Larry wrote: > Joe: > No, this isn't proper use of the word "parasite". A parasite is a > relationship between two species, not between ecosystems. Moreover, if > you classify a system as "parasitic" because it obtains external > resources, are you prepared to call estuaries, bee hives, and termite > mounds parasites?
That's why I called it an analogy. It's useful for the point it makes, not its literal accuracy. The Odums were trying to model the way the human economy fits into the global ecosystem. If you have a better model for human urban systems, feel free to propose it, but few have made as valiant attempts as those two guys. As for estuaries, etc., it's worth thinking about, but not germane to the present point. But, come to think of it, I think that "parasite" implies a purposeful "taking" of resources from another life form that loses out in the interaction. So estuaries, as passive receivers, wouldn't fit the bill, and bee hives are acting mutualistically with plant populations. I'm sure we can parse this down to meaningless trivia, but one can always do that with analogies. Joe > > Joseph gathman wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > >> From: William Silvert > <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Overpopulation, was: Economic Growth > >> > >> I would define the global economy in terms of both > >> parisitism and symbiosis. > >> Colonialism is clearly parasitic, but when we pay > a fair > >> price for imports > >> the relationship is symbiotic. The relationships > between > >> urban dwellers and > >> their providers is symbiotic. To speak of virulent > >> parasitism is misleading. > >> > >> One interesting characteristic of human societies > is that > >> they can generate > >> value without contributing resources. Our purchase > of oil > >> from Saudi Arabia > >> is an exchange of money for a physical resource, > but our > >> payments to call > >> centres in the Phillipines or financial centres in > Hong > >> Kong are exchanges > >> of money for human-generated value. This is not > common > >> among other > >> organisms, but it occurs.For example, the birds > that eat > >> ticks off the hides > >> of pachyderms are in a sense parasites, but they > provide a > >> welcome service. > >> > >> I think that this is an interesting discussion and > should > >> continue (I assume > >> that human ecology is a suitable topic for this > list), but > >> perhaps it is > >> time to stop trying to fit human societies into > strict > >> categories and time > >> to focus on what is actually going on. We can all > agree > >> that without food > >> imports there would not be enough food in the > Darfur region > >> to feed all the > >> people, so why waste time arguing whether the > region is > >> "overpopulated"? Ms. > >> Weis' second paragraph is quite correct, so > why > >> can't we address that > >> without calling people "parasites"? > >> > >> Bill Silvert
