OCR Text |
Show POPULATION, THE WEST é; THE CENTURY AHEAD By John Theobald Everyone notices population. Some think about it, others just see roads getting more crowded. Population is about a place--we'll notice longer lines at the store, a longer wait for a table, maybe a new tram being built at the edge of town. And population is something we view in a relative way—some writers in these pages think Moab is becoming a metropolis, while most suburbanites would think it might as well be the Moon. Like many readers of the Zephyr, I spend time thinking about population and the West. And whereI live isa good place to think about it. Napa Valley is an in-between place, not the "wide open” Colorado Plateau but hardly the epicenter of the California horror. Here in Calistoga we have vineyards instead of condos, places to drive our convertibles not merely commute with them, and rock formations that would impress anyone who has never been to Southern Utah. But every weekend in town here is as jammed as Jeep Safari, systems is a function of our numbers and our affluence. If I consume twice what you consume, my ecological impact equals roughly two persons like yourself. Most people look at the population/affluence relationship and conclude that affluence is ecologically bad because ‘it causes environmental damage. However, affluence provides a nonobvious dividend. It’s not easy to maintain an affluent life and to raise large numbers of affluent children. If you want a lot of material goods and kids who attend Harvard, you're not going to have very many children. Wealthier countries have lower birthrates than poor countries, and wealthier people have lower birthrates than poor people. Affluence means lower population, which is a far better alternative than a huge poor population. Regionally, affluence poses barriers to sobuletion growth. Whether they’re familiar it’s only fourteen miles to the LA microcosm of Santa Rosa, and half a million dollars might with population theory or not, residents of Switzerland, like residents of any golf course get you a house. development, understand that limiting access is essential to preserving quality of life. By 2020, the visitor to Moab might look at Cloudrock as a model development that leaves most space to nature (unfortunately, but not incidentally, excluding about 97 percent of the population who can’t afford a Tourists think this a near paradise. For many locals, it’s an ex-paradise. With the right kind of eye, it’s easy to glance across the Vaca Mountains to the East and see not the Sacramento Valley, as geography would indicate, but places like Sedona, Telluride, Taos, and Springdale. _ No doubt, some readers would think of these towns as overpopulated four corners hellholes. But not readers where I live. It is important in understanding population issues, especially in the West, to understand the relative appeal of place. New Americans come from Southeast Asia to LA to find a better place. Southern Californians migrate to California’s less touched valleys and mountains because they are better places. Many of us, precisely because these less touched Californian places are losing their appeal, are headed your way. And what may be hard to believe, this inter-mountain West migration has barely begun. Assumption: A Demographic Disaster Awaits The 1960s-1970s vision of apocalypse is wrong. The future is not The Popular Bomb, Soylent Green, or Logan’s Run. We won't be living a Calcutta lifestyle, eating recycled human flesh, or killing people who turn 30. If you doubt the power of technology to give a growing population more food, better health care, and plenty of energy, you're in for a pleasant surprise. But there, the good news ends. Demographic disaster need not be a Malthusian tale of death. What we have in store is a kinder, gentler disaster, but a terrible prospect nonetheless. We are headed toward a world missing space, quiet, nature, and the sense of historical and geohistorical time we get from less altered places. I’ll leave the meaning of the West to writers past and present who often are subjects in the Zephyr. Here, I'll assume that the reader shares my view that population represents, at least, a cultural disaster in the West. Let’s first look at what we're not talking about. Population In Rich Places Is A Social Not Biological Problem. A biological population problem deals with objective, scientific limits. An example i is carrying capacity. The Manti-La Sal National Forest can support a certain number of fir trees or bears. Exceed the number and nature quickly restores equilibrium through competition, attrition, illness, and death. Certainly, Earth has a limited carrying capacity, a biological limit. There is only so much possible photosynthesis that can occur on this planet, for instance. The well known 1970s book The Limits To Coe is an example of this view of the population issue. However, when we talk about population in our Western backyard, we're rarely talking about objective limits. A social population problem means subjective limits that stem from preferences. My 1600 square foot house could easily shelter a dozen persons, and if they came from the poorer parts of the world, those dozen people would be in for an increase in living standard. But it’s not going to happen. I’d consider the house grossly overpopulated with a dozen people. But it is an overpopulation based on preference not science, There is no reason we can’t have 10 million persons per year visiting Arches National Park, a 1200% increase over present numbers. On the Sunday before a past Memorial Day, Inaively tried to take a first time Utah visitor on a hike to Delicate Arch. The parking area literally was more congested than aUniversity of California lot on the first day of the Fall quarter. There is no scientific, objective reason we can’t build a WalMart-sized lot at the Delicate Arch trailhead. We'd be eliminating snake and vulture habitat, but that’s not a scientific . objection. We don’t have to have snakes and birds there, we want to. And we can’t measure our want biologically and objectively. It’s a preference. Limits and Population Control Limits to human population growth come in many forms. Ecologist Garrett Hardin describes "the principal variants" by which "population growth can be suppressed: famine, fatal crowd diseases, sterilizing diseases promoted by sexual promiscuity, civic disorders promoted by overpopulation, international wars, housing shortages, a highly materialistic ‘ethos, prudence in preparing for future troubles." The West seems to have sufficient food, space, medical tecl Military security, and construction capability. Thus, the first several of Hardin's limits are not pertinent to 21st Century population issues in the West. We're best to focus our attention on the last two--materialism, and prudent preparation. I A highly materialistic ethos often is regarded as the enemy of ecological systems. The more we consume, the more impact we have.: Physicist John Holdren and biologist Paul Ehrlich formulated an equation well known in population studies: I = PAT (Environmental Impact = Population times Affluence times Technology). Leaving aside the technology point in the interest of simplicity, the main idea is that is that our impact on ecological Crowds of tourists jockey fora view of the Grand Canyon. When we talk about population in our Western backyards, were rarely talking about objective limits. I'd consider my house to-be grossly overpopulated with a dozen people. But it is overpopulation based on preference, not science. Certainly if I’m not one of the affluent, I don’t enjoy these exclusions. But if I’m not planning to build there, I’d much rather Ted Turner buy a million acres in New Mexico than half a million ranchette-seeking Californians move in and start throwing up pseudoadobes. If Rockefeller hadn’t owned what became an elk refuge in Wyoming, all we'd have there now is the sprawling suburb of North Jackson Hole. Exclusions via wealth are painful, but if your main goal is limiting the impact of numbers of people, they work. More to the point, with limited time and all the growth trends putting population pressures on the West, affluence serves as a brake on spiraling numbers. "Prudent preparation", as population control, means many things. °Few are able to live in Zion Canyon because of government ownership. Many of us have supported the Clinton roadless initiative or the 9 million acre redrock wilderness proposal because we want government imposed limits to impede development. But even if we win future battles to limit development of public land in the West, we haven't stopped the influx of people. I think it’s a fair assertion that there is no viable political constituency for population controls in the United States (and certainly not in Utah). Religious and individual rights opposition constrains political action. Both political parties, with the help of unindicted coconspirators like the Sierra Club, treat immigration as taboo, even as it drives most population growth in 21st Century America. And growth is political circles is universally viewed as a god term. We can work to develop an individual ethic of limited population growth, but it’s not easy to sell limits to a society that derives its values from the National Football League, MTV, and Gourmet. It’s one thing to push painless prescriptions such as recycling and buying water-efficient toilets, and it’s quite another to promote significant lifestyle changes. A few issues back, a writer to the Zephyr stated his intention to stay away from Moab in order to preserve it. I found that thought simultanously admirable and weird. Preserve it for whom? Residents of Navajo Ridge? Shareholders of Veritas Corporation? They‘re not saying no, I’m not, and neither are most of you. This is the most materialistic time in the most affluent place with the most pervasive nae eee machine in human history. When the question is "more?", most of us are going to say "yes!". Don’t look for _ limits driven by self-denial to solve much. ‘Though a strange’concept, it’s fair to say that there is a shortage of limits. Unique among big, rich countries, America’s population is increasing, and the Western part of the country cannot opt out. |