Question

Geographer David Harvey (1993) suggests that cities are 'ecosystems' created by humans, and that humans, just like bees, beavers, or elephants, transform nature and adapt "to the ecosystems they themselves construct" . These ecosystems are dominated by buildings, sidewalks, roads, etc. We can see these 'adaptations' in technologies from basic water filtration systems to complex smart city building technologies. Harvey goes on to argue that there is "nothing unnatural about New York City"

If we turn this sentiment on its head, given the history of the human species and its settlement patterns, are cities so-called 'natural' environments for humans? Why or why not? What are some of the implications of your response?

Answer 1

The natural environment is the set of factors under which a certain species such as humans can thrive and survive. If we look at the history of humans and the manner in which they developed over a period of time, cities were the main places where human civilization grew and spread all over the earth. Even today, we can see that all the major technological breakthroughs and advancements are implemented in the cities and then these are directed to the smaller places.

Thus in a way cities provide a natural setting for humans to grow, develop, and come up with new ideas and concepts. Thus it is quite logical to state the cities as the natural environment of the human being.

The major implications are as below=

The response highlighted the importance of cities in the development of mankind so the view that cities are the ones which are running the environment may be changed

The response also highlighted that technological development is mainly resulted in big cities is supported due to the fact that all the major R&D takes place in the cities