Register for Free
Post comments, receive updates via email, gain access to exclusive content, and more.
Spam Safe!
Email
Albert Barlett is a man I hold in very high esteem.
First, for his ability to speak in clear, concise language, which is the hallmark of someone who has mastered their material.
Second, because he sees the obvious and dares to point it out. Let me reframe that: He sees things that are incredibly obvious to others once he points them out. But because these things are most often "hidden in plain view," they are actually noticed by very few.
His work on growth and population deserves the widest attention possible.
Recently, I had a nice email exchange with Dr. Bartlett, and he closed with this:
Dear Chris,
Thanks so much for your very kind letter. I am happy to send you some reprints, which are attachments.
I don't have time right now to write something for publication. I can hardly keep up with the daily work of reading and answering e-mails.
I will sent two or three messages with attachments.
Please feel free to post these if you wish.
With thanks and best wishes, I am,
Sincerely yours,
AL
With that permission, here's one of the articles he sent. It's fantastic. It really puts the lance to one of the most unquestioned assumptions of our day - that being "growth is good."
Growth is neither good nor bad - it merely delivers more of what we already have, but in larger quantities, with higher risks, costs, and complexity. Given this, shouldn't it at least be questioned and challenged?
I'd love to center some of our discussions around this topic.
Enjoy,
Chris
January 29, 2008
WHAT PART OF ARITHMETIC DOES NOT HOLD IN BOULDER?
By Albert A. Bartlett
Printed in the Boulder Daily Camera, February 3, 2008.
It’s time to try again to correct the educationally credentialed but innumerate experts (innumeracy is the mathematical equivalent of illiteracy) who say that growth is inevitable. They fail to recognize that after maturity, continued growth is either obesity or cancer.
The arithmetic is clear. Steady growth produces impossibly large numbers in modest periods of time. SO GROWTH WILL STOP. Referring to Boulder, we have read the innumerate statement “So our choice is not whether we grow, but how we grow.” The authors of this statement would like us to believe that the battle against growth is lost, so our only role is to be the best possible losers. They write that we should give up the efforts to achieve a quiet stability for our community, and in defeat, we should “embrace the principles of Smart Growth.” We can understand this. That’s the game in which they are the big winners.
We must remember that “Smart Growth” and “Dumb Growth” both destroy the environment, but “Smart Growth” destroys the environment with good taste. Frosty Woolridge quotes a writer who points out the stark truth, “Growth is not the answer; it’s the problem.”
The central belief of the growth promotion community seems to be that there is an “…absolute need to create greater population density and more efficient land use within the City” by focusing on “on infill development within existing urban boundaries…”(Camera, Jan.20, 2008) When the promoters tried this tactic on the Washington School neighborhood all of Boulder fought back, saying that we’re not going to become losers in the City’s effort to cram more people into Boulder. The whole City is watching to see if the City Council will continue policies that reflect innumeracy and unsustainability.
The innumerate theme of the promoters is “The Front Range is going to grow whether we like it or not.” If this is true, it is because so many Front Range leaders are active and successful in promoting growth. The Legislature and all manner of public and private regional and local “civic groups” are promoting “economic development” which is the “politically correct” name for “growth.” Predictably, this will produce more well-to-do people, more homeless people, more employed people, more unemployed people, higher average salaries, more people living below the poverty line, more traffic congestion, higher parking fees, more school crowding, more crime, more unhappy neighborhoods, more expensive government, more tax revenue, higher taxes, more fiscal problems for state and local governments, more tax limitation measures, more air and water pollution, higher utility costs, less reliable utility service, less democracy, more congestion pricing on busy city streets and crowded highways, more unmanageable costs of maintaining public infrastructures, higher food costs and more destruction of the environment.
It’s not clear why the Legislature would think that the people would want all of these known consequences of growth. However, innumeracy reigns. The promoters have demonstrated great skill in getting around minor obstacles such as “the will of the people.”
In the meantime the innumerates act as though gasoline, natural gas and water will always be with us at low cost and in unlimited quantities. Crude oil prices have increased from about $20 a barrel in 2002 to $100 a barrel in 2008. This strongly suggests that the world production of conventional oil has peaked and is starting its inevitable decline, just as was predicted back in 1956. If this rate of increase continues we would look for oil to cost $500 a barrel in another six years. (2014). Natural gas production in North America has peaked, and this accounts for the rapid rise in the price of natural gas which is already creating hardships for some who like to have a warm home or a comfortable workplace in winter. Water shortages and talk of restrictions on water use are frequently in the news.
By their continued promotion of growth, the innumerates are speeding the arrival of painful but predictable shortages and consequent rationing of gasoline, natural gas and water in the Rocky Mountain area. These shortages and the accompanying high prices will remake the urban landscape in ways that are probably not included in current “long-range” planning efforts of the City, County and State.
These problems can’t be solved by a nickel’s worth of “Smart Growth” tacked onto to billions of dollars worth of urban sprawl.
The arithmetic of population, resources and growth is inexorable. The consequences of the arithmetic can’t be avoided by believing that “Wishing will make it so.” (Walt Disney’s First Law) Many years ago an innumerate graduate of the University of Colorado wrote to me, saying that he did not believe that this arithmetic holds in Boulder? What part of the arithmetic of growth is it that the innumerates don’t understand?
- cmartenson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 9029 reads
Print
Comments
"Albert Barlett is a man I hold in very high esteem.
First for his ability to speak in clear, concise language which are the hallmarks of someone who has mastered their material.
Second because he sees the obvious and dares to point it out. Let me reframe that; he see things that are incredibly obvious once he points them out. But because these things are most often "hidden in plain view", they are actually noticed by very few."
Well, Chris, as far as we're concerned, you just described yourself!Unfortunately, growth is THE American sacred cow. We will not make progress towards resolving the many problems we face–individually or as a nation–until we have slain the cow and fed the flesh to ravenous dogs.
Up until now growth has been the way out of our problems - growing population increases tax revenues so there is always a powerful motivation for governments to encourage growth rather than do any of the hard work of trimming expenses to meet the current fiscal realities. Corporations must grow to satisfy stockholders and they need to demonstrate that they can continue growing every quarter, which has a tendency to eliminate any form of "long range thinking" in boardrooms. Government grows, in spite of endless promises that "drastic cuts will be made," like some horrific cancer that can't be removed for fear of killing the patient outright, condemming him to a slow, agonizing death instead.
Perhaps, though, in the same way that it is better to tell your child "no" than to acquiesce to yet another demand for more toys, TV time or sweets, it is time to say "no" to more unreasonable demands from the vast sea of unreasonable adults who feel entitled to "more" without having to do any of the heavy lifting themselves or bothering to understand what the consequences of "more" actually are.
I think the only growth we need right now is to "grow up."
Arthur
I live near Buffalo, NY, a city very unlike Boulder. It has lost probably 4 to 500,000 population since the 60's when the steel industry and shipping began to die. Partially this was because of the loss of industry and partially due to a series of unusually incompetent governments. This is one instance in which we should praise incompetent government. The area continues to lose people to sunnier climes although the employer base is relatively stable. There are plenty of good colleges in the area and the city school system has a contrast of some of the best and worse schools in the country.
I've read a couple articles in the past couple years that put the local economic doldrums in perspective. Both the water and highway systems were designed in the 50's with the expectation that population would continue to grow. According to one of those articles, Buffalo has the best water pressure of any city in America, and I can attest that commuting is a breeze, except for those few days a year when we have lake effect snow, but that's another story. They have been trying to promote some of the city's attractions, like a Frederick Law Olmstead city and park plan and several Frank Lloyd Wright buildings in addition to a lot of nice architecture, to draw tourists, without much success as far as I can tell. But, apart from some of the problems that accompany poverty everywhere, the city is easy to live in, has a pretty good music scene and excellent museums. Real estate prices have been pretty much unaffected by the boom and bust. I'm pretty sure that Buffalo doesn't have many of the amenities that Boulder and other boom cities have, but, frankly, I don't miss them that much.
So, gang, let's just keep this between us. I don't want a bunch of people moving here and screwing things up, OK?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58
Greg
If you have taken an oath to the Constitution of the United States I would highly recommend you take a look at this website, http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/ Near Redding CA USA
Bartlett is concise and cogent as ever.
This fundamentalist theology of infinite "growth" (or my preferred term, intensification) and exponential debt truly is insane . (They think that debt curve isn't going to inevitably topple them backward like a rickety boat trying to ride up a hundred-foot breaking wave.)
Like Bartlett always says, a big part of it is the simple ignorance of arithmetic, part of America's general anti-intellectualism. (There's other things like that - "growth" types always insist that water supplies are infinite as well, for example.)
One gets the distinct sense that none of them understands a damn thing about what's happening to the economy today. On the contrary, almost without exception every politician, economist, pundit and writer assumes this is a temporary glitch in the eternal parade (death march) of growth, which shall be restored shortly.
More and more, I see a stark divide, and divide everyone, into those who have Peak Oil consciousness and those who remain ante-Peak.
Certainly the growth-mongers are all terminal reactionaries, mired in an ideology as bankrupt as their economy.
http://attempter.wordpress.com/
What is it with you people?
We're born with an instinctive desire to improve our well being. Growth is genetic. You can't stop it. The cancer in society are those who want to stop it or slow it down. They have this uncurious desire to control their perceived lessers.
Hey guys. Study up on market economics. Because of the price systrem, market societies are adaptive. Prices ration scarce supply with unimited demand. Prices act as a guide to buyers, investors, entrepeneurs and sellers on what appropiate action to take. It's a simple concept, yet amazingly, poorly understood and often disliked.
There is no telling how long current economic collapse will take to correct itself. That in itself will curtail growth for an indefinite time. Arguments pro and con for growth are ideological, a waste of time.
All I can say to you anti-growth people is: Get out of the way! If you try to thwart the economic activity of free individuals, you'll only make a bigger mess.
What is it with you people?
We're born with an instinctive desire to improve our well being. Growth is genetic. You can't stop it. The cancer in society are those who want to stop it or slow it down.
...
All I can say to you anti-growth people is: Get out of the way! If you try to thwart the economic activity of free individuals, you'll only make a bigger mess.
Ray,
I would like to question your goal(s) in posting this in this manner.
If your goal was, "to change how people think", then I would propose, humbly, that beginning with something other than "What is it with you people?" would be a good place to start.
Speaking only for myself, when someone asks me "What's wrong with you?!?", I pretty much close my mind off to whatever is coming next. It's a defensive mechanism, much like flinching back when someone nearby cocks their arm.
And when you say, "All I can say to you anti-growth people is: Get out of the way!" I cannot see a way to engage with that sentiment as it clearly states that you're not expecting, or open to, a response. There's no room for dialog. So if there's no room for dialog, then I wonder what the point is? Is it really your expectation that a firmly worded directive will sway minds? Does that work with you?
If, instead, your goal is merely to stir things up, then I would ask "Why?"
I think you've got an important view to share but your style leaves me precious little opportunity to wiggle in there and find out more.
While my reaction may not be anywhere close to what you intended, it's all I've got, it was probably counterproductive to your real intent, and I invite you to ponder that conundrum.
Hello Ray:
A billionaire investor pointed me to Bartlett when I was discussing peak oil. Peak oil would not be an issue if the population wasn't 6.5 billion. Would it?
That is one of many peaks that is being stressed by our population.
Personally I would consider myself a "quack" for not knowing or realizing this on my own or sooner and or realizing the effect of exponential growth, I have a LOT of respect for what Bartlett thinks and writes.
I could give a rats a$$ if you called Paulson or Bernanke quacks, but I really am appalled at you calling this mathematician a quack and frankly I see no justification for doing so. None.
Any concern that the economic crisis would soften the resolve of the Obama
administration to deal with the sad state of the environment was swept
away today by the choice of Harvard physicist John Holdren to be
presidential science advisor, and Oregon State marine biologist Jane
Lubchenco to head the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration. Both have battled industry opposition to climate
initiatives. Along with Steve Chu as Secretary of Energy they should form
a powerful block of scientists in the Obama administration. It will
almost certainly be the most influence science has had in the White House
since the Eisenhower administration. But we don’t have much time. Let me
tell you what no one else is saying publicly: every step we take to
improve the environment will soon be wiped out by population growth. The
fact is that we are already beyond a sustainable population. We can’t
keep talking in terms of reducing the rate of growth. That’s the second
derivative.
I'm not as euphoric as Bob Park, but its a step in the right direction. At last, science will have a voice in the White House.
Ray
No they aren't, they are science and math.
What is it with you people?
We're born with an instinctive desire to improve our well being. Growth is genetic. You can't stop it. The cancer in society are those who want to stop it or slow it down.
...
All I can say to you anti-growth people is: Get out of the way! If you try to thwart the economic activity of free individuals, you'll only make a bigger mess.
Ray,
I would like to question your goal(s) in posting this in this manner.
If your goal was, "to change how people think", then I would propose, humbly, that beginning with something other than "What is it with you people?" would be a good place to start.
Speaking only for myself, when someone asks me "What's wrong with you?!?", I pretty much close my mind off to whatever is coming next. It's a defensive mechanism, much like flinching back when someone nearby cocks their arm.
And when you say, "All I can say to you anti-growth people is: Get out of the way!" I cannot see a way to engage with that sentiment as it clearly states that you're not expecting, or open to, a response. There's no room for dialog. So if there's no room for dialog, then I wonder what the point is? Is it really your expectation that a firmly worded directive will sway minds? Does that work with you?
If, instead, your goal is merely to stir things up, then I would ask "Why?"
I think you've got an important view to share but your style leaves me precious little opportunity to wiggle in there and find out more.
While my reaction may not be anywhere close to what you intended, it's all I've got, it was probably counterproductive to your real intent, and I invite you to ponder that conundrum.
Wow, nicely put, Chris.