We must grow to survive-or must we?
By Mike Abkin
There's an 800-pound gorilla in the room, and nobody wants to talk about it. It's been there so long that it's become part of the furniture. No one notices it or even questions its being there. We just automatically feed it whenever it gets hungry. But it sure seems to be getting bigger, doesn't it? And it sure seems to need a lot more care and feeding than it used to. Getting pretty expensive, too. But what can we do? It's part of life. Life would not be the same without it. That is for sure!
Go to a regional meeting of business and community leaders on affordable housing, or on transportation, or on sustainability (as I have done recently). Mention the "G" word (no, not "gorilla") and see the eyes blink and the minds go blank. Question growth and the typical response is something like, "But we must grow to survive. Without growth we would surely stagnate and die. Growth is inevitable."
Is it, really? Dare we even ask? Well, people are daring and asking. Witness the hot-button issues in Los Gatos these days: density, affordable housing, traffic congestion, insufficient parking, monster homes covering the hillsides and, amid all that, preserving our small-town character. Witness the recent ballot measures in Pleasanton, San Ramon, Livermore and Half Moon Bay. True, only one of them passed, and they might not have really offered the best or wisest solution, but the handwriting is on the wall. People are mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore.
This doesn't mean no-growth is necessarily the solution. But we do have to talk about growth and recognize its enormity in our lives. Higher density, affordable housing, parking garages, public transit--these are all things I have supported for many years (well, maybe not parking garages). So, I don't by any means deny their value or their importance or imply we shouldn't pursue them. But we must recognize them for the Band-Aids that they are (or, in the previous simian metaphor, expensive food for the gorilla). Even Band-Aids need to be applied when we are bleeding.
What I do say is we shouldn't just apply these fixes and go about our business as usual thinking we have solved the problem. Without addressing growth, the gorilla will just get bigger, and pretty soon the affordable housing will no longer be affordable or enough; the higher density will not be dense enough; the transit and road system will not be extensive enough.
So, on the growth question, here are a few points to consider:
* The choice is not growth versus stagnation. There is something in complex systems called dynamic equilibrium. An example is indigenous communities of human beings developing over time in harmony with the natural world they are part of. Change does take place, there is a great deal of creative energy resolving the tensions in the communities as they adapt and respond to changes in the environment. In modern social systems, growth does not have to be limited to the physical, material variety. There is a lot of room in our culture for growth in social justice, economic equity, emotional intelligence, alternative conflict resolution, spiritual understandings, appreciation for our place in the natural order, and the like.
* Talking about growth in the abstract is not enough, either. That is only one side of the equation. The other side is something called carrying capacity. Many people (such as the East Bay cities rising up against growth) feel we have hit it. Carrying capacity usually refers to the ability of ecological systems to sustain us; it also refers to our own ability--through our own social, economic, and governance systems--to manage ourselves. True, carrying capacity is not fixed.
We as humans have wonderful powers to increase it, but at sometimes great costs. We have to ask ourselves continually whether we want to bear those costs. That is: more landfills; more recycling; more water treatment; more roads and rails; more affordable housing; more runways in the bay; more food, water, and energy brought from greater and greater distances--all because we have used up or converted our own local ability to provide these necessities. And on and on. The more growth there is, the greater the costs of another increment of carrying capacity.
* Limiting growth doesn't have to mean pulling up the ladder behind us and building fortress walls around us. In fact, it can't mean these things if it is to be truly sustainable. Nor does it mean government fiat or tyranny. On the contrary, government in a democracy only follows the people. Therefore, the only way it could work would be if people came to have a worldview wherein we, each in our own personal economic and social decisions, would recognize the natural and social carrying capacity of our own region. Once we had that worldview, the social, economic and governmental institutions would follow as implementers.
* Part of that understanding would be that we cannot be an isolated enclave, that we must live and relate in harmony with other regions and act responsibly towards them. Fundamentally, no community, no region, no nation can be sustainable (after all, that's what we are talking about--sustaining life and quality of life for us and for future generations) unless all regions are sustainable. The world is too interconnected and interdependent for that.
How does one bring about such a cultural shift? I haven't the foggiest ... except to say it will never happen if we close our eyes to the trends and close our ears and hearts to each other and to new and creative ideas. It is only by raising the question and engaging public dialogue that we have a chance of broadening our worldview and, as a community, coming to a common understanding of the problem and thereby a workable, sustainable solution.
Mike Abkin served on the Los Gatos Planning Commission for nearly 10 years.
|
Los Gatos, California Since 1881
