Density in the Animal Kingdom

The queen is more likely thought of as a reproductive organ, and the colony as a single organism. That’s the idea behind the “superorganism” – a colony that evolves as a unit instead of as individuals (that is, the “selection” occurs on a colonial level rather than an individual one – since most members don’t reproduce, traits are not passed on in the same way). It’s really a fascinating subject (though I’m not sure that it has much relevance to urbanism)…I recommend reading the book The Superorganism for more. (Or, just the first couple of chapters…the rest is a bit over-technical for the casual reader.)

Dan M. wrote:

. . . if we scaled different animal communities to equate to the densities of different types of human communities, which animals would be considered city dwellers, suburbanites, or country folk? What could we learn from that?

Benjamin writes:

Although this doesn’t address your specific question, you may be interested to know that Jane Jacobs does something that’s somewhat similar in “the Nature of Economies.” If I remember correctly, Jacobs doesn’t discuss the density of various species so much, but instead disucusses the density and diversity and complexity of various eco-systems instead (e.g., the Amazon rain forest vs. the Sahara Desert, etc.) and how these things impact, among other things, the eco-system’s utilization of outside energy. The rain forest, for instance, captures a great deal of the outside resources that it gets (e.g., from rain and sun) and again and again recycles what it gets; while the desert loses a great deal of the outside resources that it gets (it just evaporates or bounces back into the atmosphere) and recycles much, much less of what it does capture.

In other books (?) — perhaps in “Systems of Survival”? — Jacobs also discusses how various species interact with their habitats in ways that have enhanced their survival (because it has enhanced the survival of the habitat also).

I just checked the editorial reviews of “the Nature of Economies” on Amazon.com and they seem pretty accurate and fair. So for more quick info on this book you may want to take a look at them. (I didn’t get a chance to check the editorial reviews on Amazon for “Systems of Survival.”)

Four additional thoughts:

– – – – – – – – – –

1) Although this maybe somewhat obvious, I should mention that Jacobs sees a dense, diverse and complex Amazon jungle-type eco-system as being like great cities and a Sahara Desert type ecosystem as being like a relatively economically sterile company town, mining village or Maine resort community.

– – – – – – – – – –

2) Here are some interesting quotes from the first chapter of “The Nature of Economies.” (The books is written as a Socratic dialogue — although it reminds me more of a novella. So the statements that I’m quoting are those of characters that Jacobs made up, who are, at various times, stand-ins for Jacobs. The page numbers refer to the March 2001 Vintage paperback edition.):

A) ” . . . Thinking about development has made me realize how similar economies and ecosystems are. That’s to say, principles at work in the two are identical. I don’t expect you to believe this just because I say so, but I’m convinced that universal natural principles limit what we can do economically and how we can do it. Trying to evade overriding principles of devlopment is economically futile. But those principles are solid foundations for economies. . . .” (Hiram speaking on page 8.)

B) “If we stop focusing on THINGS,” said Hiram, “and shift attention to the processes that generate the things, distinctions between nature and economy blur . . . .” (This is on page 9.)

C) “To repeat, I’m convinced that economic life is ruled by processes and principles we didn’t invent and can’t transcend, whether we like that or not, and that the more we learn of these processes and the better we respect them, the better our economies will get along.”

“That sounds pretty pessimistic,” said Armbruster [the host of the get together]. “Here we are, already loaded up with government regulations. And now you want to compile still more lists of economic rules and regulations decreed by nature?”

“Limits are part of it,” replied Hiram. “Awareness of them can prevent futility. Alchemists did better after they gave up trying to turn base metals into gold and to discover a universal solvent and instead applied themselves to studying chemistry. But here’s what intersts me most: Natural principles of chemistry, mechanics, and biology are not merely limits. They’re invitations to work along with them.

“I think it’s the same with economics. Working along with natural principles of development, expansion, sustainability, and correction, people can create economies that are more reliably prosperous than those we have now and that are also more harmonious with the rest of nature.” (Pages 11-12.)

D) [Armbruster said] “. . . before we move on to anythibng else,” [Armbruster] said, “I’d like to mention a few subjects that I consider economic fundamentals. You haven’t said one word about money. But economics is first and foremost about money. What does nature say about money?

“Nature says money is a feedback-carrying medium,” Hiram replied. “Money is useful to economic self-regulation in the process we’ve come to call negative-feedback control. But the usefulness of money is far from enough to explain how econmies work.” (Page 12.)

– – – – – – – – – –

3) The discussion about how various species interact with their habitats to prevent habitat destruction that I was thinking about is in Chapter 6, “the Double Nature of Fitness for Survial” in “The Nature of Economies,” not in “Systems of Survival.”

[Kate says,] “I’ve been thinking about fitness for survival in ecosystems . . . . Fitness as determined by natural selection means that an organism is successful in competing to feed and breed. It also means that the organism must have traits which prevent it from destroying its own habitat, because an indispensable requirement for the organism is an arena in which to feed, breed, and compete.” (Page 119.)

And then she goes on to discuss the great cats, elephants, Bonobos, Chimpanzees, otters, and racoons as examples.

– – – – – – – – –

4) I think “The Nature of Economies” is a great book to read BEFORE reading her two earlier books that are explicitly about economics (i.e.,”The Economy of Cites” and “Cities and the Wealth of Nations”). But if one reads the others first, one should definitely in my opinion read “The Nature of Economies” before re-reading either of the two books for a second time. I think “The Nature of Economies” explains the big picture that puts the other two books into perspectives. It seems to me that Jacobs finally found a way to better explain what she was getting at all along (even if she didn’t realize it all along).

By the way, in “the Nature of Economies,” Jacobs uses eco-systems to explain and expand upon an interesting assertion that I think she may have made earlier in “The Economy of Cities.” In the earlier book (I think), she makes the point that economic multiplier ratios are not always the same in all localities. In some localities a dollar spent will be re-spent say, something like three times, while in other localities a dollar spent will be re-spent, say five times. She asserts that multiplier ratios are likely to be highest in dense, diverse communities and lowest in low-density mono-cultures.

Similarly, in eco-systems, “inputs” like water and energy are most likely to be re-used and re-used many, many times in rain forest type eco-systems (which are similar to great cities) and least likely to be re-used in desert type eco-systems (which are similar to company towns and small resort towns, etc.).

(See, Chapter 3, “the Nature of Expansion,” in “The Nature of Economies.”)

From Chapter Two, “The Nature of Development,” of “The Nature of Economies,” another relevant quote:

1) “Economic development isn’t a matter of imitating nature. Rather, economic development is a matter of using the same universal principles that the rest of nature uses. The alternative isn’t to develop some other way; some other way doesn’t exist . . . . Economic development is a version of natural development.” (Spoken by Hiram on page 31.)

In the same chapter there’s another great quote, but I’ll post in the Obama / Jacobs thread as it seems more relevant there.