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?
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 <cien...@silvert.org>
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
--
Larry Baker, Ph.D.
Water Resources Center
173 McNeal Hall
1985 Buford Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55108
Phone: 763-370-1796
Skype: water.think
Web page: http://wrc.umn.edu/aboutwrc/staff/baker/index.html
Coming soon (edited book): The Water Environment of Cities, see
http://www.springer.com/environment/environmental+-management/book/978-0-387-84890-7
