Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
1) In his analysis of Chicago, Cronon suggests that cities are the next step in the ecological evolution. Considering this idea, can cities truly be considered a from of nature or are they inherently different from the wild? Thinking about how we have defined the wild and nature in previous classes, can a city like Chicago truly be considered part of nature?
2) Cronon suggests that Chicago was destined to be the next great American city from its inception. What economic and natural elements made it such a successful city? Were certain features more important than others in the success of the city?
3) The term “environmental impact” is loaded with negative connotations today. Looking at the construction of Chicago and the success of the city, can there be such a thing as positive environmental impact? If we use nature to give opportunity to thousands of people, can we call that a positive impact?
4) Cronon has a broad conception and definition of nature. He even goes so far as to say that railroads are inherently natural. Drawing on our previous discussions of the definition of nature and the wild, do you buy this argument? Or are certain areas of Chicago more natural than others
5) Cronon claims that it is “deeply problematic” to assume that city and country are completely separate worlds. Why would he think that this would be such a problem? What are the problems in assuming this difference?