In Response To...
”Town Limits: Restricting the Size of Communities for Livability”(R. Grigg)
“The Moral Right to Set Limits”(T. Murray)
Reacting to the global population flood. R. Grigg correctly notes that, “...indefinite(population) growth is not an option...”, and he advocates nodes(population-limited communities) to preserve local lifestyles and resources. T. Murray argues for “...the right to cap (community) population levels...” Unfortunately, continued global population growth will, with mathematical certainly, overwhelm any local attempts at population caps. As shortages grow with population, despair and panic will assure that nodes will be attacked. Communities, like individual cells of the body, aren't well suited to withstand invasions, and they cannot function alone. Also, any resources vital to(but not controlled by) a node would lead to extortion and conflict.
Global nodal? It's easy to create a node by fiat, but creating a viable node is another matter. Population levels must be aligned with the meeting of many needs: Energy, food, water, waste disposal, communications, natural resources, transport, air quality, employment, core industry, commerce, and even “lifestyle.” Often, entire watersheds and even ecosystems factor into determining self-sufficiency. Just as the gears of a clock must work together, regions must cooperate for lasting self-sufficiency. With informed input, a network of “lifeboats”(Barry Avis's term) could be created, but a viable network must be inclusive and cooperative, not exclusive and parochial.
Self-interest trumps self-sufficiency...Grigg notes that, ”...ominous challenges come with continual growth.” A comparison of global resources with population leads to the conclusion that, “There are too many people.” This fact will soon impel us to live with less, and will nudge families to have fewer children. Women's rights campaigns, education, and family planning are already helping to reduce family sizes. Through these proven means, we can all thrive without shattering the world community into ineffectual feudal nodes. Enlightened self-interest dictates that we invest at least as much effort to the task of moderating the world population tsunami as we do to the building of local dikes. To expand on Grigg's airplane metaphor, we must share the “oxygen masks” which now give breath to a few, and we must work to assure that the limited supply of “oxygen” is adequate for all.
Precedence can bite back...The “I was here first” argument by Murray ignores the historical fact that priority can be a bitch. Who was “here first” in Canada? Iroquois? Fur trappers? Vikings? French? British? Present residents? Our forebears often resorted to coercive domination to claim the ill-gotten privileges which many still covet. Murray compares nodal communities to full restaurants and elevators, where we can insist that others “move on” because “we got there first.” The analogy is misplaced; shall we ask those who are locked out of viable nodes to find another Earth?
Migration and nodes: Global overpopulation, not migration, threatens to sink the Ship Earth. Of course, we must address the many causes of migration, with a view to ending the misery that generates migration, and the misery that migration generates(The Sierra Club, mentioned in Grigg's paper, takes a neutral position on migration. Certainly, migration does not of itself affect the overarching problem of world population and its environmental impact).
Looking past the nodes...Viable nodes could become an integral part of any unified sustainable global community. But solutions to population growth and sustainability must look beyond the nearest township and toward the far shore of world needs and resources.
Evan Jones, Director