ECO WORRIER

As a long-time subscriber to MacFormat, I’m sorry that the first letter I’ve felt obliged to write you is of a critical (and some might consider trifling) nature.

I’ve noticed the increasing use of the word ‘ecosystem’ in MF, invariably used incorrectly even as metaphor; in MF #348 it appears (on p77) referring to a tracking system, where clearly, there is nothing ‘eco’ about it.

Okay, put that one down to lazy writing/ editing – but in other cases, as in issue 344 (on p19) where the word was used to describe the interrelation of Apple’s hardware products, I must take issue. While Apple claims

that the data centres it operates to process our mobile devices’ voice recognition, Siri commands, live video filters, etc., are powered with renewable energy, this is far from true for the energy used for charging the devices daily – or indeed manufacturing them. Further, the reliance on rare earth metals and other materials (and the irresponsible methods for their extraction and eventual disposal) make the word ‘ecosystem’ in this context particularly inappropriate.

Before you dismiss this as another rant from an overreacting Extinction Rebel, please consider how this casual misuse of words can contribute to the blurring of opinions over the single most important issue our species faces, both today and in the future.

BY CHRISTOPHER QUAYLE

ROB SAYS…

While we understand your point, you’re also conflating two different things – the ‘eco’ in ‘ecosystem’ doesn’t mean ‘eco-friendly’ in the way you suggest. The Oxford Dictionary of English offers two definitions of an ‘ecosystem’: 1) “a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment”; 2) “(in general use) a complex network or interconnected system”. In both of the instances you refer to in MacFormat, we were correct to use ‘ecosystem’ in the sense of the second definition above.