We will be collecting comments under this post for Lectures 3 + 4.
Lectures:
In our last lectures we explored how the 'seed' of the city, basic dwelling, habitation, and habituation to an environment over a long term more permanent lifestyle could lead to the amalgamation of its inhabitants, the beginnings and importance of a more permanent culture, and the start of a built environment.
This week we will be expanding our view as early civilizations tried to make sense of and apply a systemic approach not only to what they saw in the sky above them, but also to organizing their own inhabitation on the ground.
On the left, a map of Ptolemaic Celestial understanding of the heavens, on the right, and early 'T and O' style map of the western world
Notes on Comments:
Like last week once you have posted your comments for the lecture, tune back in to discuss and comment on your fellow classmate's work - this is how we improve out writing! Continue commenting on the discussion, ask additional questions, email links etc.
Additional comments, questions, and discussion go towards class participation which is another component of your grade. Last week we had some great examples of this when people started asking, and responding to questions from each other.
To get this ball rolling, here's some enticement for discussion + thought:
In a world that is now global, has the significance of the city and its importance to a specific country changed...or are we totally dependent on each other for our future- economically and politically ?
All Comments are due by Monday 9 pm EST
Be sure to sign your posts!!!
Helpful Note:
Please identify in your post if you are:
Lectures:
In our last lectures we explored how the 'seed' of the city, basic dwelling, habitation, and habituation to an environment over a long term more permanent lifestyle could lead to the amalgamation of its inhabitants, the beginnings and importance of a more permanent culture, and the start of a built environment.
This week we will be expanding our view as early civilizations tried to make sense of and apply a systemic approach not only to what they saw in the sky above them, but also to organizing their own inhabitation on the ground.
On the left, a map of Ptolemaic Celestial understanding of the heavens, on the right, and early 'T and O' style map of the western world
Notes on Comments:
Like last week once you have posted your comments for the lecture, tune back in to discuss and comment on your fellow classmate's work - this is how we improve out writing! Continue commenting on the discussion, ask additional questions, email links etc.
Additional comments, questions, and discussion go towards class participation which is another component of your grade. Last week we had some great examples of this when people started asking, and responding to questions from each other.
To get this ball rolling, here's some enticement for discussion + thought:
In a world that is now global, has the significance of the city and its importance to a specific country changed...or are we totally dependent on each other for our future- economically and politically ?
All Comments are due by Monday 9 pm EST
Be sure to sign your posts!!!
Helpful Note:
Please identify in your post if you are:
- Responding to Lecture 3
- Responding to Lecture 4
- Responding to the blog question (in italics above)
- Responding to a fellow student's comments (be sure to identify the person you are responding or asking a question of)
12 comments:
In this post, I am responding to ideas presented in lecture 3. The ideas of Aristotle may have changed in theory, obviously we know that the universe is not finite and that man is not the center of it, but our actions and practices have really not changed much. We still act as though nature is ours to conquer. This has been referred to as the dominion theory in some fields and that theory affects how we deal with nature, the direct space around us, and these actions have severe consequences. Even after Galileo and his contribution to understanding that the universe did not actually revolve around us, we still wanted to go to the moon and even used it as a way of getting political and ideologically support during the Cold war.
In lecture 2 we discussed agriculture, and the revolutionary effects that cultivation and agriculture had on civilization. When thinking about this with the dominion theory and lecture 3 in mind, we can see our practices as humans haven't changed despite the scientific advancements warning us against anthropocentrism. Agribusiness has replaced agriculture in our global environment and civilization today. The consequences of this is significant, as we developed this new relationship with nature, and almost exploit the miracle of cultivation with economic and political incentives, such as purposely producing monocultures and using pesticides and incesticides we don't know too much about yet.
-Sarah W.
Responding to the blog question,
I would agree that we were totally dependent on each other for our future-economically and politically.
Here an example was why I think we were dependent on each other. In 2008, when Lehman Brother bankrupt, it influenced the whole world’s economy system. Not only in North America, but also in many Asian countries and European countries. This was because we lived in a globalized world. Multinational companies were everywhere, and one country’s economic loss could affect the whole world. However, North Korea did not influence by the economic crisis because of their policy and economy. When the economic crisis happened, they would immediately illuminate the consequence to the lowest level because they did not change too much through the globalization based on their policies.
In my opinion, a city’s develop was highly connected with globalization. Globalization could help development of rural area, but it could also destroy a country’s environment. In recent years, many countries were suffering from air pollution. For example, Japan suffered from acid rain which was caused by their power plant. In a city’s development, economic was always in the priority position. Globalization also brought many changes for the architect structure. Two decades ago, the traditional buildings in Beijing was “Siheyuan”. However, Beijing built a lot of modern buildings in recent years and the architect structure became more western style.
I’m responding to lecture four.
Lecture four highlights how cities formed along major travels routes where there were always many people from different places bring foreign goods and ideas to mix with the local population. These new ideas could help drive forward the city’s existence. This lecture made me think of Philadelphia. In the grand scheme of city development, Philadelphia is a relatively new city compared to those that started during the time of Mesopotamia and the fertile crescent. Already learned techniques could be applied to the city however, still relevant. Philadelphia became a major transportation route or hub, if you will, because of its location, goods and people could move easily between cities in the east. People from the other parts of the world could flow into the city bringing fresh ideas that developed technologies that could bring populations of cities seemingly closer together because distance could be traveled faster and faster. The literate could travel place to place and mingle with other literate people and build on ideas, they were no longer just confined to their home city. The technological advances that allowed people to travel greater distances in shorter spans of time allowed people to realize that their city wasn’t the center of the universe.
To touch on the blog question…
I think the “destruction of distance” is a major player, not only in the development of the city today, but the globalized world. Our society today is one giant organism, mainly operating out of the organ that is the city. The organ is connected by major highways, trains, planes, and ships and if an organ fails the rest of the global organism is hindered in some way.
Alec T.
I', responding to Jingting F.
I really like your example for globalization and the failure of the Lehman Brothers. Government, business, and natural disasters all can change and effect us on a global scale. Hurricanes can strike an area where there are oil refineries and this can spikes fuel prices on a grand scale. Elections of politicians heavily influence the directions of our civilizations because countries write foreign policy and this affects everyone on a global scale. The day after Brexit, stock markets opened and saw one of the worst days in years. They plummeted and the pound lost value. It's incredible how countries across oceans effect our economy.
In response to the blog question:
I do believe we are totally dependent on each other for our future both economically and politically. The term used form this is "Global Interdependence" which means mutual dependence at an international level. Countries depend on each other for certain commodities. The import and export of various goods and services greatly contribute to it. For the most part I don't believe it's a bad thing. It allows for other countries to flourish econimically instead of just one. It would be detrimental to the global economy if a large nation such as the United States (which is considered a "core nation") was independently producing all its own products and good. This would have the countries that are dependent on exporting good to the US have an economic recession. The only way I see the dependence as bad thing is when countries such as the United States outsource labor to China since it is cheaper, which leads to poor working conditions for laborers. Unfortunate that in how goods in the United States are able to be priced reasonable. A quick example of political dependence is the United Nations. The nations participating in the UN rely upon each other to maintain international peace and security and to promote cooperation in solving international economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems. Also to promote respect for human rights and freedom. I believe this dependence is a positive one and is an example of why dependence is good!
-Sean G
In response to Jingting F.
I do agree with your points on how countries would suffer economically if multi-international companies were to fall funny enough a company that would have an extremely large impact on the economy if they fell would be McDonalds. McDonald's restaurants are found in 118 countries and territories around the world and serve 68 million customers each day. McDonald's operates 36,525 restaurants worldwide, employing more than 420,000 people. Each year McDonald’s brings in about 30 billion dollars a year in revenue. Just think what would happen if McDonalds were to fall? To put that into prospective JP Morgan which is a huge multi-international banking and financial services company generated about 24 billion in revenue last year. It’s crazy to think that fast food is can be so large that it would have a large impact on the economy if it fell; and a huge impact on almost half a million people being that they would lose their jobs that they depend on. This shows that from fast food to banking the economy is dependent on these multi-international companies and just how globalized our world is.
-Sean Gallagher
Response to lecture 3 and 4 and blog question.
How the unIverse was perceived years ago was nothing compared to how it was perceived as we began globally to grow. Science has completed leaps and bounds and will continue to investigate and amaze humans of the many wonders the universe still has to uncover. The amount of research and technology still yet to be uncovered can only be imagined. Aristotle saw the universe as he interpreted in to be, he spoke of what he believed within himself, his instincts rather than science. That was most important to him.
Lecture #4
The early cities were only the beginning of what the future would unfold. Land was fertile for crops and production - with soon the realization of metals, gems and artifacts. Population was average but land began to urbanize and reinvent itself. The old world was changing into the new world , the wonders of food surplus and modernization was beginning to take shape in all aspects. Many areas of the globe would mimic each other begin to soar and advance with technology and agriculture.
Blog question- As a nation we can sustain ourselves but we utilize other parts of the globe economically and politically. Are we dependant? Possibly for some feats- with trade and importing/ exporting, we all depend on each other to prosper and for growth. Politically we depend on each other, our allies for support and to serve as a united front. If we absolutely needed to we could go it along. We could if we needed to but we don't need to. There are strength in numbers and helping each other means a win for everyone. I don't believe we could accomplish as much as we have without being dependant on other countries and vice versa. We are a super power because we know that banding together just makes us even stronger present and future.
Thanks
Ryan G.
in response to Sean G
Agree 100% , I didn't about the Unired Nations and you are correct- that alone explains why being dependant as a country is positive.
Responding to lecture 4, I believe that all of the modern cities in the world were profoundly impacted in many ways that can all be traced back to the findings of Galileo. Once Galileo had observed stars in the universe, and ultimately proved that the earth was not the center of the galaxy, people began to change their way of thinking about their place on earth and ultimately cities began to see the impacts of this new change in the way people thought. For starters, the development of the centralized national state in my opinion could have had the most impact on cities in the past because it created land boundaries and owners of these new formed national states. Within these states existed various different cultures all across the world, which ultimately had extreme impacts on the life of people in cities and the culture and design of such cities. Next, the transformation of the economy into a rational capital-using basis most definitely helped make the cities of today what they are because this change created a more stable, practical economy. This new economy and way of buying and selling goods with currency would have completely redefined the way these new nations would have traded between each other, and the cities would have reflected economic success or failure. Finally, the technological destruction of distance is perhaps the change that had the most profound impact on the evolution of the city. For example, a city of the past would have most likely had to have a very strong infrastructure and means of getting messages to other cities via horse, wagon etc. However, since the invention of the telegraph and ultimately, the telephone and internet, cities now no longer have to wait weeks on end to hear responses to pressing matters. Thanks to lightning fast communication and technology, cities today can now rely less on slower means of communication and can focus more on infrastructure that supports quicker means of communication such as high rise buildings, technology centers, and banks.
Thanks
Charles I.
Lactures3&4
Different people position themselves differently within a space. For instance, in a classroom, some student would prefer seating in the front seats while some student would rather sit in the back. Although every student in a class sits in a different spot, they all share the classroom. Similar to a classroom, cities are made in such a way that people from all areas should live and share.
Also, a city is made of strangers. Think about the amount of people you know in Philadelphia. Now think about how many people live in Philadelphia. The numbers are extremely different far from each other. Cities are made of and for strangers. The fact that we live among strangers and are surrounded by them makes us feel small. In the past, people believed that they are the center of the world, that there is only one plant, one sun and one moon. With knowledge, came a change. This change began when people started realizing that there are more planets and they might not be the highest intellectual creatures in the universe. They started realizing that looking at themselves as the center of the universe might have been a fault. As a result, people’s approach towards spaces has changed. Cities were built in a way that they are meant to serve people from all areas of the city. For example, one city has three neighborhoods, neighborhood “A”, neighborhood “B”, and neighborhood “C”. In neighborhood “A”, there sits the best bars. Neighborhood “B” has the best coffee shops. Neighborhood “C” has the best gyms. In this situation, people from neighborhoods “A”&”C” who want to go to the best coffee shops would have to travel to neighborhood “B”. People from neighborhood “B”&”A” would go to neighborhood “C” to watch a movie in the best theater. In this situation, the city described above does not have a defined center, but many small “center”s.
Technology is undoubtedly the most major factor to changes in the world. Technology is taking a wide part of every aspect of life. Communication and mobility are the keys to a modern society. Cities have changed with the development of technology. With the development of the cars, the phone and the Internet came to a change in the design of cities. Using these three inventions we almost eliminate the factor that distance used to take.
Thank you all!
Levy B
Responding to the blog question, the significance of cities has changed over the years - without a doubt. Globalization has externalized many of the previously internal processes of the city. Additionally, new technologies have allowed for easier transportation between places and limitless communication. Compared with the ancient cities of Mesoamerica or the Fertile Crescent, it may seem like cities have become less useful.
However, in many cases, cities are growing. Cities remain as cultural centers where innovate works are produced. While smaller cities remain important to the countries they are in, global cities have become much more significant. In the United States, New York has become a global powerhouse - in many cases, a gateway to the rest of the world. While New York's significance to the United States cannot be understated, it has become extremely significant to the entire world. In essence, the role of cities has shifted from production at every level to a role largely based on skilled labor and cultural influence.
Alex F.
In response to Jingling F. and Alex T,
I also thought of this relationship, and in your discussion there are great examples. Brexit is a great example, as it shows the very real relationship between politics and the economy. Britian left an alliance, but this had economic consequences that were felt even past the European Union. Globalization has affected every facet of our lives, for better or for worse, and that is something that needs to be considered when discussing civilizations and development.
Sarah W.
Post a Comment