There are two approaches to understanding nature, and neither debates the inclusion of humans or cities in the definition of nature. There is the all-welcoming approach: nature is everything<\/i>, and there is the nihilist approach: nature is nothing<\/i>. Personally, I don\u2019t believe the second approach because if nature is nothing, then nothing would be everything. An example of the interconnectedness between all elements on this earth, or nature, is sunsets which environmentalist William Cronon presents on page 73 of Nature\u2019s Metropolis.<\/i> \u201c\u2019Fancy the rail gone, and we have neither telegraph, nor schoolhouse, nor anything of all this but the sunset.\u2019\u201d But is a sunset any more or less natural depending on the \u201ctelegraph\u201d or \u201cschoolhouse\u201d? I argue no. The sun slips over the earth\u2019s edge leaving us, in our place on earth, behind. This phenomenon occurs everyday regardless of what tree grows or what electricity pumps through the wires. Does this sunset vary for the people of Los Angeles? The anthropogenic pollution may augment the light refraction, and make the sunset more beautiful, but it is impossible to separate these factors and produce the same result.<\/p>\n
It is based off this concept that William Jackson Turner, in \u201cThe Significance of the Frontier in American History\u201d, and later, William Cronon, categorize cities as part of nature. Chicago was able to develop because of ecological advantages that allowed humans to survive (glaciers in carved out lakes and deposited fertile fine-grained soil which supported grains and grasses which then attracted herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores). As Eli points out in \u201cChicago: the power of space<\/a>\u201d, the natural benefits boosters publicized did not seem to be so beneficial after all, as the city had to spend thousands of dollars dredging sand from the \u201cnatural harbor\u201d. In this manner, nature can be both an attraction and a deterrent. Chicago is unique because it was about to thrive (not just develop) because of the transcontinental railroad. Contrary to Marston\u2019s post<\/a>, I believe Cronon attributes the rise of Chicago greatly to the transcontinental railroad (see Nature\u2019s Metropolis<\/i>: \u201cRails and Water\u201d), while still acknowledging the environmental foundations that even allowed people to settle in this region. Without the railroad, the city would have had to continue to fight for its purpose, however there is a reason the railroad was established in Chicago and not in Minneapolis or Green Bay.<\/p>\n As a concluding point, when I think of the most \u201cnatural\u201d place on Davidson College campus, I think of the Davidson College Ecological Preserve: 200 acres of \u201cuntouched\u201d land. I think most students would agree. However, would most students be surprised to learn that these 200 acres are actually a second-growth forest, meaning that it is not the original<\/i> land that was there 500 years before European explorers reached the new world? This ecological preserve also served as farmland, and potentially a golf course, before the school acquired it and allowed the native forest to re-emerge.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There are two approaches to understanding nature, and neither debates the inclusion of humans or cities in the definition of nature. There is the all-welcoming approach: nature is everything, and there is the nihilist approach: nature is nothing. Personally, I don\u2019t believe the second approach because if nature is nothing, then nothing would be everything. … <\/p>\n