De-Development: Coming to a “Sustainable Community” Near You?

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, caused a stir in late July when it was discovered that he supported “de-development” in the 1970’s.  Since this was a claim made about the 70’s, I decided not to discuss it.  After all, thirty plus years is a long time, and there is no current evidence that he currently supports this idea.  Though, curiously, requests for clarification on this have been ignored.

Then, I decided to revisit the idea of “de-development,” because even if Holdren has moved on philosophically, what about the idea itself?  There would have to be other adherents to this out there somewhere, right?

To take a look at the issue, let’s revisit the original controversy from earlier this summer.  First up, this from CNS News.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”

In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for “de-development” of the United States demanded a redistribution of wealth.

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

Well, there are quite a few leftist fallacies here.  I think the most prominent, though unstated, one, is the idea of the zero sum game.  They infer that some nations are wealthy because others are impoverished.  This comes from the Marxist theory of class exploitation. The central premise is that for someone to have more, someone else has to have less.  The fallacy here is that there is not a finite amount of wealth.  When someone, or some company is successful, more wealth is created.  From this wealth comes jobs and opportunities for others.  Do some have more?  Yes.  Do more people benefit? Also yes.  Are other people robbed so some become wealthy and many others have opportunity?  No.  The premise itself is faulty.

Additionally, equitable wealth among nations is determined not only by geography, resources, culture, and circumstance, but also by political system.  Would North Koreans be starving if they didn’t have a communist government?  Would Cubans have toilet paper (But they have that great health care!)?  Would so many African nations be better off if they weren’t using sustainable development as a model?

Here’s some more…

“It is therefore apparent,” they said, “that one key to saving world society lies in a measured and orderly retreat from overdevelopment in today’s ODCs (overdeveloped countries)–a process we will label, for want of a better word, de-development.”

“As we see it, de-development of the ODCs should be given top priority,” they wrote on page 926.

“Only when that course is firmly established, will there be any real hope for all of humanity to generate a worldwide spirit of cooperation rather than competition and to plan the development of our (planet) with the holistic perspective that is so essential to the survival of civilization,” they wrote. “Only then can consumption in the (less developed countries) be linked both psychologically and physically to production in the ODCs and a substantial transfer of wealth accomplished.”

They added: “However, many technologists now correctly perceive that, if the ODCs are to be de-developed and civilization is to persist, the halcyon days of unquestioning public acceptance of technological ‘progress’ must disappear forever.”

“The task thus becomes one of diverting people from pursuing that material-intensive and environmentally unsustainable lifestyle,” they said. “The only way to divert the rush in the LDCs to mimic overdevelopment is to change the model–to trim from the lifestyle and supporting technology of the ODCs their energetic and material profligacy while increasing the quality of life.”

Ok then, technology, consumption, and our current lifestyle (as defined by the standards of the 1970’s) is unsustainable.

Here are some additional quotes related to de-development.  This is not a Conservative source, and the author regards conservatives as a “rabid, fundamentalist religion.”

“The Wildlands Project, which proposes to make 50% of the continent of North America uninhabitable, appears to be going “wild” all across the nation. Reports from California, South Carolina, Virginia, and almost every state in between are reporting huge chunks of their state being designated.” –Joyce Morrison

“…that at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades…. Nonetheless, half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zones. Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region…. with human habitations being the islands. The native ecosystem and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” –Wildlands Project

“…Community Sustainability Infrastructures [designed for] efficiency and livability that encourages: in-fill over sprawl: compactness, higher density low-rise residential: transit-oriented (TODs) and pedestrian-oriented development (PODs): bicycle circulation networks; work-to-home proximity; mixed-use-development: co-housing, housing over shops, downtown residential; inter-modal transportation malls and facilities …where trolleys, rapid transit, trains and biking, walking and hiking are encouraged by infrastructures.” –U.N. Conference on Human Settlements

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” –Paul Ehrlick

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” –Maurice King

It isn’t enough for the elite that you live and work in a cubicle; they want to control your usage of water, electricity, food and more. That is where the grid[9] comes in, the smart grid technology. The smart grid system[10] plans to control all of your utilities and monitor[11] their usage against the ‘sustainable’ projections to determine if you or your family is a net consumer or producer. This is the scientific dictatorship at work. Prepare yourself for peak usage[12] and heavy tax and fees for power users and perks for those who recycle and play by the new rules. The smart grid is an integrated system which goes hand in hand with cell technology so I am sure that your vehicle mileage and condition will come in to play as well.

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” –Stephen Schnieder

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” –Paul Ehrlick

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” –David Brower(Sierra Club)

And finally, this…

However, ultimately the answer, as suggested at the beginning of this chapter, is to change the industrial system itself and return to a largely rural, community-based society in which economic activities are conducted on a very much smaller scale and that cater as much as possible for the local economy. Mahatma Gandhi’s vision for India was that of a nation of loosely organized village republics. The Swiss Confederation was originally very much like this. Practically all the power resided with its rural Communes, in which real participatory democracy prevailed, while the Cantons were to begin with but loose alliances created by the Communes in different areas, largely for purposes of defence against some external threat, the Confederate government itself having very little power.

So, the only way for mankind to survive is to move towards an agrarian society, abandon technology, mobility, energy, and comfort.  Let’s summarize this.

• Population must be controlled ( I wonder if having the “right” beliefs will determine if someone can have a child?)
• Technology and the current US lifestyle must be abandoned.
• We must move to what could be described as a subsistence agricultural economy.
• “Cutting out the cancer” is a clear reference to killing people.
• The government will have to manage this de-development, and then all aspects of human life, from cradle to grave.
• It’s OK to lie to achieve this goal.

So, we don’t know if Mr. Holdren still believes this.  He simply hasn’t answered any questions to clarify this.  I would challenge him to do so, but I doubt any answer will be forthcoming, but then again, if it’s OK to lie and exaggerate to achieve these goals, would he even be truthful?

Is some of this coming from the radical left?  Absolutely!  Does the “mainstream” environmental movement embrace this, well…somewhat.  Remember my favorite environmental quote:

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.” –Maurice Strong