|
The
Shape of the Future columns advocate
Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns
and Fundamental Change in governance structure.
Over on the Bacons Rebellion blog there
has been a rash of attempts to portray views
expressed in The Shape of the Future
columns and Bacons Rebellion blog posts
in negative and inappropriate ways. In
particular, some commentators have taken issue
with the way we characterize our positions as
"conservative" and
"conservationist." (See End
Note One.)
The
Current Trajectory of Settlement Pattern Change
The
Shape of the Future columns advocate
Fundamental Change in settlement patterns toward
market-driven patterns and densities of land
use. Allowing greater play for market forces
would give citizens greater choice: Citizens
would not be forced to live in ever more
dysfunctional places.
The
negative impacts of dysfunctional settlement
patterns are clear. The Mobility and Access
Crisis, the Affordable and Accessible Housing
Crisis, the Widening Prosperity Gap, the burning
of Natural Capital and other maladies are the
result of the accelerating changes over the past
80 years that have made settlement patterns
increasingly dysfunctional.
The
current path is taking contemporary civilization
in the wrong direction at a faster and faster
pace. This unsustainable trajectory is driven by
Autonomobility, Mass Over-Consumption, and
Business As Usual -- topics upon which The
Shape of the Future columns focus on a
regular basis.
Fundamental
Change to restore a sustainable balance between
First World civilization and the Earth’s
environment is “conservative” in the most
profound sense. It is the opposite of Mass
Over-Consumption and Business As Usual. However,
this meaning of conservative bears little
resemblance to "conservativism" as
practiced by either the Elephant Clan or by the
rabid “anti-taxers” described in "Taxes
and Expensive Ladies' Purses" (Bacon's
Rebellion, March 5, 2007).
The
Shape of the Future columns document that
the current rapid disaggregation of human
settlements is incompatible with:
The
Rate of Change
We
are the first to admit that the question of
“change” is a complex one. Alvin and Heidi
Toffler have made a cottage industry of the idea
that society is gripped by accelerating change.
In our book, "The Shape of the Future,"
we agree with Kenneth Jackson that the rate of
change in society as a whole is slowing. (See End
Note Two.)
Our
view of the current shift in the rate of change
is based on the fact that humans are running out
of capacity to accommodate change. By
“capacity” we embrace the full range of
limitations, including cognitive ability and
genetic hard wiring, as well as time and
physical resources.
At
the same time, there is no denying that massive
changes have occurred, especially between 1850
and 1950. It is also clear that some aspects of
change, especially those that have the potential
to yield substantial short-term profit, continue
at a rapid pace.
Further,
the one aspect of change that continues to
accelerate is the disaggregation of human
settlement patterns. This change is accompanied
by the destruction of natural capital above, on
and below the earth’s surface.
From
the perspective of mid-term and long-term
economic prosperity, social stability and
physical sustainability of civilization, there
is nothing more damaging than the accelerating
scatteration of urban land uses across the
Countryside.
Metrics
of Settlement Pattern Change
It
turns out that the basic parameters of human
settlement patterns that are most favored in the
market (when citizens have a choice) have
changed remarkably little in the past 3,000
years. They have barely changed at all in the
past 100 years.
The
Shape of the Future columns advocate
allowing the market to evolve (or re-evolve)
settlement patterns that accommodate
contemporary life without consuming vast
quantities of nonrenewable resources.
Changing
the current trajectory away from ever more
dysfunctional settlement patterns in order to
evolve (or re-evolve) sustainable patterns and
densities of settlement is in fact
"conservative." Such activities, which
foster conservation of natural and manmade
resources, are consistent with philosophical
conservatism.
Fundamental
Change in Governance Structure
The
Shape of the Future's position on
Fundamental Change in governance structure has a
similar foundation. The current
government structure establishes programs,
policies and regulations that subsidize
dysfunctional distribution of land uses.
Disaggregation of urban land uses into
dysfunctional settlement patterns makes
more money for some in the short run, but it is
not what most citizens favor if they have a
choice. It also is not what the market would
produce if there were a rational and fair allocation of
location-variable costs.
Since
dysfunctional human settlement patterns are
driven and abetted by government action, any
Fundamental Change in human settlement
patterns will require Fundamental Change in
governance structure.
The
governance structure that evolved in the 1770s
and 1780s in the US of A was the best that one
could expect to evolve in the early stages of
the Industrial Revolution. It represented
Fundamental Change from most of the governance
practices that had been the norm up to that
time.
The
settlement pattern which the Founding Fathers
foresaw this governance structure serving for
the vast majority of citizens in an agricultural
economy is spelled out in The Northwest
Ordinance of 1787. Jefferson and others resisted
further change in governance structure in the
early 1800s because they wanted to give the
system time to work before changes were made.
That
change has now occurred. Contemporary urban life
requires settlement patterns unrelated to those
spelled out in the Northwest Ordinance. It is
time to change the governance structure to
achieve the goals of the Constitution.
What
has changed since most aspects of the current
governance structure, including the levels of
government agencies and the allocation of
governance responsibilities were spelled out?
In
1787 (and in 1800 as documented by nation-wide
census) 95 percent of population of the US of A
were involved daily in, and/or derived its
economic support from, extensive, non-urban land
uses.
In 2000 less than five percent of the
population was so involved. Today, more than 95
percent of population relies on intensive, urban
activities and land uses for daily activities as
well as their economic, social and physical
support.
The
shift from a nonurban to an urban population
is the most rapid and profound change in
economic, social and physical activity in
human history.
If
there were a compelling reason to reverse the
current 5/95 percent split in favor of 1789's
95/5 split, there might be a rational basis for
debating the need for Fundamental Change in
governance structure. But there is no
possibility of reverting to such population
ratios, short of what historian Jared Diamond
calls the Collapse of contemporary civilization.
For
10,000 years, when given the option, citizens
have opted for urbanization. Modern (post 1543)
science, the Industrial Revolution and
contemporary technology facilitate domination of
contemporary urban society.
Given the likely
permanence of how 95 percent of the population
now lives, it makes sense to create a governance
structure that preserves (conserves) the basic
rights and privileges of the 18th-century
innovations but also reflects contemporary
economic, social and physical reality.
For
this reason The Shape of the Future’s
support of and advocacy for Fundamental Change
in governance structure to achieve a sustainable
society is, in fact conservative.
So,
Why All the Fuss?
We
wonder why so many who consider themselves to be
“conservative” lash out with such venom as
demonstrated by past comments on the Bacon's
Rebellion blog. Here are some possible
reasons:
-
Politicians
and the politically active understand that Business-As-Usual advocates
make the majority of the contributions, thus
reinforcing Business-As- Usual practices,
along with the current political party
Duopoly.
-
Those
who claim to be “true political
conservatives” are now expressing
widespread disillusion with the mainstream
leaders of the Elephant Clan. Leaders of the
mainstream Elephant Clan know they cannot
win elections with doctrinaire “social
wedge/culture war" issues. The
field of human settlement patterns, being important but
little understood, seems like a good place
for certain interests within the Elephant
Clan to generate support for simplistic
“solutions” to complex problems and thus
generate political support for internal
Elephant Clan battles.
Whatever
the Reasons...
Time
is running out on the opportunity to make
Fundamental Changes. Every citizen should read
the full text of what Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke
said about long- term economic stability on 28
February to the House Banking Committee -- not
what MainStream Media reported to calm the
financial markets. He
reissued a stern re-warning about “expansion
of debt” (budget deficit, balance of payments,
risky mortgages, housing bubble, credit card
debt, you name it) resulting in a
seriously weakened US of A economy.
Just the sort of things you hear about in
connection with continued Business As Usual --
both public and private – driving
dysfunctional human settlement patterns.
And just the sort of thing former Fed
Chairman Alan Greenspan warned about the prior
Monday.
The
main driver of economic risk (and social
instability and physical unsustainability) is
dysfunctional human settlement patterns. Fully
80 percent of the population favor or would
favor rational action if they understood their
enlightened self-interest. Arguments about what
is or is not “conservative” only postpones widespread
understanding of the importance of evolving
functional human settlement patterns.
End
Notes
(1)
For example see the comments on FURTHER
RESPONSE TO BUBBERELLA, (posted 25 February
2007).
(2)
See "The Shape of the Future",
Chapters 31 and 32. In the CD ROM 3rd printing
of the book search for “Past Shock” for
discussion of the Toffler / Jackson views.
--
March 5, 2007
|
