3
   

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

 
 
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 07:54 pm
I am doing a Geography degree, in Physical Geography. So I just wanted other people views on which side of Geography they prefer and why.
Thanks
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,735 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 08:08 pm
@MatthewB7621,
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?
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 08:13 pm
I like them both when they come together: why and how, geographically, people live where they do (or leave it).
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 11:18 pm
@MatthewB7621,
How does "human geography" differ from anthropology?
0 Replies
 
MatthewB7621
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2010 07:20 am
@tsarstepan,
Yeah, physical Geography is all about landforms and stuff like that. Much better than human.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2010 07:58 am
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--
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2010 08:02 am
@raprap,
Disagreeing a little bit about Kansas City:

Quote:
Kansas City was founded in 1838 as the "Town of Kansas" at the confluence of the Missouri and Kansas rivers
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2010 08:49 am
@Francis,
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
MatthewB7621
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2010 07:04 am
@raprap,
No need to argue about all of this, was just asking a question.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Where am I - Travel Game II. - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
Palestinian People are Fake - Discussion by Advocate
Do you know the countries of Europe? - Question by pandybear
Test your Mid-East/North Africa geography - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Is Turkey in Europe or in Asia? - Discussion by Proteinn
Most Secure Place - Question by DannyMac3030
Desert Pavement Distribution - Question by jstn
most navigated river - Question by Jasmin Leclerc
Elevation change - Question by UltimateAloha
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Which side of Geography (Human or physical) do you consider to be more interesting?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/08/2024 at 06:17:20