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.)
Often
in contemporary society, truth is sidetracked
by myth. The term “myth” is used to
describe a broadly-held view that can be shown
to not be true.
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
The
Origin of 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
Propagation of Harmful Contemporary Myths
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.
Eliminating
Contemporary Myths
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.
A
core problem with widely held contemporary
myths is that in a democracy with a market
economy what majority believes is treated as “truth”
in the market and in politics.
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.
Specific
Examples of Debilitating Myths
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
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:
It
is possible to provide acceptable mobility
and access with roads and private vehicles
for a large percentage of the residents and
visitors in a New Urban Region when there is
a random distribution of human activities
(origins and destinations of travel demand)
inside and outside the Clear Edge.
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 impossible to provide a large percentage
of the population of a New Urban Region with
acceptable mobility and access using roads
and private vehicles when there are randomly
distributed origins and destinations of
trips (travel demand) inside and outside the
Clear Edge.
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.)
The
Myth of the Big Yard
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 in a family’s best interest to buy a
house with a big individual yard both to
have a place for children to play and to
maximize the resale value of the unit. Even if many families make the same
decision, it is still possible for them and
their neighbors to efficiently and
economically access the elements of a
quality contemporary life.
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.
The market demonstrates that even
in spite of massive subsides for
scatteration, the value of homes and
businesses is far higher in the 1,500-acre
configuration close to the core than it is
in the 50,000-acre configuration which
cannot be close to anything.
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.
A
New Process to Defang Myths
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:
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.
Where
to From Here?
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:
It
is impossible to provide a large percentage
of the population of a New Urban Region with
acceptable mobility and access using roads
and private vehicles when there are randomly
distributed origins and destinations of
trips (travel demand) inside and outside the
Clear Edge.
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 and thus denies residents
functional access to the elements of a
quality contemporary life.
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
END
NOTES
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.
Citizen
actions need to be based on truth. If the truth
were widely known, the myths would be defanged.
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.
The
potential for more intelligent decisions
concerning property value and location is rooted
in citizens understanding the truth–having
facts on which to rely.
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.
|