@@l.a.4904 pretty sure your knowledge of geography of a country that is not your own would also be off by a similar margin, if not more. Why is everyone expected to know everything about American geography? Lol
+Operacion Libertad Venezuela The market does not decide what is a "good" urban environment; the market decides what people like in the short term. Markets can ignore all kinds of things that make an environment quantifiably "good", and far more necessary than the shiny baubles that the free market serves up. There are all kinds of things that have proven resistant to market valuation. For instance, the US had to pass major regulation to correct the market's failure to provide clean air and water; two things that I think we can all agree qualify as "good" by any measure...except the free market, apparently. I live for the day when this cult of the free market finally crumbles to the ground under the weight of its own patent absurdity.
@@veronicaspeedwell7530 The hilarious but sad reality is that their so called free market is not even close to being free and yet still causes ridiculous levels of damage. If the market were truly free, we would all be dead.
Sorry, I'm just not buying it. There are some good points here, but New York is not a natural environment, and that has nothing to do with political position. The city requires massive inputs of human resources to maintain its configuration: natural environments don't. That is essentially the difference, and waving it away by calling human activity "natural" is pointless tautology.
Well, that's why countries have their own governments. I mean, in a place like Greece there should and could be an ecological related government..But in more industrial places, you are right, it doesn't seem like it would be right. Although nature should always be a priority, in my opinion.
You clearly have no understanding of nature. Nothing escapes nature. Ecology doesn’t just stop at the boarders of a city and say “Well, looks there’s no nature here, I best get the hell out”. Furthermore, human activity doesn’t stop at the boarders of the city. People get most of their resources from outside the cities in order to maintain the luxuries of the city. Furthermore, yet again, nature does need huge amounts of resources to function, hence why the non-sustainable use of resources by humans have direct and negative effects on the standard functions of nature. Political ecology is for people just like you. People who live in a fantasy world and have no comprehension how much their lifestyle have negatively affected nature.
beautiful!!!
Interesting, studie Political Ecology.
Hoover dam is not 100's of miles away. Hoover damn is about 30 miles away from Las Vegas.
oddball6996 not really relevant to her argument, is it?
@@jls8 Well it’s relevant solely because they have literally nothing else productive to say.
It matters if she can't get simple facts right!
@@l.a.4904 pretty sure your knowledge of geography of a country that is not your own would also be off by a similar margin, if not more. Why is everyone expected to know everything about American geography? Lol
Who decides what constitutes a good urban environment?, you ask. The market decides. People and businesses "vote with their wallets".
+Operacion Libertad Venezuela The market does not decide what is a "good" urban environment; the market decides what people like in the short term. Markets can ignore all kinds of things that make an environment quantifiably "good", and far more necessary than the shiny baubles that the free market serves up.
There are all kinds of things that have proven resistant to market valuation. For instance, the US had to pass major regulation to correct the market's failure to provide clean air and water; two things that I think we can all agree qualify as "good" by any measure...except the free market, apparently.
I live for the day when this cult of the free market finally crumbles to the ground under the weight of its own patent absurdity.
@@veronicaspeedwell7530 The hilarious but sad reality is that their so called free market is not even close to being free and yet still causes ridiculous levels of damage. If the market were truly free, we would all be dead.
Sorry, I'm just not buying it.
There are some good points here, but New York is not a natural environment, and that has nothing to do with political position. The city requires massive inputs of human resources to maintain its configuration: natural environments don't. That is essentially the difference, and waving it away by calling human activity "natural" is pointless tautology.
Well, that's why countries have their own governments. I mean, in a place like Greece there should and could be an ecological related government..But in more industrial places, you are right, it doesn't seem like it would be right. Although nature should always be a priority, in my opinion.
You clearly have no understanding of nature. Nothing escapes nature. Ecology doesn’t just stop at the boarders of a city and say “Well, looks there’s no nature here, I best get the hell out”. Furthermore, human activity doesn’t stop at the boarders of the city. People get most of their resources from outside the cities in order to maintain the luxuries of the city. Furthermore, yet again, nature does need huge amounts of resources to function, hence why the non-sustainable use of resources by humans have direct and negative effects on the standard functions of nature.
Political ecology is for people just like you. People who live in a fantasy world and have no comprehension how much their lifestyle have negatively affected nature.