The Shape of the Future

E M Risse

From Myth to Law

The Private Vehicle Mobility Myth and Myth of the Big Yard induce citizens  to make millions of small decisions that lead to dysfunctional settlement patterns. Only by spreading the obverse of those myths--natural laws--can we reverse the trend.

Contrary to what a reader might assume from the title, this column does not dwell upon the Commonwealth of Virginia’s tragically flawed legislative process. Rather, it explains the process by which fundamental truths evolve, and outlines the necessity to defang contemporary myths that thwart this evolution.

In this essay we apply the primary dictionary definition of “truth”: “Conformity to fact or actuality.” It is the secondary definition of “truth” that causes trouble: “A statement proven to be or accepted as true.” It is actions based on statements that are accepted as true--but are not true--that comprise the focus of this column. Of special concern are those untruths about human settlement patterns that negatively impact the majority of citizens in every region. (See End Note 1.)

In a democracy, the emergence of a myth that negatively impacts large numbers of citizens requires a process to expose and defang the myth. To eradicate debilitating myths, an effective tool is articulating a science-based axiom or “Natural Law.” Such a law provides a sound basis to dispose of the myth. A Natural Law establishes the foundation upon which citizens and organizations can make intelligent decisions.

This column:

• Opens with an overview of contemporary myth propagation

• Provides specific examples of dangerous myths

• Examines why a system of myth eradication is an absolute imperative

• Explores paths to defang myths

What are now termed “myths” have a long history in the process of civilization. As human language and communication evolved, myths explained what was not obvious–-natural and supernatural. Myths have been used to explain events, relationships and processes that happened in the past, might happen in the future, occurred in remote locations, were too small or too large to be perceived by the human senses or for other reasons could not be directly observed and understood.

Traditionally myths are defined as “stories peopled with supernatural beings, ancestors and heroes.” There are myths related to most spheres of human experience-- health, warfare, animal behavior, economics and sports to name a few. In times past, myths were the primary basis of both political and religious power.

With the rise of modern science over the past five centuries, myths have become less and less needed or accepted to explain the natural world. As science-based knowledge has grown, the unexplained portion of human experience has become a smaller and smaller part of everyday life. (See End Note 2.)

Modern science has defanged many myths. Once discredited, however, myths may remain part of human culture. Some persist for centuries, such as the conviction on the part of some that the world is flat. Other citizens will not concede that man has reached the moon. These particular views are not important, however, because the number they infect is few and people are likely to harm only themselves by holding them.

The potential for the generation of a debilitating myth in contemporary society arises from the emergence of a new relationship, process, product or event. Beliefs that may be true or false grow out of assumptions about the basis of the new relationship, the parameters of the new process, the use of the new product, the cause of the event or some combination of these and related factors.

These beliefs are often intentionally spread by those who profit from their acceptance. Beliefs become more important as the influence of the relationship, process, product or event grows. The more participants, spectators or users who assume that the supposition is true, the greater the impact.

If the assumption based on belief turns out to be true–in other words has a basis in reality–the fact becomes a characteristic of the relationship, process, product or event. The factual (true) belief becomes an element of society (aka, civilization as we know it).

If the assumption does not have a basis in fact, then it is a “myth.” Contemporary assumptions that are not based in fact are often called “urban myths.”

When an untrue belief or myth begins to impact a large number of citizens, this myth should be the subject of great concern by the general public. If the false belief negatively impact citizens, the myth should be exposed and countered with the truth so citizens can make informed decisions that benefit them individually and collectively.

Given the pervasive impact of myths in contemporary society, most individuals and society as a whole would greatly benefit from a process to eradicate myths. Elimination of myths could occur by laying out the facts that disprove them. This process could be reinforced by articulation of a science-based “Natural Law” that is subject to independent verification.

Contemporary society in the United States is based on the principles of democracy and a market-driven economy. These principles create the imperative that there be a process to eliminate myths. This imperative is established by three facts of life in a democracy with a market-based economy. (See End Note 3.)

• Market advantage is gained by some from sponsoring or reinforcing myths.

• Political advantage is gained by not challenging myths and, on occasion, by creating or reinforcing myths.

• Actions by individuals and organizations are often based on the “Fallacy of Composition.”

Market Advantage. Market competition is the default setting of contemporary civilization across the globe and especially in the Untied States. In today’s “winner-take-all” competitive economy, myths are supported, reinforced, driven and sometimes created by those who make money directly and indirectly when citizens and organizations believe or act as if they believe a myth is the truth.

When the belief in a myth has the potential to be dangerous to health and safety, society (in the form of families, neighbors, or government) often steps in with admonitions, peer pressure, controls, regulations or laws. For example, government action is taken in the case of the sale and advertising of food and drugs.

Elimination of a myth that makes money for a specific interest group runs counter to the collective inertia of Business-as-

Usual.

Those who benefit from myths support disinformation campaigns to support a myth that is economically beneficial to that group. A major objective of advertising can be to create or maintain myths. These disinformation efforts are successful only until enough citizens understand the damage being caused by perpetuation of the myth and support Fundamental Change.

Political Advantage. Governance practitioners, elected and appointed, often understand that citizen beliefs are myths but find it to be expedient to "go with the flow," and, thus, perpetuate the myth rather than risk anger, firing or defeat at the polls. There are also active attempts by political operatives to create or maintain myths–-especially during the election process.

Tony Downs, a senior scholar at the Brookings Institution, has noted the difficulty within a democracy of removing a government benefit to those at the top of the food chain, even if it is detrimental to the majority. The same is true for defanging a myth that benefits a powerful group.

The Fallacy of Composition. In a democracy, understanding the Fallacy of Composition” is critical. The Fallacy of Composition--“What is good for one is good for all”--is itself a “myth."

It is clear that this is not the case. In almost every sphere of human activity from economics and traffic management to sports and fashion, what is good for one is not good for all. We will see a dramatic proof of this in the two myths examined below.

There is often confusion and conflict between advocating a theoretical "right" with intelligent collective action needed to address the negative cumulative impact of many citizens taking this action.

Readers of this column will not be surprised to find that some of the most profoundly negative myths are those associated with dysfunctional human settlement patterns. The role of myths that impact settlement patterns is spelled out in “The Myths That Blind Us,” Oct 20, 2003. The identification of myths concerning settlement patterns and the facts debunking many of these myths is the subject of an entire chapter of Handbook. (See End Note 4.)

This column examines the need for the elimination of two myths with which readers of this column are familiar:

• The Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth

• The Big Yard Myth

The Myth of Private-Vehicle Mobility

The Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth has been considered in numerous Shape of the Future columns. “Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth” gets over 250 hits in a search of Baconsrebellion.com. The first Bacons Rebellion column to discuss this Myth was “Too Little, Too Late,” (Dec.  23, 2002). The Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth is dissected with mathematical equations and graphs in The Physics of Gridlock which was distributed by S/PI at the “Shaping the Future” certificate program in April/May 2003. (See End Note 5.)

The Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth was spelled out in the most detail in “Clueless,” (January 19, 2004), our annual survey of misinformation distributed by major media outlets. Both individual/family and entrepreneur versions of the myth were provided and are reprinted here with minor refinements:

Individuals and families believe it to be their right to live wherever they can afford, and work wherever they can find a job. In addition, they believe they can seek services and recreation wherever they choose. After citizens make these choices, the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth holds that it is possible (in fact, it is an inalienable right of those who make these decisions) to have government provide a roadway/highway/

expressway system that allows them to drive a private vehicle wherever they want to go, whenever they want to go there and arrive in a safe and timely manner.

 

Entrepreneurs who ascribe to the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth believe they can start an enterprise wherever they want, hire employees who live wherever they want, seek customers wherever they want, and then that government should provide them with a roadway/highway/expressway system that enables employees to get to work and company vehicles to deliver goods and services wherever the enterprises want them to go, whenever they want them to go there. Additionally, these entrepreneurs believe it is their right to have their employees and the company vehicles arrive at their destinations in a safe and timely manner.

You will note in these two renditions of the Private-Vehicle Myth, neither the individuals and families nor the enterprises believe that they have a responsibility to make intelligent location decisions based on the physical realities that control mobility.

Politicians invariably say: “Vote for me, and I will solve the transportation problem.” They almost always say or imply they will do it by finding money to build the needed roads thus reinforcing the myth that building more roads will solve the mobility (aka, transportation/

traffic congestion) problem. More money is not the cure. (See End Note 6.)

As long as citizens and their organizations believe these and/or other variations of the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth and make location decisions based on this belief, mobility and access will continue to deteriorate. Traffic congestion will increase, air quality will get worse, and citizen frustrations will continue to grow. Individuals, families and organizations will continue to suffer, and eventually the urban agglomeration afflicted by decisions based on this myth will sink into economic stagnation, social conflict and physical gridlock.

One problem with providing a detailed explanation of a myth such as the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth is that a full exposition invariably raises related myths and misconceptions. Those who do not want to confront reality find abundant excuses to distract themselves, flying off on tangents related to affordable housing, job and housing discrimination, the politics of property rights/property values and other topics that, while important, are not germane to the core issue of the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth and its impact on mobility and access. (See End Note 7.)

Because of the confusion generated by a detailed exposition of the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth, it is important to express the myth in the simplest terms possible:

Optimizing human settlement patterns for access and mobility might be deemed “social engineering” except for the fact that the free market demonstrates that humans value much more highly those settlement patterns which can be efficiently served with mobility and access. See “Wild Abandonment,” September 8, 2003. If creating functional and transportable human settlement patterns is “social engineering” or “social Darwinism,” then so are all the other actions to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens.

In spite of protests to the contrary from the Autonomists (those who benefit from mass belief in the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth), there is growing acknowledgment that unlimited mobility via private vehicles, especially in large New Urban Regions, is an unachievable dream. Few leaders are yet willing to step forward, but what other interpretation can be a given to statements such as: “We cannot build our way out of traffic congestion”? This statement has been made by the VDOT Commissioner and Virginia’s Secretary of Transportation as noted in recent columns cited in End Note 5. Over the past decade, no discussion with VDOT or municipal transportation staff has indicated any of them believe there is a basis for what we term the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth. However, few will risk their job by admitting this truth.

The obverse of the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth can be stated as a candidate Natural Law:

It is, of course, also a fact that ubiquitous mobility and access cannot be provided by a shared-vehicle (aka, transit) system if the origins and destination of trips are randomly scattered. To provide functional mobility and access by a shared-vehicle system, the trip ends must be concentrated in the system’s station areas. In large New Urban Regions with functional human settlement patterns most of the population can be served by a shared-vehicle system. This is because the majority of the origins and destinations (jobs, housing, services and recreation), if intelligently located, result in many of life’s needs and pleasures being met without resorting to any vehicle. A sustainable New Urban Region achieves mobility and access by a creative combination of shared-vehicle systems and private-vehicle systems as well as non-vehicular movement. (Also see End Note 6.)

As noted in “Dying Young in Traffic,” (November 1, 2004) there is a second myth that, when reinforced by the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth, has a devastating impact on human settlement pattern, especially families with children. This is the Big Yard Myth. The anatomy of this myth is spelled out in “A Yard Where Johnny (and Janie) Can Run and Play,” December 1, 2003. The Big Yard Myth can be stated as follows:

It is much easier to visualize the cumulative impact of belief in this myth. Here is an illustration of the cumulative impact of the Big Yard Myth: Let us assume that a village-scale group of families (5,000 +/-) all believe the Big Yard Myth and let’s further assume they each choose a 10-acre lot. Under this scenario, 5,000 families would occupy a minimum of 50,000 net acres. The 10-acre lot families live in a place that is 10 miles across and 5 miles from the edge to the center. Few would have any alternative to access anything, including visiting a neighbor, without driving. It is easy to see how the cumulative impact of big yards adds up. It is also important to noe that this 50,000-acre area does not have the critical mass of economic activity to support jobs, services or recreation needed by the families and, thus, every trip for every "loaf of bread" is a long one.

This is an illustration of the Fallacy of Composition. What may be attractive for one family is a cumulative spacial disaster when applied to all or even a large percentage of the population. This is just what happened to Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City’s ubiquitous one-acre lots when mobility was sought via automobiles or personal helicopters as noted in “The Skycar Myth,” November 29, 2004.

There is an alternative: It has been proven again and again that if these same 5,000 families lived in the pattern which responds to the market without requiring a subsidy from other taxpayers due to their location decisions, as those living on 10-acre lots do, all the elementary, middle and high school students would have the option of walking to school, the families could be within walking distance of daily and weekly shopping, library, church and some jobs. In addition, children would have a safe place to play without big individual yards. These families would occupy 1,500 acres or 1/33 the amount of land than the 10-acre lot scenario. This is not even remotely an example of “everyone lives in a high-rise apartment” configuration. Up to 30 percent of all families--more than the number of families who have young children living at home in a typical urban region--could live in single-family detached dwellings if they chose to live there. Further, if these families paid the true total cost of all urban services, they would pay 1/10th the amount as those families on 10-acre lots would pay for the same or better level of service.

All of the above facts can be derived from an application of the Five Natural Laws of Human Settlement outlined in The Shape of the Future and from a review of the value of properties in Planned New Communities. (Also see End Note 2.)

Like the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth, the Big Yard Myth can be turned on its head and become a candidate Natural Law:

If a large percentage of citizens at the neighborhood, village or community scales choose to have big individual yards, the cumulative impact of this spacial distribution makes it impossible to establish settlement patterns that are transportable. thus denying residents functional access to the elements of a quality contemporary life.

As noted above, to date many myths have been defanged primarily by science. The reason there is a need for a new process to expose myths related to human settlement patterns can be appreciated after examining the current state of scientific inquiry. The key issues are:

• Money

• Scale

• Rewards of fringe science

Following the money. Recall that the default setting of contemporary civilization is economic competition. Science and scholarship follow the money. No specific group or industry sector would make a lot more money in the short term from the evolution of functional human settlement patterns. There would be no clear short- term revenue stream for the development-related industries such as there is from raw land development or the design and building of new roads and other infrastructure. However, all citizens and organizations in general would begin to benefit immediately.

In the longer term, rebuilding human settlement patterns would be the most ambitious, and if done well, one of the most profitable activities humans have undertaken, but there is no short-term profit. Long-term potential does not translate into grants, scholarships or tenured chairs for scientific inquiry, regardless of what the university image ads aired during sports programs proclaim. This issue is explored in Chapter 27 of The Shape of the Future. (See End Note 2.)

The issue of scale–very big or very small. Citizens have no alternative but to rely on science to understand processes, relationships, products and events that are too small to see (e.g. microbiology, genetics, fission, molecular and atomic structure and microelectronics). The same is true for those that are too large to comprehend (e.g. astrophysics, astronomy and celestial mechanics) and those far removed in time (paleontology, etc.) The two extremes of the continuum of physical scale that stretches from sub-atomic to the universe are the focus of contemporary science. (See End Note 8.)

Issues at the center of the continuum of physical scale that are here and now, such as human settlement patterns, are less easily addressed by science. After all, living in the here and now, everyone feels he is already an expert. Science has plenty to do at the two ends of the spectrum where there is less conflict and, as noted above, more money. The reasons that the existing systems of knowledge generation and transfer are failing is explored in Chapter 2 of The Shape of the Future. (See End Note 2.)

Nanotechnology, imbedded chips, identity theft, data mining, hacking, designer drugs, genetically modified plants and animals and the failure to address the causes of terrorism are ushering in a new era of processes, products, relationships and events that citizens do not understand. They will require a new generation of regulations, watchdogs and protection tools.

This provides another reason to address the myths in the middle range of the physical spectrum. If not addressed, then confusion, alienation and secrecy--“it is for your own safety and security”--will be overlaid upon and confound the human settlement pattern myths.

Even more important, the only effective defense against most of these “modern” threats is to reverse the trends of economic concentration and social and physical disaggregation of civilization characterized by dysfunctional human settlement patterns. Creating functional human settlement patterns is the primary effective way to address these concerns as documented in The Shape of the Future. This means modifying, connecting, rebuilding, creating and/or organizing settlement patterns. It means that organic components of human settlement-–the dooryard, cluster, neighborhood, village and community-–must fit together to create sustainable patterns and densities of land use.

The rewards for fringe vs. core understandings. Beyond the issues of money and where on the spectrum of physical scale the problem falls, there is also the issue of contemporary science focusing on fringe, frontier or edge issues. Within a specific field of study, the peer review processes which are at the heart of confirming scientific advances makes inquiries on the edges most rewarding. This is where internal conflicts are less likely, acceptance from outside is more likely, promotions more predictable and the products are more marketable.

Bringing a fundamentally new advance to the market takes decades. Real advances in health and transport systems provide a plethora of examples. Unless there is a military or similar potential, positive cash flow is beyond the range of profitable investment as documented by the current state of the drug industry. Finding a way to tweak or facilitate a pop culture trend is far more profitable than most fundamentally new products or processes. Refereed academic journals focus at the fringe. No further proof of the last statement is required beyond a quick review of any of the many journals in “Regional Science.”

The combination of money, scale and fringe-science rewards means that current scientific process leaves “the big issues” that are at the center of the spectrum of physical scale such as human settlement patterns (and the myths that drive human settlement pattern dysfunction) to politics and the market. As noted above, this process is susceptible to myths because of intentional market distortion, the clout of uniformed voters and the Fallacy of Composition.

After discussions of the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth and the Big Yard Myth with individuals representing a broad spectrum of concern, it appears that it is time to expand the initial Five Natural Laws of Human Settlement Pattern presented in The Shape of the Future.

SYNERGY/Planning, Inc. (S/PI) has always maintained that there are far more than five Natural Laws that describe the organic structure of human settlement patterns. The reason only five are documented in the book is that only five are needed to facilitate a basic understanding of human settlement patterns. (See End Note 2.)

As noted in Chapter 13 of The Shape of the Future, “transportation is the canary in the mine field of dysfunctional human settlement patterns,” therefore, myths about transportation such as the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth and related settlement-pattern myths such as the Big Yard Myth should be prime candidates to be addressed by Natural Laws.

Here is the first cut of two new Natural Laws:

A core problem is that at the present, there is no “system” to consider new Natural laws. The process for addressing human settlement pattern myths should be straightforward and provide a method for fending off the rantings of Autonomists who rely on myths to support their interest. Current science does not focus on issues related to human settlement patterns and so leaves myths standing.

The first five Natural Laws were derived from an examination of what citizens actually do. While two myths discussed here can be shown to be false and the two laws can be shown to be correct by straight-forward application of physics, the myths are hard to defang and the laws will be hard to get endorsed. Application of the axiom of paying the full cost of location decisions is the “cure,” but that will not happen so long as so many believe the myths. It is not just that there is so much money to be made by continuing the myths, it is that such a large percentage of the population has invested in the myths that few are willing to examine the individual and cumulative results of their own location decisions. (See End Note 9.)

How would you test these two draft Natural Laws? We would look forward to your thoughts.

-- November 29, 2004

1. There are endless philosophical musings about “truth.” Having studied philosophy at the undergraduate and graduate levels, I am familiar with explorations of “truth” that range from practical to obtuse, theoretical and abstract. In a free society citizens have the privilege to hold a broad range of views. They have a reciprocal responsibility to assure that those views are based on truth. Many who try to obstruct the determination of what is the truth are attempting to avoid the personal consequences that will flow from a broad understanding of what the truth really is. That is the case with the untruths (aka, myths) addressed in this column.

2. For a review of science as it relates to human settlement patterns, see Chapters 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 of The Shape of the Future: (Vol I) The Critical, Overarching Impact of Human Settlement Pattern on Citizens' Economic, Social and Environmental Well-Being and (Vol II) Prospering in 21st Century New Urban Regions. Warrenton, VA: SYNERGY/Resources, 2000. Thanks to Amazon.com’s “Search Inside the Book” tool, those who are interested can get a summary of the way issues such as this are addressed.

3. There are a number of other factors at work that are beyond the scope of this column. Examples include The Tragedy of the Commons (failure to protect common resources) and an imbalance between personal rights and community responsibilities. These and related issues are explored in Chapters 8, 10, 28, 30 (Tragedy of the Commons) and 8, 9, 26 (personal rights and community responsibilities) of The Shape of the Future cited in End Note 2.

4. Risse, E M. Handbook: Three-Step Process to Create Balanced Communities and Sustainable New Urban Regions. Warrenton, VA: SYNERGY/Resources, 2005.

5. We examine the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth as it relates to ground transportation in “The Myths That Blind Us,” October 20, 2003. We also explore this myth in “Self Delusion and Fraud,” June 7, 2004; in “Spinning Data, Spinning Wheels,” Sept 20, 2004; and most recently in “Dying Young in Traffic,” November 1, 2004.

6. More money for more roads is not the answer to improving mobility as documented in the columns noted in End Note 5. There is another important point to understand. Charging the full cost for private vehicle use will improve conditions by supporting changes that result in more functional human settlement patterns. However, lowering these true costs, for example with “cheap” hydrogen fuel or non polluting cars will not solve the problem of transport dysfunction. This is because the core of the problem is that current human settlement patterns require citizens to use a vehicle of some sort where attempting to assemble the elements of a quality contemporary life. This point is made in “The Skycar Myth,” November 15, 2004.

7. This is also fertile ground for debates that are rooted in confusion between a theoretical "right" to take an action and the government responsibility to address the impact of many citizens exercising that right. Private-vehicle mobility is only effective when a small percentage of the population have access to private vehicles. That is a non-starter in a democracy that promises equal opportunity.

8. The spectrum of physical scale such as the one depicted by the Ames’ “Powers of Ten” is not a simple ruler. Science becomes fuzzy at the upper end of the scale as astrophysics stretches into cosmology and at the lower end where sub-atomic physics becomes speculative. That does not detract from the fact that the vast majority of the current science is focused on the parts of the spectrum that range down from “too small to see” and up from “too large to see all at one time.” These issues are explored in Chapter 10 of The Shape of the Future.

9. The nub of the problem is that it is hard to defang myths into which so many have invested their assets and their futures. As noted in “Dying Young In Traffic” (November 1, 2004), over one million households have taken actions based on these myths over the past 40 years in the National Capital Subregion alone. When that many citizens believe the myths, there is a huge profit that flows from actions that have no basis in truth.

Perhaps an end run around the conflict over the validity of the new Natural Laws is the best strategy. Property-–land and the house that sits on that land-–is the most important asset of the vast majority of citizens that are not in the top 10 percent of the economic pecking order. Ninety percent of the population is an important number in a democracy.

Citizens are very concerned with the value of their property. As noted in “Wild Abandonment” (September 8, 2003), the vast majority of citizen location decisions driven by the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth and the Big Yard Myth force down the potential value of homeowner's property and the functionality of the settlement patterns around it.

There is no question about the need for facts (the truth), but how can citizens set up a system to judge what are facts when so many make such large sums of money from citizens believing these myths and supporting Business-as-Usual? Is the answer a “Good Housekeeping Seal” to fill the void left by the lack of help from the traditional sciences? Why would citizens believe any self-serving “expert” or group of experts?

The Autonomists would trot out their “experts” and confused citizens would continue to live by the myths.

Is there a strategy that would defang myths about property and land by providing citizens with the facts so they would be able to make decisions that will be in their longer-term best interest? Citizens making decisions in their long-term best interest would result in the myths being defanged without conflict over new Natural Laws because the new laws, like the original Five Natural Laws, would be based on the actions of citizens.

Both the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth and the Big Yard Myth:

• Result in citizens making bad decisions about important spacial/location actions

• Occur at the intersection of a competitive market-driven economy and individual/organization location decisions

• Would be exposed as untruths if citizens understood the truth

Within this context, several professionals are working on a process to present facts and precise tools which citizens can use to develop their own test to determine the truth in three broad areas:

• Buying and selling houses

• Investing in home improvements

• Evaluating proposals to change human settlement patterns

Readers of Baconsrebellion.com will be reading more about the Property Dynamics initiative soon.

Ed Risse, and his wife Linda live inside the "Clear Edge" of the "urban enclave" known as Warrenton, a municipality in the Countryside near the edge of the Washington-Baltimore "New Urban Region."

Mr. Risse, the principal of

SYNERGY/Planning, Inc., can be contacted at spirisse@aol.com.

See profile.