Linear growth could trash the planet

Click to Enlarge David Karan Browse Our Galleries

David Karan
March 26, 2008

Comments Print Email

My previous letter stated, "It is indisputable that economic development, population growth and sprawl will continue to eat up our agricultural land and continue to inevitably drain the finite supply if we proceed with business as usual." This statement sparked some emotional responses. The key phrase here is "if we proceed with business as usual." Some "no-growthers" say that we should stop all immigration into the United States. There are many reasons why this proposition is wrongheaded. One reason is that all "growth" is not the same. Types include: one, population increase because the birth rate exceeds the death rate; two, population increase because immigration exceeds emigration; three, economic expansion; four, biological/organic growth (qualitative change.); and five, development, i.e., construction of residences, businesses or infrastructure resulting in sprawl.

1. Consistently, more financially secure and educated new arrivals have birth rates that approach zero-population increase. The birth rate overall in the U.S. is largely flat to decreasing. Continuing education and upward mobility for immigrants zeros out.

2. a) We are all immigrants. Some have a multi-generational history. Others are the new batch. Even "native" Americans' ancestors emigrated, likely from Asia. b) Moral issues come into play. Some of my ancestors died in the Holocaust. Settlers from Europe emigrated to escape religious persecution. Political persecution, war and contemporary genocide continue. As a result immigration continues to exceed emigration.

3. Economic expansion defined as "more is always better" is as much the culprit in environmental degradation as is population growth.

4. All of the above are types of linear growth, i.e., again "more is always better." Biological "growth" is more cyclical. The size of the population of a particular species increases and then later decreases. Evolution (or de-evolution like we are experiencing now) creates increasing biodiversity but not necessarily an increase in the overall number of animals/plants or an increase in total consumption. Over time the food web becomes more elaborate instead of depleting the total amount of "food." Similarly, having lots of cultures and subcultures makes human societies richer without necessarily putting more people on the planet. This kind of development does not necessarily increase the rate of development or the rate of environmental degradation. In fact, it may slow or reverse environmental degradation. Switching from fossil fuels to truly sustainable alternatives is one example. Hold GDP and population constant and this conversion could reduce the increasing rate of species extinction and slow global warming.

5. Changes in the pattern and quality of development can have a real positive effect. One response to sprawl is "densification", or piling people up rather than spreading them out over the landscape. Current planning approaches do not go far enough. At the very least we can affect the rate of those kinds of growth. To "free marketers" linear growth is inevitable. Our economy is seen as being like natural systems in that it is beyond the ability of humans to control. These ideas too are flatly wrong.

Growth mania driven by the "more is better" mentality can be changed. However, this is one situation in which the approach known as "think globally, act locally" is insufficient. Major system change is required. Incremental change just doesn't cut it.

In summary, even if Earth's population no longer grew, linear destructive economic development can still trash this planet. The solution lies elsewhere.

David Karan is a land use planner and an environmental activist. He lives in Fort Collins.