The *whole point* of NATURE'S METROPOLIS is that Chicago is *not* an ecosystem. Rather, there is a regional economy/ecology embracing Chicago *and* the prairies and forests to the west and north. I can't imagine how anyone could read this book and fail to see that, in Cronon's view, the rise of Chicago is simultaneously the deforestation of Michigan and Wisconsin, the slaughter of the buffalo, and the plowing under of the prairie. Incidentally, one way to read CHANGES IN THE LAND is as an analysis of the ecological dimension of private vs collective appropriation. And his edited volume UNCOMMON GROUND is quite germaine to the discussion of nature and its idealization: the way nature is granted the status of a mythical other, to the detriment of "real nature" and the real human beings who depend on it. Peter Louis Proyect wrote: > > > Now you can call cities Chicago "ecosystems" just as long as it is > understood that we are committing suicide as a species while the > contradiction between city and countryside is maintained. The problem is > that these issues are not addressed by Cronon and Harvey, which I find > astonishing for people who claim to have read Marx. > > Louis Proyect > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
