From this rigid point of view almost no human communities are
self-sustaining. The city-dwellers do not grow their own food and the
farmers do not build their own tractors.
I think that this line of reasoning is absurd. There is definitely a benefit
to the countryside in selling food to cities, they make money. I don't know
why this is not an "ecological" interaction, but so long as the exchange is
fair, the urbanites pay for their food and the farmers use the money to buy
tractors, this is a symbiotic relationship. The idea that someone who lives
in the city provides no benefit to the farmers who grow his food is simply
wrong.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "joseph gathman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Overpopulation, was: Economic Growth
Bill, the term "parasite" is used here in its proper biological/ecological
meaning: an organism that "obtains" some of its resources from others,
without benefitting the hosts. It is not used as a pejorative in this
context (from a biological point of view, I regard parasites with some awe
and fascination), and it is not meant to reflect human economic
interactions. It simply means that cities aren't self-sustaining; they
require the surrounding countryside to supply their resources and to
absorb their waste. And there is no apparent ecological benefit to the
countryside in this interaction.
I guess it basically means that cities have a large ecological footprint,
if you find the use of the term "parasite" offensive. I'll stick to
"parasite", though, as I find it an appropriate, if imperfect, analogy.
Joe
