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
