On page 186, Harvey says that there is nothing _unnatural_ about New York City. If this is the case, then nothing is unnatural. The term becomes meaningless. Mexico City is not unnatural. Brasilia is not unnatural, etc. The problem is that by definition all cities are _out of balance_. The reason for this should be obvious. They were created as an instrument for the accumulation of capital. Engels study of Manchester in "Conditions of the Working Class in England" is a worth considering, since it was the prototype for all modern European cities. How did it become populated? What would prompt a formerly self-provisioning farmer to take a job making shoes that required him to be in a factory for 11 hours a day? A Scottish farmer could produce a decent pair of shoes at home in 1/2 hour in the 18th century. And for most of the 18th century, it took wage-earners 2 days of work to go out and buy a pair. The modern capitalist city is a product of duress. Farmers literally had a gun put to their head to make them leave their land. Now that the cities have been built, wage earners can buy goods with wages that it took less time to earn than if they produced the goods themselves. But the other set of problems have not been eliminated and can't be eliminated. The only way to feed the urban working-class in the present system is through industrial farming. Such farming methods are hazardous to our health. A recent book "Living Downstream" ties the epidemic of cancer to the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers on large farms. The food we eat is either larded with deadly bacteria or lacks nutritional value. The raw sewage we dump into the water supplies is taxing the limits of the system. If all this is supposed to be "natural", then god help us.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)