An ecology can be in or out of balance, stressed or not, in crisis or in harmony. To see a city as an ecosystem or as a component in a larger ecosystem is to look at the relationships and begin to find ways to resolve crises and restore balance. What Cronon did was to show the expansion of the hinterland to which Chicago was related and to expose the interdependencies, the supply and distribution chains, to which it was linked.
Cronon's earlier book "Changes in the Land" looked at the impact of humans - both Indian and European - on the New England landscape. Indians both adapted to and modified the land, moving in a seasonal pattern between hunting, fishing and horticultural sites. They also burned the underbrush to encourage new growth for animals to forage on and to open up clearer lines of sight for hunting. Europeans cleared the forest for farming. (I think it was Carolyn Merchant who pointed out that New England is now more green than in the 19th cnetury because trees have gfrown back over abandoned farmland and suburban development interspersed trees with houses).
Ecology and economy come from the same Greek root - a word that means house. I find it helpful to think of the ecology of cities because it focuses attention on interdependencies and linkages - and the imbalances and crises in them that we need to address. It also points up that we cannot address one crisis without affecting other aspects of the system. And it reminds us that we live on this earth and we are fouling our own nest.
-----Laurie
Louis Proyect wrote:
> It is not just Harvey that we are talking about by the way. I have heard
> from reliable sources that Cronon's book "Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and
> the Great West" has set off sharp debates at CNS. Cronon, like Harvey,
> argues that Chicago is an "ecosystem", with stockyards and all. Last night
> I was reading Harvey's claim that NYC is an "ecosystem," which he said
> would startle most greens. It certainly startled me. If NYC is
> "ecological," then the term has no meaning. NYC is in an advanced state of
> ecological crisis involving waste disposal, water treatment, communicable
> diseases, automobile traffic. To call it an "ecosystem" is practically
> Orwellian. The whole meaning of ecology is to sustain a balance between
> nature and society. The whole point of Marx's discussion of agriculture in
> V.3 of Capital is that such a balance does not exist.
>
> Yes, David Harvey is one of the "good guys." His work on the spatial
> dimensions of capital are first-rate. The problem is that the red-green
> synthesis must be achieved or else socialism is a doomed project. If we can
> not address and resolve on at least a theoretical basis questions of global
> warming, etc., we are irrelevant. Harvey's answer is to say that global
> warming is practically a non-issue for Marxists. Let's work on
> environmental justice issues exclusively. If the bourgeoisie is preoccupied
> with global warming, we don't want to end up in their camp. This is a
> sectarian mistake and has to be fought.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
--
Laurie Dougherty Global Development and
Environment Institute Tufts University Medford, MA 02155
mdougher at tufts.edu ldougherty at earthlink.net