Is 'Smart Growth' the Ultimate Oxymoron?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by tabloid, Jan 10, 2006.

  1. tabloid Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    The answer is "yes."

    Distribute liberally. Or like a NAZI:

    http://www.carryingcapacity.org/smartgrowth.html

    Growth may increase efficiency, productivity and abundance, but population growth and the development and infrastructure needed to accommodate it often detract from quality of life. Have we passed the point where the marginal benefits of growth outweigh the marginal costs?

    Many people are now troubled by the United States' building and development boom, and the resulting loss of farmland. Loss of productive farmland and habitat for wild species are widely recognized problems. Population growth is the underlying cause of these problems and others, including urban sprawl, growing energy consumption, social alienation, urban decay, lack of affordable housing, an increase in the number of people without healthcare insurance, and many more. "Smart Growth" has been billed as the solution to our environmental problems.

    But is it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Are you still worried about overpopulation? You've got things exactly backwards. The US is the only Western Nation whose population is not actually shrinking. There is no shortage of any natural resources despite the dire predicitions of purveyors of doom for the past forty years. We need more people, not fewer. It's grow or die and the devil take the hindmost.

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. tabloid Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Non sequitur. Your conclusions are fallacious.

    This is not a competition against the other species of Earth, ok? We live in a symbiotic relationship with nature.

    Let's face the hard (physical) facts:
    • There is a definite limit to non-renewable natural resources (such as elements and oil).
    • Growth, however, may postpone the ineluctable economical decline and fall of consumerist societies by giving space to 'new' adaptations of technology which allow us to harvest resources which were previously unobtainable. This means more damage to planet, and this advocacy of technology makes us only more dependant on it [technology] and its development since we must obtain more recources to feed the growth of number of machines and expanding of infrastructure needed to support humans.
    • There are too many humans. Our excess existence may not threaten us yet, but it is already threatening the diversity of plant and animal species of Earth.
    • Ever heard of Greenhouse Effect? Yes, it is arguable if it really is exactly what we have been told (the thruth nearly always lies between the odds).
    • Pollution and acid rains are real, and they make world wide impact on the health of ground soil, animals and plants, and even humans.
    • There is a limit on how many humans this planet can sustain. When we further turn arable land into cultivated land, it just feeds the cycle of development and destruction of natural biodiversity.
    • This cycle of development is unsane and suicidal.

    None of these premises are debatable. They are de facto.

    We are not a natural species, but cosmic parasites leeching this planet up.

    http://www.necrocapitalist.org
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2006
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    World population is growing. What are we going to do about it? yes it would be nicer if there were less people, now what?

    The USA has more space for population growth than most nations. I have my own economic reasons for wanting immigration stopped but both my reasons and the environmentalist reasons are sort of selfish/ nationalist in that they do not want to share America's material and natural wealth with the people from more crowded nations.



    Smart growth:
    Sprawling onto farmland is not wise. It is unfortunate but natural that cities grew in fertile river valleys.

    Placing barriers to expanding metropolitan areas ( I know Boston and San Francisco ) causes the sprawl to spread further than it would have had no zoning barriers been placed.

    Rather than trying to stop the building of things that we don't want built, we should be having the government help to get built the things that we do want built. This of course creates oppurtunities for ineficiency and corruption as is in the nature of government that everything it does will be ineficient and corrupt. But the current method of Zoning is having unintended consequences and is altering but not stopping sprawl.

    What do you do about me, I bought 40 acres of forrest to build a house in because I like forrest and I value being separate from other people when I want to be separate. Most people are not as extreme as me but given a choice most Americans do not want to hear or see their neighbors when they are in their own homes.

    I have seen high rise appartments that do well at creating a feeling of personal space but most dense housing forces people to live closer together than they want to live with non-family/tribe members. I lived in a 45 person commune once. That was ok for me with my space issues because we were like family or maybe it was because I was young. But I do not like my crowded condo complex in the city where I always hear the neighbors and cars.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2006
  8. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Yes it is. That's what natural selection is all about. If we choose to keep certain other species around because they taste good, are cute, or whatever; that's up to us.

    Of course there is, but we are nowhere near that limit. And when we begin to approach the limit of some natural resourse, the free market will take care of the problem as it suddenly becomes economic to recycle or switch to some alternative. We are, perhaps, seeing the begining of this with oil.
    Humans are a part of nature. Our NATURAL survival strategy is to use technology. To suggest we not use technology is akin to suggesting a tiger not use its claws or teeth.
    There are too few humans. And when the earth is overpopulated, there is always the moon, mars, the asteroids and the stars. Of course that would require that we use technology.
    I appreciate your honesty regarding the hysterical claims of global warming alarmists. First of all, no one is really sure if the slight rise in global temperatures has anything to do with human activities. Secondly, even if it does, so what. Do we really know that a world a few degrees warmer would be bad? Thirdly, we do know that the proposed solutions would be an economic disaster that would in and of itself do far more harm than any global warming senario short of the ridiculous movie "Day After Tommorow".
    POLLUTION IS REAL? Amazing. You might not believe it, but I worked for a short time for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management as an environmental scientist. I know pollution is real. But I'd say it's pretty well controlled in the US.
    But we are nowhere near that limit. The best measure of whether a natural resourse is being depleted is its price. Practically all natural resourses are falling in price. And the US, anyway, has plenty of room to grow. Ever been out West? It's mostly empty.
    No. It's sane, healthy, and completely natural for our species.
    I don't think you know what "de facto" means. The word you're looking for is: facts. Unfortunately, all of your points are debatable
    Of course we're a natural species. What, do you think we were put here by aliens? As far as "leeching up the planet", that is simply your aesthetic sence. You appreciate the beauty of nature and wish to impose hardships on others so that you can look at pretty pictures of animals or go hiking. There's nothing wrong with wanting these things, but they are simply choices. To claim otherwise is an exercise in moral vanity
     
  9. tabloid Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Did you miss the point when I said we are in a symbiotic relationship with nature? To destroy the ecosystem is to destroy ourselves.

    I think you are abusing the term 'natural selection', because you extend it too much to fit your anthropocentric views. We are not special; the other species should also be consired valuable themselves, thus retain biological diversity of nature, and keep landscapes untouched. Real natural selection is not about humans terminating the dissident species or natural failures they deem worthless, but rather it is the process within nature itself where the failures get undone, as to keep species healthy.

    But you are not promoting natural selection, even when you claim so; why else would you so clamorously promote human quantity over quality?

    Not everything is of nature, or natural. Sure, nature begets all within, but things such laboratories and factories are not products of natural processes, thus they are not inherently natural. They are just artifacts of human processing and can't spontaneously exist, unlike we as creatures of biological evolution. Do you understand the difference between man-made process and (spontaneous) natural process?

    Why resist nature; it is the way we were meant to work.

    Yes, the "invisible hand" solves everything. Is that just another synonyme for having blind faith?

    I don't agree with the principle that nature and ecosystem are just products labeled with price tags. Money and consumption shouldn't be absolute values.

    I got the impression from you that we are above nature. How's this? Which way was it? These two thing are exclusive.

    Nonsense. Anthropologists have long since deducted that our ability to develop technology is merely an by-product of a stage of evolution which allows us to recognize complex social relationships, thus your analogy is broken.

    Then why are we such a burden for Earth?

    Yeah, let's rape the cosmos too.

    Your scientific positivism is disheartening: do you really expect that science is an omnipotent tool that grants us invincibility against our own failures?

    1. Sure it has to do. Sure, there have been highs and lows on average temperature before, but humans have released the CO2 on atmosphere in expotential amounts if compared to normal 'natural' CO2 cycles. And the worst, it has happened only within meager two centuries.
    2. Yes, too prompt change destroys natural biodiversity and drives indigenous peoples out of their native lands, because rapid change of global environment abolishes the means to continue the traditional ways of life.
    3. Who cares for consumerist economy? There are far more better things in life than to worry about pieces of paper and metal, or junk electronics.

    I doubt that. The major industries in US are always a step behind in implementing the environmental protection standards, just like the rest of West. Granted, the situation is even worse in developing countries like China and Mexico.

    By being well controlled, do you mean that the already damaged land is isolated from the rest of the world, or what?

    According to what standards? I don't think you see the picture in a holistic manner enough.

    Besides natural resources already mentioned, we also need enough space to keep our sanity and well-being, and huge amount of fresh water for our daily needs: bathing, washing the dishes, cooking, gardening, etc.. There are already regulations on water usage in several places in west USA, not to speak that we constantly deplete many groundwater sources by excess usage, and pollute them with compounds such as MTBE, yet the consumption is just growing bigger.

    "Free market will make something up. There are always solutions to problems.", would be your reply, I guess. Sure there will be other options such as distillation of sea water (very expensive), but those means are limited to coast area only, unless you want to constantly supply inland colonies (expotentionally expensive) with water.

    This is not a problem limited only to USA: many developing countries already have hard time having clean fresh water for the whole population. But they are also growing economically at a tremendous speed, thus promoting western consumerism, and so it's not realistic to expect that there would be enough fresh water for everyone, if all would spend as much water as Americans.

    This is how a true capitalist speaks. It's like to import produce "cost-efficiently" from the other side of world just because the price of oil is maintained unnaturally low.

    It's sane to shit where you live? Or to turn it into a ruin? Do you prefer to live dependent whether the filters on air, food and water work instead of having clean air, and being able to relish on fresh, natural, and genetically unmodified produce?

    If we open the Pandora's box and something uncontrollable gets loose, who is to blame? Are you willing to accept that responsibility on your behalf? Power brings responsibility, you know.

    I am a latinist and I know very well the etymology behind the saying "de facto"; it appears you don't.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(A–E)#
    The Romans used de facto to imply there was something they disliked, but they had to face it anyway.

    These points are not debatable, hence they are premises. Besides you didn't even refute single one of them, but that just is the whole point of having premises: they CAN'T be refuted because they are tautological.

    What was the point in saying that they are debatable?

    "Hardship"? You must be joking. When I see the bulging bellies and pure idiocy of general population of Western Societies, the last thing they need is more electronics to aid and ease their lives! Quality; not quantity. I don't want more pollution, destruction of nature, and neurotic and unhealthy people around me; do you want more of these?

    Besides, I don't promote going back to stone age, just living harmoniously with nature. There is a great difference.

    Who on earth is talking about moral choices? Now you are even targeting me with petty ad hominems. Oh please, be reasonable: not everyone is a environmentalist for such vain reasons as cute animals and ethics. My reasons are more deeper and profound.

    Oh, simply choices. Say, you don't go around and kill people you deem "useless" or "un-profitable", now do you? Your actions are just choices, after all. If not, what makes humans so different from animals then? (Note: You don't seem to be moralistic, so don't tangle this with morals either.)

    Tell me, what is there so special in the progress you advocate? Try on change to refute this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51303
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2006
  10. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Capitalism without growth is oxymoron. Once growth stops for various reasons, so called free market economies go to the hell, society follows. For modern USA, stall in the growth would mean literal mayhem. It's so dependent on corporate life support system, it's so dependent on consumerism, it simply can't exist without it (unlike Mexico, China or Russia where a stall in the growth is a bad thing, but it is mitigated by remnants of traditional societies). There is no cushion for USA. Imminent fall will hurt bad. Thus, convincing American to give up growth is synonymous to call to dismantle capitalism in its present form, which is "Marx"; and, as every American knows, Marx is a bad guy (most don't know why though), thus reforming capitalism is a bad thing too. Thus, it will never happen deliberately, only after collalpse and rebirth if any. One should better think how to survive a collapse.

    An interesting prospective: Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century
    http://www.survivingpeakoil.com/article.php?id=soviet_lessons
     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    But isn't that true of every economic system in the world? A society must grow, if for no other reason than the increase in population. No, I think any economy which does not continue to grow is having problems.

    Baron Max
     
  12. tabloid Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Is it so? Let's consider following:

    Nature (cosmos) is all about patterns. No chaos, only impotence of human mind to understand.

    Nations are like living organism: they too have their birth, life and finally death. But death doesn't necessarily mean an end to nation's cultural legacy; there are almost always heirs to claim the heritage, thus evolution extends and mutates the previous states.

    Suppose there is a duckling. As a young creature it will first grow fast and look healthy. One day the growth stops. Does it mean an ailment, or maturation? It certainly depents on health. What if the duckling turns out be too greedy and grows too much? Will it eventually burst and spread its innards all over the scene?

    If you understand this image, you probably also understand what I just said. Sine wave and circle; a continuum with common elements, implying beginning and end, eternity and transcendence.

    I don't understand when people say there are absolutes: everything is in a constant flux (the second law of thermodynamics), yet patterns remain.

    Please, could someone elaborate why constant growth is desirable?
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2006
  13. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    So we can take over other planets before leaving this one an empty, lifeless husk.
     
  14. tabloid Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Why yes, people like you really take the 'smart' part out of the growth, thus 'smart growth' is an oxymoron.

    Case solved, thx Zephy. Can I call you Zephy? Do you enjoy anal? Ok, I guess not then. KTHXBYE
     
  15. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Zephyr: I don't think we could leave this planet an empty, lifeless husk if we tried. We would have to literally de-orbit the moon and cause the damn planet to splash. Nothing else would do the job.
     
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, now you've taken the discussion completely out of the realm of business and economics, and put it firmly in the psycho-babble forum!

    Now THAT is an interesting comment! Read it carefully .....first you say you don't understand the idea of absolutes, then you turn around immediately, in the same sentence, and describe what you feel/think is an absolute. Huh?

    Baron Max
     
  17. tabloid Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Have I? I consider your statement about necessity of economical growth very blatant and unrealistic psycho-babble. Or was there something else to add into your statement?

    My question about the growth is still highly relevant and remains unanswered.

    I think the "psycho-babble" I said is highly significant if we want real discussion between organic and inorganic economical models.

    I knew someone would see this a good chance to pose smart, but you fail: the answer remains hidden in language itself. Language is foul, because it is inherently static and therefore inducing absolutism. Even now I have to make static implementations in order to communicate the meaning.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2006

Share This Page