Ian Murray: >Ecosystems have no essence; boundaries and material flows are observer >defined constructs. Cities are ecosystems. There is a whole "new" field >called industrial ecology that all Marxian thinkers would do well to look >at, I'm sure Marx would have... Using the term 'ecosystem' in this fashion is consistent with Harvey and Cronon's approach. Again, it does not address the fundamental contradiction addressed by Marx in the 19th century and which has only deepened. The creation of cities like NYC, LA and Chicago has created huge contradictions in the natural balance. Industrial farming with its chemical fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides is creating a major health crisis, including the following: 1) cancer epidemics (see "Living Downstream" by Sandra Steingraber) 2) death of marine life due to phosphate runoff from midwest farms into the Mississippi 3) unhealthy food due to conditions necessary for industrial farming (mad cow, ecoli bacteria, etc.) 4) pollution of rivers and lakes by poultry and pork agribusinesses 5) exhaustion of soil, and crop susceptibility to disease 6) extinction of animal and plantlife because of unsustainable farming practices 7) desertification because of both the way soil is used and diversion of rivers for wasteful irrigation 8) etc. 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)
