrial Revolution has had its initial impact. In your view, what has changed? On the basis of Christian’s article, what factors might account for this change?
In the early 1700s, the economic growth was very slow as the growth rate of National Product was 0.68% and would take 100 years to double the economy. The world had not experienced an industrial revolution like in the early 1800s. Between 1800 and 1831, the National Product growth rate was at 1.97% and would take only 36 years to double the economy at that rate. Between 1700-1760 and 1801-1831 the time to double Britain’s economy had decreased by more than 50%.
The industrial revolution had played a vital role in increasing the growth rate. According to David Christian, the factors that might have accounted for this change could have been: the Economy, Politics and the Cultural environment. Even the agrarian sector and the new methods of production have played an important part.
3. Finally, the Industrial Revolution was possible only because of the intensive exploitation of a non-renewable source of energy i.e. coal. In your opinion, on the basis of this fact should we view the Industrial Revolution of 1750-1900 as a major threshold in human history or as a short-term exception to the Malthusian Cycle (as we’ve discussed it in class)? Good luck!
The industrial revolution is definitely NOT a short-term exception to the Malthusian Cycle. Humans at that point of time never knew the concept of renewable or non-renewable energy. If the exploitation of coal would not have taken place, mankind would have not experienced the industrial revolution and none of today’s inventions and innovations would have existed. “Industrial Revolution” is just a terminology that was used to describe a period wherein a significant change took place. The first IR gave rise to the second RI (Technological Revolution) in the late 1900s. So, in a way the first IR which is said to be a short-term fix gradually evolved into creating sustainable options. Industrial revolution and the exploitation of coal may have been the best option to control the fast growing population but in was not an exception.
Part two
First example to answer part two
TOXICITY IS SOMEONE ELSES PROBLEM
The data found in five major blood and urine testing surveys found that every resident living in industrialized nations now carries within his or her body an average of seven hundred synthetic chemicals from our food water and air. The actual number of chemicals in our bodies is probably even higher than that because some are embedded deep in organs and tissue and can’t be found in testing. In 2001 scientists at the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed 2,400 people searching for specifically 148 toxic compounds in blood and urine. Every single persons test results showed dozens of these toxins contained in their bodies. Children were discovered to be carrying larger doses of toxins then adults. Environment ministers from thirteen European Union countries had their blood tested at a health conference in 2004 and every individual was horrified to discover they all had been contaminated by synthetic chemicals from pesticides, plastics and fragrances.
The results of these tests are alarming to me but the more alarming part of this section is the American Chemistry Council, representing the US chemical manufacturing industry, response to these surveys. The council issues a press release stating “the mere detection of a chemical does not necessarily indicate a risk to health”. The council did not consider the results of these surveys to be a concern! It shows that when humans don’t like the evidence it is shown we classify things as normal. So now it is considered to be normal and not a cause for concern that we are carrying inside of us dozens of toxic synthetic chemicals that have never been found in humans before the twentieth century.
THE GOVERNEMNT KNOWS WHAT IS SAFE
There is a generally accepted figure of how many synthetic toxic chemicals have been unleashed on this planet. One hundred thousand chemicals are found in humans bodies worldwide and more than one thousand new chemicals enter the marketplace each year. The United States Environmental Protection Agency keeps a list of approximately 85 thousand chemicals in a registry and only a small fraction of these have ever been tested individually on their impact on the health of human beings. The most alarming portion of this section to me was that when it comes to chemicals added to cosmetic and personal care products that I purchase and use every day, the FDA knows as much about their safety as I do. Under FDA regulations neither cosmetic products nor the ingredients in these products are reviewed or approved by the FDA before they are sold to consumers! On average every consumer uses 9 personal care products a day containing 126 separate ingredients, and at least one third of those ingredients are harmful to humans and can cause cancer or other serious health problems.
THERE IS TRUTH IN LABELING
From a manufacturers point of perspective the trade secrets help to protect patented products ingredients from competitors. But the truth is any sophisticated and wealthy enough competitors can conduct research through reverse engineering in their labs and figure out the ingredients in almost every product offered in the marketplace. So the effects of trade secrets fall the hardest on the consumers who are denied the opportunity to completely asses the chemical risks and safety issues concerning the products they are purchasing. Even if all ingredients are listed on the products they are purchasing how are they supposed to tell what is potentially harmful to them. The only “truth” about labeling is that there is widespread secrecy and that as alarming to me as a consumer suffering the most from this.
Second example to answer part two
THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHAT IS SAFE
With over one hundred thousand synthetic chemicals currently being used throughout the world, and over one thousand new chemicals entering the marketplace every year, it has become impossible for each substance to be regulated, controlled, and approved by the government. Without the necessary resources to conduct government-funded, widespread safety testing, the research and development of synthetic chemicals are often left to the manufacturers. Over the past three decades, chemical companies have provided the EPA with health data for a mere 15% of the thousands of synthetic chemical released to the public. With limited information on a chemical’s associated health and environmental risks, it is difficult to determine the overall impact a substance may have on humans, animals, and our planet. In addition, it is estimated at least one-third of these substances have been identified as causing cancer or other serious health issues, sometimes resulting in death.
THERE IS TRUTH IN LABELLING
Unfortunately, the ingredients displayed on substance labels are not always exactly what they appear to be. Often times, manufacturers will use trade secrecy laws, to protect ingredients from imitation from other competitors. However, trade secrets also limit the information available to the consumer. In 2004 in Washington D.C., more than half contained toxic chemicals were not listed, or “hidden”, from the general public. In addition, GMO foods are not labeled either, providing no additive ingredients for consumers. Lack of knowledge of the foods and substances humans use is extremely dangerous, as the causal effects cannot be determined until use.
THE POISON IS IN THE DOSE
Although humans are often told, “ the right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy,” the premise does not hold true when it comes to designer chemicals taking up residence in the human body. Though it is true certain foods and vitamins can be healthy for humans, when consumed in appropriate doses, it is evident that new designer chemicals and substances are deemed unsafe at any dose level. These substances break down very slowly in the body, and can sometimes become biologically active at very low levels. Harmful short and long-term effects to the human body may become evident with chemicals in the human body, even with a relatively low dose of consumption.
Part three
First example to answer part three
1. In ONE sentence, summarize what you understand Kunstler’s thesis (i.e. main argument) is in this chapter. Please use you own words rather than copy Kunstler’s.
In almost all communities that have been designed since 1950, it is impossible to go about one’s ordinary business without a car therefore the automobile suburb is a terrible pattern for human ecology.
2. Identify TWO examples or illustrations that Kunstler uses to support his argument that you found particularly persuasive, saying why. Kunstler supports his argument first by displaying how children have the highest disadvantage for living in the suburbs. Children more or less are stuck in a sort of one dimensional world and if they venture outside of that world it could be harmful. The streets can be unsafe to those who are not in cars because the detailing of the streets is so abysmal. The traffic engineers who designed the roads do so with only the motorists in mind and not the pedestrians like children, who will be walking along the streets. The second argument I found that was very persuasive but also that I could relate to is the amount of driving necessary to exist in this system and how costly it is. The time squandered by commuters could be time spent with families or doing other things we want to do. Anyone who commutes and hour each way a day spends seven weeks of the year sitting in his or her car! Commuting is costly not only to our pocket books but to the environment. The costs of all the driving in a system like this in terms of pollution including such things as lung cancer and global warming is un-calculable.
3. Identify ONE example or illustration that you felt to be weak or unconvincing.
One example that Kunstler gives in this chapter I found to be unconvincing. He states that now American Supermarkets are not designed for people to linger and there is no seating available. I can think of many supermarkets that are designed for customers to actually spend more time in the store such as Fortinos, Costco, Wal-Mart and the Superstore. All these places provide customers with lunch options and places they can sit and eat after they shop. The chapter says that people will hang around isles in supermarkets waiting for some human interaction or people to talk to because they are so secluded in the suburbs. As a consumer when I am out grocery shopping I’d rather not run into or talk to people, and I don’t feel like living in the suburbs makes you feel like you have no human interaction.
4. Overall, what did you find to be (a) a strength and (b) a weakness of this chapter?
Strength of this chapter I found was there were lots of real life situations that Kunstler used to support his theory. As a reader I related to a lot of the arguments he brought forth. A weakness would be that he didn’t use any kind of studies or hard facts to prove his arguments.
Second example to answer part three
1. In ONE sentence, summarize what you understand Kunstler’s thesis (i.e. main argument) is in this chapter. Please use you own words rather than copy Kunstler’s.
Kunstler’s main argument in this chapter is that the way that suburbs and city infrastructure have developed since 1945 promotes a strictly automobile based culture where those that cannot afford, or simply cannot have a car (such as children) are living in an unsafe environment where traveling as a pedestrian is not safe and inconvenient.
2. Identify TWO examples or illustrations that Kunstler uses to support his argument that you found particularly persuasive, saying why.
One of the things Kunstler writes is that “a suburbanite could stand on her front lawn for three hours on a weekday afternoon and never have a chance for conversation”. I had never considered this before, but given than I live on a dead end in a suburb this really hit home for me. There is virtually no traffic coming through the suburb because it doesn’t lead anywhere that anyone needs to be.
Another thing that strikes me as something I had never considered but seems to be true is that as a society we are often given the illusion of a public sector when really we are just being allowed to use private space. Malls, for instance, are places that I, before reading this chapter, considered a public space. I had never realized that really there was no right of assembly or free speech in a mall because consumers are just occupying a space someone else owns.
3. Identify ONE example or illustration that you felt to be weak or unconvincing.
One of the things I found unconvincing about Kunstler’s argument was that suburban streets often lack sidewalks. I have found that suburban areas more often than not do have sidewalks and where they mostly lack them are on regional and industrial roads that most pedestrians would not be traveling anyway.
4. Overall, what did you find to be (a) a strength and (b) a weakness of this chapter?
A great strength of this chapter is how it illustrates the class division between those who have access to a vehicle and those who do not. Those of us fortunate enough to be able to have access to a vehicle on a daily basis definitely take for granted our ability to get to one place or another as we please.
A weakness of the chapter is that the point seems overemphasized. To say that there are no sidewalks in suburbs, and that there are no public spaces where one can go and just be there is an exaggeration. Kunstler definitely used these kinds of illustrations to hammer home his point, but given that I know differently the claims fell short of capturing my attention.
