Which side of Geography (Human or physical) do you consider to be more interesting?

When I had taken a geography class in Framingham State College I was soooooo bloody disappointed the professor babbled on and on about what basically seemed to me a silly overwrought sociology class. Full disclosure: I really hate sociology classes. Utterly useless and this comes from a person with a history degree.

I rather learn about the physical geography so I can get the context of most international news stories especially the way over there stories so I don't need to Google the city's whereabouts and their neighboring countries.

I think I understand that the physical geography goes beyond longitude and latitude and into ... natural resources as well?

I like them both when they come together: why and how, geographically, people live where they do (or leave it).

How does "human geography" differ from anthropology?

Yeah, physical Geography is all about landforms and stuff like that. Much better than human.

Modern Cities enthrall me. Why they are where they are? Why they succeed? Modern cities to me are more interesting than older ones. Older ones require water and water transportation, so abundent water is a major requirement. So older cities are centered about rivers and oceans. And sometimes, when transport systems develop the city booms.

Newer cities do not depend upon local water sources, so modern cities like Columbus, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Denver, etcetera are possible---but these cities are so new, and built upon train transport that there are newer, second order effects (such as water supply and treatment) that need to be attended.

Older cities have followed this motto--I have read that ancient cities may have been abandoned when the sewerage disposal reached a tipping point, mixed with the drinking water, fostered a fungus and the city died of a plague. But this hasn't been seen in modern times--

Disagreeing a little bit about Kansas City:

correction the Missouri is the only one on a navigable river, but Kansas City is not a port city like St Louis or Cincinnati. The others can never be river port cities, Indianapolis is on the White, Columbus on the Scioto, Denver on the Platte

No need to argue about all of this, was just asking a question.