Urban Metabolism and Perception of Nature in Cities
The nature and the city. The city in the nature as a natural world, co-existing and intermingling with the standard truth of establishing a natural bias of the built environment. How nature is defined within the context of urbanity is relevant to how cities are formed and how humans interact with the spaces of their city. This paper seeks to delve into the relationships between humans and their urban environment and how these residents define nature. The classification of the environment and the perception of that characterization varies amongst individuals and their geographic location relative to a city. How does the political of ecology of urbanity (urban metabolism) affect how large city residents perceive nature, in terms of how integrated or separated they believe themselves to be?
Using a framework of urban political ecology, this paper will utilize the lens of the ‘urban metabolism’ as defined by Robbins’ Critical Introductions to Geography: Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction (2004). Robbins describes the urban metabolism by at first defining the divide between urban and non-urban spaces, and how the dialectical differences between the two create separate and distinct spaces. The singular idea of a countryside or rural area existing is dependent on the fact that urbanization is its opposite (Robbins, 2004). The formation of a city is dependent on the activities that it supports and surrounds itself with, commodities and labor. These networks form a central node, a distinct organismal-like flow of goods and services, much like a bodies’ organs and veins (Robbins, 2004). Living things flow through this urban infrastructure, and in this system they are, metaphorically, metabolized.
Values -Idealism v Individualism
Enhance your experience James Ferraro – Human Story 3
The environmentalist and the non-environmentalist.
An environmental issue that clogs opinions and value systems is the fundamental perception and stereotype of the environmentalist (liberal, whole-grain, green, friendly, and utterly useless) and the non-environmentalist (religious, fiscally-savvy, conservative, wasteful). These two sides of the coin exist in perceived polar opposite realms, stuck battling out over issues turning grey into black and white. Pros and cons exist naturally in human opinions, but this range is essential to understanding the future of environmentalism in terms of how perceptions lead to changes in environmental laws and projects. The core of the philosophy of environmentalism lies in how those support and reject it, forming values on the core attributes of each party. The following observations are general and do not reflect either side fully, as stereotypes put molds on the fluidity of opinion and personhoods.
The environmentalist is seen as, “extremists, the all or nothings… selectively informed,” and “if it doesn’t fit in their worldview, it doesn’t need to be known about.” (globaloyster, 2014). Staunch idealists keen to preserve their planet; environmentalists are inflexible with values that are sacred. This high moral integrity, whether warranted or not, creates a value system that frequently places the natural world above humans. If conservation of the earth is the key goal, than a conservative value system reflects that goal (rightwaytobegreen, 2011). Although environmentalists are tied to liberalism, and the two are often synonymous, planet conservation ideals have become liberal.
regarding a night listening
Nympho am I
No inlaw to taint those wondering thoughts
Coveted and in love at first cool
Cis male contemplation, feminine retaliation
Ai, ye doth worship at the alter of savant ease, blowjob worship
Catalyze my thoughts
Absolve my porn
Idolize my sin
We are no longer
goawaysun 