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
William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis Chicago and The Great West he introduces an interesting set of theories referred to as “booster theories.” These ideas comment on the fact that Chicago would become a great city because of its natural resources, thereby making it the center of trade for the region, its extensive natural routes of transportation, and finally, the global climatic forces that mysteriously made great cities (36). The existence of these theories and the way they are framed by Cronon illustrates an interesting argument for cities being a part of nature. Through these theories, it seems as though it was pre-destined for a city to inhabit these regions, alluding to an idea that God or some other force(s) crafted the region for this specific purpose. It all falls back to the question of if cities are a part of nature, just another “natural” development, or if they are something alien? Through Cronon’s descriptions of these theories, further elaborating on the perfect natural setting for a city, it seems as though he casts his hand with those who perceive cities as the next evolution of a natural ecosystem.
Cronon makes an interesting statement in his description of the rise of Chicago, one which frames the city as something almost organic. In relation to the countryside around the city, Cronon states that it would be “tributary” to give Chicago its new empire (43). I found it a little odd to describe the city in such a way, but when positioning this statement with Cronon’s previous ideas on the city as the next ecological evolution, it makes sense. If the city is part of nature, then it is in fact a “living” piece of the ecosystem, one which requires the resources to continue its existence. From this perspective, the vast country side that surrounds this great metropolis seems only logical as the “food” to help this city grow. Though many would disagree with this interpretation of a city, it is not too far off from our common conceptions of nature, where we often cast the neutral force as evil or against human existence.
I think by looking at Henry’s post on Cronon’s definition of nature, we gain a more concrete understanding of why he frames Chicago as something part of nature. After reading through Henry’s comments, I completely agree with his assessment of Cronon’s perception of natural as “something that seems to be in its normal place” (Henry). So many perceive nature to be something void of human contact and interference, yet there is probably no location on Earth that has not been inhabited by humans at some point in time. Though a city is a massive technological feat, with numerous components encompassing its complex, it can still just be viewed as the next step along ecological evolution, just like the human creation of the boat. If the land around Chicago made it a viable location for the construction of a city, who is to say that this is wrong or against nature? By using nature’s resources for various purposes, could it not be said that humans are simply doing as other animals doing in providing sustenance and shelter for their existence? Though I am sure these questions will lead to numerous amounts of critiques, it is something to think about when articulating a moral argument against human “alteration” of nature.