But is this idea not true for almost everything in life? If someone wins, someone must lose, right? Is this system poorly designed because some people lose? The alternative would be nobody wins, would that be preferable?

So by quoting this, what is the author trying to say? Should we stop the pursuit of knowledge after instituting these 'limits'?

I believe this is incorrect. Arts are nothing but limitless sequences of work with nothing but things to be looked for

Can we as a society be "free" without restraints then?

This thought process has guided America's economic choices from the beginning. There's always more: money, oil, freedom, opportunity...etc. But was it to occur when we are forced to realize that this way of thinking can only be temporary, and at some point time will catch up with innovation.

It is true that greed drives the economy, especially when it comes the the vast supply and immense demand for oil. However, as time goes on greed will push people to innovate new fuels that can replace oil. Isn't it contradictory for the author to make the claim that greed leads to no limits? For if that were the case, alternative solutions are inevitable.

But why are we talking about this? Like why does it matter?

If their live isn't worth it, then do you prefer to go back to the law of the jungle where there's only one chance?

My contention with the contents of this paragraph lies in the fact that science is but an extension of art, sharing similar characteristics with it. I would argue anyway that Newton's work is just as nuanced, integral, and unique as Monet's or Dante's. Science began as metaphysics--"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space"--(Google). I believe scientists and artists to be explorers. The ways in which they explore are similar; however, their headings are different.

How would we even be able to present a limitless economy and what kind of an ending effect would it had on us?

The author talks about our "abused cropland" which opens up a lot of problems with un-regulated farming and deforestation in different places. And if we don't regulate farm land we can farm the land to the point where it has no nutrients and if we just keep moving to the next plot of land, eventually we are going to end up like the movie interstellar where the money is in crops instead of the progression of the technology.

Having studied the issue of Global Warming in detail under the direction of two other professors here, I find this claim Berry makes to be utterly flattering. It suggests that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (less than 5% of total CO2 surface emissions) rival those that can be attributed to natural processes. Do you believe Berry to be employing a "truthful hyperbole"--as Trump would say--here to illustrate the danger of our "limitless" view of the Earth; or do you believe Berry himself to be caught up in a view of human limitlessness (in other words, do you believe he thinks the impact humans have on this planet to be limitless)?

so throughout this article it talks about how we are going to run out of oil. and then what are we going to do after that? But if you notice this has happened before. (whale oil) and even different sources of water, we just move to the next source until that source replenishes. whats to say that when oil runs out we have another resource that we use for everything. (hydrogen/ uranium)

What limits can we create to ensure we are still able to exist as human beings or to exist at all?

If we are knowledgeable of what we need to do to sustain our resources, then why are we living as if we have an infinite amount?

How is monetary not a stats about wealth of land, but instead about wastes and depletes?

Why is hell everywhere for those who reject heaven?

I think we don't have to remove any emphasis on the science and technology because those are still very important aspects to know about, but maybe just adding more emphasis to the arts while intertwining the three of them together.

Why does our society have an assumed limitlessness when we are capable of doing things thought not possible?

Will looking away from science and technology and going to focus on the arts really help with limitless? If you look at a broad spectrum of things are technology and art really limitless? Is anything limitless?

Were limits learned by time and society or did we always have them instilled in us? ( ex: attention span of an audience)

It might be hard but is it impossible?

Why are we noticing now that life and especially the time we've come at, has inescapable limits? We should've already realized that everything has a limit just like our own lives do.

Restated argument

Will it take a grassroots movement to fix the issue?

Answer to the problem

The only people that can make a change haven't ever experienced what its like to not be able to succeed educationally.

The media isn't giving the needed attention to the private sector, only furthering the negative effects.

Does race also have to do with educational success???

Wealth gap furthering in the U.S.

Students are working harder (EFFECT) and going into greater amounts of debt (EFFECT)

Using statistics to defend argument that wealth determines educational success.

This paragraph shows how those without higher education are worse off than those with that education. It tries to make the point that it isn't fair to those people for some to have the opportunity to succeed and some not.

Calcify: harden by deposition of or conversion into calcium carbonate or some other insoluble calcium compounds. ---College has become very "hard" or difficult

Baby-boomer generation

Arguement: College has become more for students raised in middle and upper class families rather than normal Americans seeking better lives.

DISCUSSION QUESTION 1: In what way(s) is this a Causal Analysis argument (i.e. a cause/effect argument)? Explain your answer.

DISCUSSION QUESTION 2: Do you agree that college (cause) is responsible for creating a new class divide (effect)? Explain.