Last week, I sent a message trying to persuade you to consider the environmental-social interaction. Frankly, I don't consider the responses [by Al Bartlett and Janis Jaquith] compelling. There is no way simply socially (aka "rights" vs the "common good"), or ethically (aka "equity"), or even economically (aka "growth is a good", to limit growth (aka "shut the door"). But when folks can see how and what they are losing, environmentally speaking, and what IT WILL COST, then I think you've got an argument. Actually, John Hermsmeier makes this argument as well (as I read him).

I would simply reply that there are many places I cannot live: Greenwich, Conn., Malibu, Cal., Aspen, Co., Short Hills, N.J., New Canaan, Conn., etc. etc. Only a limited number of people can afford to live in these places, and that is the reason such localities remain beautiful and desirable. This is life. That I discovered Charlottesville earlier than others is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility to accommodate them at the risk of destroying what attracted me here in the first place.

My main reply follows what has already been stated [by Janis Jaquith]:

And, regarding the common retort: "So, now that YOU'RE here, you want to close it off to other people?" My answer to that is, "Well, who ELSE would take control of our community, but the people who live here? I live here now, so I'm partly responsible for what happens here. Who SHOULD make these decisions for Albemarle County? People in Wyoming? People in Brazil?"

I would add that where you live is where you vote; so, on the day one is eligible to vote here, one acquires the community privileges and responsibilities that come along with that vote. Thus, the original question should be put, "So, now that you vote Here, you think you have a say here??" Then, the ridiculousness of the question becomes apparent.

The analogy I like to use is that of buying stock. Suppose I was perceptive enough 20 years ago to buy Microsoft at $1 a share. Now, even after the dot.com crash, let say it's selling at $20 a share. Now you come along and say, "I want to buy some of your Microsoft shares at $1 apiece. After all, that's what you paid for them!" So I say to potential newcomers, "Sure, you can move to Albemarle County, but you're going to have to pay the going price--a price that in a rational world (fantasy?) reflects the true marginal cost of adding an additional family."

This gets us back to the old problem of externalities: how do we arrange for folks to pay the true price of a commodity?

I also have problems with people who claim "It's my right to do, have, etc. xyz." Who sez? Rights are what society decides to grant its members. Does everyone have the right to drive a car? No, you must be 16 plus demonstrate a certain competence. Does every couple have the right to have as many children as they please? Not if society decides they don't. The price for enjoying the fruits of a society is giving up certain rights.

In addition to the excellent comments you have already received [from Al and Janis] I can only add a few insignificant additional comments.

The first is by way of an analogy. If I board a canoe already occupied by two others I have now filled that canoe to its functional and safe capacity. The fact that there are other folks who come along after me who also want to get in that canoe does not enlarge the capacity of the canoe, nor make it safer to be in. Rather than endanger all of the occupants by overcrowding the canoe it would seem perfectly reasonable to ask that the later arrivals find (or build) another canoe.

Now, as with all arguments of this type, we need to recognize that at some level the issue of total human population load will come up. As long as new people are arriving who want that canoe ride we will have to keep on building canoes and fighting over those already in service. Only when the numbers of people who want a ride balance with the passenger capacity of the existing canoe fleet will we be able to satisfy everyone.

Likewise, a community should have the right to determine its collective future. A small rural town may not aspire to become Chicago. It may actually value its current quality of life and level of taxation and governmental service provision. Surely such a community should have the ability to place a ceiling on its population in order to maintain its "desired quality of life". Why must that community forego the desire of its current residents simply because developers and other vocal outsiders cry that "you must take your share of growth" or "you are racist or exclusionary". By all means let's ensure that every community that wishes to level off its population indicate a firm commitment to affordable housing so that people from all walks of life can live there. By all means let us work towards greater diversity in terms of race, belief system, economic status and other measures of diversity. But we should never confuse development and diversity with growth in population or consumption.

This is a great exercise Jack. I look forward to reading other results as they come in.

When I hear this question asked a mental image flashes in my mind-

Picture this: A Political Cartoon - there is a life raft with a sinking ship in the background. In the life raft are all kinds of people from all walks of life. The water is up to the gunwales. There are other people still in the water. There is a look of horror on the faces of people in the boat because they know that if they let anyone else in they will all go down together. Should they or shouldn't they?

As the daughter of an immigrant, I cannot overcome my deep repugnance at the thought of "locking the gate" on anyone at any level. This is probably my most difficult issue; de facto we "lock the gate" by enacting tough ordinances in the designated growth areas, by downzoning, by supporting easements, and by vigorously protecting rural areas. To be able to look myself in the mirror, I prefer to see these as proactive measures that sustain what exists, not reactive measures that exclude what may be. This might be drawing too fine a distinction, but it steers away from the we/they mentality and is the only way I can justify growth management strategies that impede the "pursuit of happiness".

Look: future residents don't vote here. Policies that exist now reflect what elected officials understand as their mandate. If current residents have a problem with current policies, then it will be the will of the people to throw the bums out and change the mandate. Growth policies are really all about who lives and votes here now.

Most human activities have a point of moral reversal, before which they may cause great benefit and little harm, but after which they may cause so much harm as to overwhelm their benefits.

When the population in any environment is small and natural resources plentiful, every additional person increases the welfare of all. As more and more people are added, they need increasingly to exploit the finite resources of the environment. At a certain point, the members of an increasing population become so crowded that they stop benefiting each other; by damaging the environment that supports everyone, by limiting the space available to each person, and by increasing the amount of waste and pollution, their activity begins to cause harm. That is, population growth changes from good to bad. And if the population continues to expand, its material demands may so severely damage the environment as to cause a tragedy of the commons -- the collapse of both environment and society.

... many activities are right -- morally justified -- when only a limited number of people do them. The same activities become wrong -- immoral -- when populations increase, and more and more resources are exploited...

...As populations increase and environments deteriorate, the moral laws that humans have relied on for so long can no longer solve the most pressing problems of the modern world. Human rights are an inadequate and inappropriate basis on which to distribute scarce resources, and we must propose and debate new ethical principles.

One approach to countering the "locking the gate" criticism might be to point out that those in favor of limiting growth in Albemarle County are NOT suggesting that a person's right to move freely should be inhibited. As No-Growth proponents we are also "Right to Move Freely" proponents. Limiting growth is not at all the same as preventing migration or denying people choices of places to live. For example, restricting the number of new homes that may be built in an area does not prevent people from buying homes of their choice, provided they have the means. Having the means has always been the fundamental criterion of choosing and acquiring a home....except where segregation based upon race or religion was employed.

Logically, and as a practical matter, housing cost in no-growth areas will increase because of such a policy; and, this will exclude or prevent some people from moving into Albemarle County. However, that's no different than the situation today. If I wish to live on Central Park West in Manhattan, but can't afford it, can I reasonably argue New Yorkers have "pulled up the drawbridge behind them" by not building more, or by tolerating the high cost of property?? Not at all! I simply lack the means to acquire my preference.

No-growth must not be equated with No-Choices, or No-Freedom-of-Movement. We are in favor of choices, in favor of free movement, and like Mr. Jefferson........in favor of the pursuit of happiness.

The follow-up argument might be that in areas of No-Growth the cost of housing may escalate, but the burden of taxation ought not to increase owing to the pressures to add more infrastructure. The advantageous outcome would likely be increased equity for homeowners without increased costs.

At the risk of both stating the obvious and being destructive rather than constructive, I must stress the importance of a simple response to the "shut the gate" argument. Although it might be possible to construct a 200-word retort that aptly defeats all aspects of the argument, WVIR won't afford ASAP that sort of coverage. What is necessary is an extremely brief response, one that needs not even necessarily respond to the charges. Heck, I'd be happy with a standard ad hominem attack, frankly. Just as long as it's quick and shuts down whoever is making the argument. That said, it's certainly essential to have a better argument (such as my mother's, though boiled down a bit) for rational discussion outside of the media. I just think that, given a trade-off between brevity and intelligence, there's a lot to be said for opting for the former.

What a dialogue you've started. The question now is what to do with these powerful thoughts. Maybe we could ask all who responded to your challenge to read what others wrote and then polish/modify/etc. their original contributions. Then they could be bound and distributed to Supervisors, the media, state delegates and senators, Chamber of Commerce, and others. What might be especially useful, is a prologue of, say, "10 myths about growth" in which we list actual public statements made by various officials, developers, etc. Then we could refute each with FACTS--FACTS from reliable sources that are easily accessible. (Here's one myth that always sticks in my craw: builders who claim that there will be no low-cost housing if growth is limited. Question: how many builders--local or national--have you seen who actually build low-cost housing? What I see springing up in Albemarle County and NoVa are houses that start at $300,000. This is low cost?)

By moving here seven years ago, when I retired, I actually decreased the local population by one person and one car, and reduced the potential for one or more additions to our future school population. I did this simply by displacing the former occupants of my house, a young married couple who were moving (along with their two cars and reproductive potential) to northern Virginia. My income originates outside the state, but most of it is spent here, with a significant portion of it having gone into property improvements carried out by local businesses.

Do I, by reason of my own behavior and using the same line of argument employed in the "gate-closing" argument, have a "right" to maintain that it's "only fair" to require a similar beneficial impact from other newcomers?

I read the Elliott-Lamm article. It says some good and true things, but I think you are overly optimistic about it being THE framework for ASAP's moral position.

The authors are (I think as JS Mill said once - but I can't find where he said it).. "right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny". They are surely right to affirm population and pollution control and "shutting the door" in some dire and hopeless situations. They are right to affirm that following the sole moral imperative of universal human rights as a positive duty is impossible. In ethics, we are not obligated to do the impossible.. what cannot be done.

On the other hand, they are wrong in denying that there are several other moral perspectives and ethical systems to choose to be guided by... and not just one alternative to human rights theory, i.e., the ecological ethics that Garrett Hardin espoused. They have set out a bipolar moral choice.. .. universal human rights theory has failed and is killing the planet.. and lifeboat theory will save us from ecological disaster. Nothing is this simple, my good friend. Reformers need a much larger toolkit of ethics.

I could say a lot more, but my message is don't jump overboard. Beware of manifestos and of following anyone who says that he or she has found the "new" ethics that will deliver us from the perils of the "old" ethics. Do new occasions teach new duties? Of course. Should we be willing to cast aside old moral ways (i.e., rugged individualism, fundamentalism, etc.) that cause more harm than good? Of course. But remember that the USA is the world's most culturally and religiously pluralistic nation. Seizing on one moral perspective to the exclusion of many others won't work here. What works is to choose tasks (or problems to resolve) that bring out the best elements of the several moral traditions that guide the different minds that will make up ASAP. The truly pragmatic way is to unite people around problem-solving and not ethical theories. As the work proceeds, we will find ourselves experimenting with old principles in new ways and choosing not to forsake the principles when it is comfortable to do so. Ethics is a never-ending conversation about the right and the good and not a battle to be won or lost.

Great article by Elliot and Lamm. You ought to send a copy to Harrison Rue at the TJ Planning District. I wish that developers and business folk could really grasp the essence of the article.

I don't think a no-growth approach shuts people out. There is a constant movement in our society and so there are numerous homes, condos, and apartments on the market at any given moment -- even in desirable areas such as ours. Our neighborhood (Colthurst) has five homes on the market now, one being built and there are still a couple of empty lots available. Every neighborhood has some degree of turnover.

On the other side is the issue of affordable housing since there are many who earn little more than minimum wage. It would be worthwhile to know the statistics in this area.

But the bottom line is still that, which was so ably expressed in the article. Resources are finite and we will eventually destroy the environment by continuing to build and use the few that are left. On a global scale, such "progress" will eventually lead to a mad scramble to get one's share, whether it be individual or nation.

A big thumbs up to the article. It is very consistent with the thinking at ASAP, and also with developing programmatic priorities at the EEC...

One of the parts of the article that particularly struck me was the fact that the ethics (traditional) disappear if there is no one left to practice them given their inadequacy in addressing the realities of today's and tomorrow's world. The idea that MORE people may actually be able to be born (AND live in a better world for humans and non-humans) under a condition of long term population stability than boom and crash is to me a compelling argument that seriously challenges the thinking behind poor population policy, and it is an idea that we talked about when I presented to the group last May.

... Then [these polished comments] could be bound and distributed to Supervisors, the media, state delegates and senators, Chamber of Commerce, and others.

What might be especially useful is a prologue of, say, "10 myths about growth" in which we list actual public statements made by various officials, developers, etc. Then we could refute each with FACTS--FACTS from reliable sources that are easily accessible. (Here's one myth that always sticks in my craw: builders who claim that there will be no low-cost housing if growth is limited. Question: how many builders--local or national--have you seen who actually build low-cost housing? What I see springing up in Albemarle County and NoVa are houses that start at $300,000. This is low cost?)

Jim Simmonds has a great idea in consolidating the remarks and sending them to key people.

The dialog has been rich. I like your idea of encouraging Janis to write another article that picks and chooses among the best of what has been written. I also like Jim Simmonds' suggestions.

At the risk of both stating the obvious and being destructive rather than constructive, I must stress the importance of a simple response to the "shut the gate" argument.

Although it might be possible to construct a 200-word retort that aptly defeats all aspects of the argument, WVIR won't afford ASAP that sort of coverage. What is necessary is an extremely brief response, one that need not even necessarily respond to the charges. Heck, I'd be happy with a standard ad hominem attack, frankly. Just as long as it's quick and shuts down whoever is making the argument...

I agree with Waldo Jaquith. In addition to developing a serious, well-reasoned essay or letter-length response to the "gate-closing" charge (one that incorporates several of the excellent arguments offered so far), a slogan that evokes a mental image of the consequences of further growth would be more effective for getting our position across to the general public. (Something along the lines of "Like growth? You'd love New Jersey!")

It seems to me that if ASAP is to turn things around, in addition to developing a rational, data-based argument for our position, aimed at those willing and able to take the time and effort to process such information, we should also give some thought to getting our message across to a larger, less-involved audience. For this purpose, techniques that have proven successful in national advertising campaigns should be considered. (Cognitive psychologists have established that most thinking is based on the use of metaphor rather than formal logic.)

Our challenge in finding a brief response to the "shut the gate" argument -- whether in a debate or on a bumper -- is to express ASAP's message simply but not simplistically. Any abbreviation of our message must, of necessity, neglect the nuances and qualifications of our argument (how, in seven words or fewer, do we condemn continued growth in Albemarle County -- but observe that we support more affordable housing, and that we know growth won't stop immediately, and note that maybe communities in Southside Virginia need to grow, and...?). There's also a risk, of course, that demagogues will seize on our simplified slogans to confirm their claims that we are elitists, or racists, or out to destroy local businesses and our free-market economy. A bumper-sticker retort is a tradeoff: in gaining compactness we lose complexity. There's a time for brevity, though, just as there's a time for the thoughtful, complex argument. When ASAP gets the funding to launch a major local advertising/public-awareness campaign, we'll need all the pithy slogans we can find. Send me your ideas to share with others.

The stated goal of ASAP is not to 'close the gate' but to open the door to a community dialogue about sustainability.

I have a thought on this idea of not being a native, etc. When I moved here from southern CA in 1987 I had the same feeling, as I watched the "unplanned, unthought about" growth happen, as I had felt when it happened in CA. I felt sorry for the VA natives who were seeing their beautiful hills and valleys filled in and destroyed--I felt very sorry for them because I had seen it happen before, I thought. And as I saw it happen I was afraid that they really did not understand---they were so used to all this beauty that they did not realize how fast it could disappear--and I did!!

When I first moved to southern CA in 1971 the valley across the highway from my house(and my house was on the golf course on a parcel known as the oldest Spanish land grant in the area---Rancho de los Penasquitos---the ranch of the little hills,) was a working ranch--complete with cowboys in chaps and battered hats, coyotes and cattle. Ten years later(and 3 years after we moved from the area) the land across was filled with adobe homes, tiled roofs and another golf course--complete with rainbird sprinklers!!!

Now when I go back the land from San Diego to Escondido is solid development and the two working ranches of my time are no longer. By the way, the two ranches had both been owned by old San Diego families, who also owned big construction companies---when the elder father died the sons sold the land for development..it was a sad day in my opinion.

But, the original owners had bought the land with the welfare of their children and grandchildren in mind...knowing San Diego would grow north and that this land would become very valuable. So, I also must acknowledge the fact of their wanting to leave their children some ability to get ahead--using the land. (I must say that the developments are very attractive and well thought out--one is part of a well known community known as Rancho Bernardo and done by the AVCO Corp.)

So, I think some of us have come from other areas where we have seen alarming development and much not done particularly well and want to "help" preserve the area---along with the natives. Maybe sometimes we are not too sensitive to the natives' feelings--as if they have not been doing a good job, or they don't care. Maybe it is that they have not had to pay so much attention to community activity before?? (Having done a lot of research lately into past history of this area the last 30 years I could tell them that the elected officials, for the most part, have not done too well in the "stewardship" dept--it is just that now that it is becoming more apparent, I believe.)

I also saw two towns in the area unwilling to acknowledge the growth, as if it were not happening, and they developed very badly---Poway and Escondido. Not wanting to deal with the problem is really a disaster in the making.

First of all, the very words used to describe the issue are unfortunate and reflect the language problem that those working for sustainable communities and healthy environments have dealt with for years. How can you compete in the connotation arena against words like “growth” and “development” when your terms include “tragedy” and “limit?” Even if your audience gets past the connotation problem and understands your point, the effects of language can still reside in the subconscious and contribute to a feeling of discomfort that diminishes enthusiasm for promoting, say, a sustainable population. In other words, dealing successfully with the language and imagery surrounding an issue can be as important as addressing the issue itself.

I am reminded of a conversation several years ago with a woman from a fundamentalist religious background who expressed interest and concern regarding the region’s environment. She found repugnant any discussion of population limits as a matter to be addressed directly, but had no problem with lower populations being the result of landscape protection through avenues such as easements. I find this instructive to the cause that is now expressed through ASAP because the physical dynamic between a population and the ecosystem within which it resides can be identical whether you control population directly or indirectly through landscape protection. The ethical outcome can also be essentially identical because the same people are occupying the same landscape under the same conditions. What is different, and critical, is the ethical process by which the outcome is achieved. It is not only important how we live, but how, and even whether, we determine how we live.

Of those making up our current regional population, some support community-scale (population, environment, etc.) planning and some do not. For those who don’t it is typically because of doubts that it will ever work (practical concern) or that it is somehow wrong (procedural concern). For those willing participants, physical plans can be made for the human/nature dynamic in a community. The physical plan one proposes is grounded in one’s worldview, which forms the basis for assigning value. Any part of nature preserved above a level required for the provision of essential services for human existence is optional for human existence (our numbers skyrocket even in the face of vast environmental destruction – to a point). Even a person whose worldview promotes ethical consideration of non-human life in a physical plan might nevertheless place human existence (as distinguished from human life quality) as a top priority when a growing population presents procedural ethical challenges to the commitment to a physical plan. For a physical plan to be implemented and maintained, it must be accompanied by an ethical plan that supports and legitimizes the continuation of non-human life at least for its contribution to a higher quality of human life, and possibly for its intrinsic value as well. The alternative is a scenario where essential services for human existence, and not plans, define our lives and our limits. Unless consensus can be reached beforehand, physical limits will ultimately require that one worldview wins and the others lose.

Which brings me back to “shutting the gate.” We are not shutting the gate on people, but trying to shut the gate on the inexorable march toward the hellish scenario above. This is a positive, hopeful message! Rather than the imagery of some people living the good life inside the gate while others suffer outside it, I propose the imagery of “opening the gate” where all of humanity is on the same side of the gate being opened to a sustainable, high quality future, and shutting the gate on the actions that will lead us to ruin. Currently, the primary issue is not shutting the gate behind us so much as facing a closed gate (to a sustainable future) in front of us. For even if you succeed in closing the gate behind you in an exclusionary sense, that does not by itself necessarily open the one in front of you.

The image of the gate is powerful, especially when it refers to “gated communities.” While in one sense we all live in gated communities to the extent zoning laws create population limits, say, in a neighborhood, a stigma is placed on those who live in communities so labeled. But why do folks choose to live there? If I lived in a safe community that had protected its landscape and provided reasonable public access to it, why would I feel the need to acquire my own (and typically inadequate) piece of the world? The very gates we erect are the product of gates our community has failed to address.

Gate imagery can be positive, even in the practical sense. I learned on my grandfather’s farm that if a gate is open, it should be left open. And if it’s closed, it should be shut behind you. On a farm, shutting the gate is an act of stewardship, as I believe it also is in a community. At the global scale, which may be the only scale at which the pursuit of a sustainable future makes complete sense over the long term, gates don’t work because people on both sides of the gate are still standing on the same planet. This is also true of gates that divide a community, but once a community defines itself as standing on the same side of the gate, it is the community, and not simply individuals, that engages in the physical and ethical exercise of closing and opening gates of all kinds.

I am attaching the summary notes of the May 2002 ASAP meeting in case anyone wants them (Summary of 5/7/02 ASAP discussion/mini-workshop on "Growth is inevitable – we can't control our demographic fate." Submitted by John Hermsmeier, presenter)

The Elliott and Lamm paper is excellent as far as it goes, i.e., a clear and compelling logic, but leaves me believing without telling me the substance of the matter. Here are some words from a classic, namely Aldo Leopold's Sand County Almanac, in my view required reading for anyone interested in ASAP's goals. He clearly makes the connection I speak of. Here are some excerpts of Leopold's work [from Marybeth Lorbiecki's A Fierce Green Fire (1996) Oxford University Press]:

"To change ideas about what land is for is to change ideas about what anything is for."

"One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on the land is quite invisible to laymen in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise."

"The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: 'what good is it?' If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of eons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."

"A thing is right only when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community, and the community includes the soil, waters, fauna, and flora, as well as people. A thing is wrong when it tends otherwise."

This last bit is the punch line, as it combines ethics with concepts derived from natural science, and upon which we humans depend for survival: e.g., environmental integrity, stability, etc. Unless we can tell where the boundaries lie, or if we cannot tell but act with precaution, ethics will always be forced into opinion. Needless to say, opinions differ. Some people actually like sterile environments!