I keep seeing the phrase "social engineering" used to describe policies that don't kowtow to the car. See, for example, this inexplicable subhead about a third of the way through this Seattle newspaper story. Not only is this usage annoying, it's exactly backward (as others have noted before me).
First, let's look first at specifics. The paper reports that the city will put parking meters on some formerly-free spots in a rapidly urbanizing district near downtown Seattle. The newspaper calls this "social engineering."
I suppose that's right, at least to the extent that parking meters alter the incentive structure for parking, which ultimately may change some people's behavior. But if anything, the alternative to the city's plan -- continuing to provide public rights-of-way for exclusive, uncompensated use by a handful of private car owners -- is closer to "social engineering" than charging a small fee for the privilege. Really, the question is not whether the city will engage in "social engineering," but what kind of social engineering. And in particular, will government continue to use public resources to subsidize private cars?
Speaking more generally, just about any transportation policy -- or any policy at all, for that matter -- can be described as "social engineering." And using that inflammatory language is a game anyone can play. Consider some (slightly) overheated rhetoric: today's car-centric system is the result of Soviet-style social engineering.
Governments used the awesome power of the state to take money from the populace. Then central planners used the money with an ethic of brutalism, forcing gigantic car thoroughfares across neighborhoods, into the hearts of cities, and then out into far-flung farmlands and wild places.
In town, America's Soviet-style planning wasn't much different.
Wielding authority over private property, the central planner decided that for the good of the collective, private homes and business should be forced to provide minimum numbers of parking spaces. As if that weren't enough, the government itself got into the parking business, using publicly-owned land to provide "free" parking along both sides of most streets (the hidden high costs would come later). And the parking laws were, of course, enforced by state agents paid with public dollars.
Much like their comrades in the Soviet system, the central planners in the United States often sought to cloak their actions in the language of social equity. But more often than not, the effect was just the opposite: low-income neighborhoods were literally bulldozed under for faster car-ways; working class transportation choices like streetcars were summarily destroyed, while buses were relegated to second-class status; and once-lively city neighborhoods emptied out as the wealthy segregated themselves in isolated cloisters.
Worse, the car-dominated system was financed by taxes that were often regressive or unfair. Property taxes helped to push homeownership out of reach. And blatantly regressive sales taxes fell hardest on those who could least afford to pay.
And so on. You get the idea.
So here's my plea for today: let's put a moratorium on using the phrase "social engineering" unless we mean something pretty distinctive. And, no, parking meters don't qualify.
Seattleites: Come hang with Amanda Little at Elliott Bay Books
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Comments
View as Threaded
JMG Posted 9:50 am
08 May 2007
It's time for a paving moratorium and then a concentrated effort to judiciously begin converting roads for cars into roads for people, with cars limited to their assigned places, and only so long as they behave.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 10:24 am
08 May 2007
Yes, and in the days of leaded petrol (only a few years ago), they poisoned the whole community. Much of that leaded pollution remains in the soil, in the dust, in the air, and in you.
Socrates said "Beware your wishes", that was 2,500 years ago and mankind still does not understand the concept.
I am sorry to be so brutal, BUT, poisoned people are just not aware, not awake.... a heavy metal-mallet is in order, to awake them from their inertia and apathy.
Realise the public is 99% uninformed and wishing like crazy, and the political system is a democracy .... so how is change going to be brought about ?
Not only are cars a problem but there are insidious other sources of mentally corrupting chemicals being released into the environment. These chemical can be with you for life, slowly accumulation and changing your mental awareness, changing your thoughts. FATAL
They can and do travel around the globe.
But y'all love your car .....
and oil .... and y'all are going down the gurgler and you don't know it, and you really don't care.
Well I do, and I am not going to let your country destroy mine, and this beautiful LIFE on Earth.
omegafour.com
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:07 am
09 May 2007
It is sort of a chicken-or-egg problem.
Does one... adopt policies that make cars prohibitively expensive, threreby forcing people to demand public transport which MIGHT be put in place before they can no longer afford their car or force people to return to urban cores which MIGHT contain affordable housing?
Or does one... find the funding to construct a viable public transportation system and rebuild urban cores, thereby persuading people to give up their cars?
It seems there will be a negative response when low-income people who need cars are suddenly facing rising expenses. And there will be a negative response when the increasing demand for housing in urban areas drives up prices, thereby excluding low-income people from the market.
And then what becomes of all the housing currently dependent on cars? Are those communities targeted for deconstruction? Who will purchase the land so people can use that money to move to urban areas? Is there going to be a government program to pay for relocation? Will massive amounts of energy go into dismantling and/or moving houses, grinding up concrete, rebuilding soil, planting trees, et cetera?
The de-carifcation of America is a rather ambitious proposal and I'm wondering about some of the details. What becomes of the people not in a position to move or use trolleys and bicycles?
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:45 am
09 May 2007
I had an epiphany of sorts the other day. I used to say I dislike people... their behavior generates a lot of problems and I found it difficult to feel much sympathy for them. But I've decided I do not dislike people as much as I thought. They do some very stupid things and it is difficult to feel compassion for them, but I've discovered I actually care very much about their comfort and well-being... even when it comes to those I still dislike or even despise.
I must give some credit to the Grist community for this change in attitude. Throughout the discussions of what must be done to preserve our natural environment, I sense a lack of concern for those who will be affected by the new policies. It is easy to propose new policies, new tax incetives, increase the price of this, lower the price of that, change this behavior, change that behavior... but we're talking about billions of people who have to adjust to new circumstances.
Yes, if we do not stop global climate change -- assuming it is an option -- they will still have to adjust to new circumstances. Neither extreme, however, is a good thing. I would not want an outside force deciding how I should live. How do they know exactly what the right thing to do is? And I'd rather not have to adjust to living under new climate conditions. Though, at least that is something humans have had to cope with for tens of thousands of years... it seems more natural.
Efforts to save the environment might be more productive if there is a bit more emphasis on how we manage the transition from the old ways of thinking to the new ways of thinking. How do we help people through the transition? How do we avoid pulling the rug out from under their lifestyle? How do we build a new society without discarding those who find it difficult to change their habits? Or do environmentalist not care? Is the future so dire that they are prepared to impose a new world order and permit natural selection to eliminate those who no longer fit in?
Forward!
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:34 am
09 May 2007
Off the top of my head, I would ask you to consider Katrina: a whole bunch of people who, without being asked, suddenly had to change, and change in ways they didn't like.
I think the answer to your question depends on your answer to this one:
would you rather have the kinds of changes that a reality-based response to climate disruption requires or would you rather that millions of people at a time, cumulatively billions, be randomly selected by nature to suffer the entire brunt of our failure to change in ways that the environment requires?
That is, would you rather have a WWII home-front style "We're all in this together, and we'll do whatever it takes to meet the threat" response or would you rather have all Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse return to the world and range freely all at once?
Failing to choose an appropriate response to overpopulation, climate disruption, and the end of cheap energy means that War, Famine, Pestilence, and Disease will choose the responses for us.
Your question seems to presuppose that there are these nasty environmentalists who are all about imposing their will on you and on innocent people whose only failing was living the consumerist/carburban lifestyle.
Alas, sadly, our pleasant first world consumerist/carburban lifestyle -- the way we use energy and materials -- cannot and will not continue much longer.
We are much like Wile E. Coyote in the old Roadrunner cartoons, suspended in the air well past the edge of the cliff--there is no question that we will fall, the only question is whether we thought to pack a parachute. Our unconscious choices about how to live shot us off the cliff; our conscious choices now will determine whether we've got a parachute or not.
In the Roadrunner cartoons, the Roadrunner would post signs "Keep Out," "Danger," "Warning, Bridge Out" and Wile E. Coyote would see those signs and ignore them, or think that they were put there to deceive him.
Well, that's us: we're seeing the signs of impending catastrophe. The only question is whether we have the intelligence not to ignore them, and to respond appropriately.
Ultimately, if the winds of change are like an F5 tornado, the winds caused by failure to change are Katrinas ...
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:17 am
09 May 2007
grist.org
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:30 am
09 May 2007
And why on the policy side I focus so hard on policies that don't punish the majority of people. Let the rich, who can afford it, bear most of the transition costs.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:33 am
09 May 2007
JMG: Perhaps its even more important that we not view the public as them--as something other than the "we" you refer to--at all.
I am not surprised in the least when anyone fails to embrace suggestions about fundamental changes that WE ALL (not just they) need to make in our lifestyles
OF COURSE people in the first world resist suggestions that, as Kunstler puts it, "we have to start making other arrangements." The average poor American is among the materially richest people in history, and the better off folks have unprecedented levels of wealth never before seen on such a scale.
The problem is that the economists have perpetrated a massive fraud, giving us an accounting system that only measures cash flow and doesn't ever bother totting up the net worth statement, which would show that our extravagant lifestyles have all been funded from the principal in our inheritance rather than interest.
As a result, we're reaching the point where, for the first time in history, there is every reason to expect that future generations will not be able to live so well--perhaps catastrophically so.
I'll leave it to others better suited than I to figure out how to widen the window of possibility so that it includes less alarming options--my job is to make sure that the discussion also includes some consideration of what nature requires if we want a soft(er) landing, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us. Moving the window, in other words, by making sure it stretches at least far enough in the reality direction to include what we must do to soften the crash-landing that is coming.
===
DR: Second, it's important that greenies remain humble, and remember that they're human like everybody else and have no special access to The Truth. The process of changing culture must be gradual and collaborative and democratic. Diktats are never well-received.
JMG: What do we say to Jim Hansen and Al Gore, "Stop being so insistent, you don't have any special access to The Truth?" I will be the first to say I could be wrong about everything I think, which is why I think it's so important to choose a conservative, "no regrets" response to perceived threats like climate disruption etc.
As someone posted here on Gristmill recently, OK, if you do what Big Oil wants and they're wrong, we're screwed, but if you do what I want and I'm wrong all that has happened is that you got off fossil fuels earlier, put less CO2 into the atmosphere, and stopped treating our only planet like an infinitely big sewer sooner.
As far as diktats go, again, I say that the diktats of man are far less harsh than the diktats of nature. If you believe that there's some room to negotiate with nature, that there's some compromise that lets us keep flying around in jets and driving tax-subsidized 8,000 pound SUVs do pick up a DVD at Blockbuster, then great, you can work on those compromises and you don't have to think about hard choices.
====
Gar: Re: your focus on "no sweat" solutions: Certainly no one will argue that we should not harvest the low-hanging fruit first.
Re: your focus on making the rich pay for the needed changes: Good luck with that. If we had a functioning democracy, the greater numbers among the less well off would decide the issue the way you've suggested. However, as JFK put it, "Whoever said life was fair?"
Meanwhile, the hyperinequality in the US--which continues to increase at an increasing rate (just like our greenhouse gas emissions)--is both evidence of and a cause of the increasing ability of the well-off to avoid subjecting any important questions to democratic decision making. If you think we can afford to dally on our environmental responses long enough to get the rich to agree to pay for it then you are reading far different news than I am.
The time to discuss who pays is not when the fire alarm is ringing.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 6:41 am
09 May 2007
After World War II, policies (including the GI bill) in the United States strongly supported single-home units and suburbanization. This has had incredible social implications, from the rise of the personal automobile and commuting to the disintegration of the extended family and the local downtown.
Aside from the term social engineering, I'd like to place a moratorium on "market distortions," as in taxes and regulations are market distortions. The term is generally used to denote any transfer of wealth from the wealthiest to the masses; the terms for the transfer of money from the masses to the wealthiest are "economic growth," or "development," and "profit."
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:31 am
09 May 2007
Anyway...
JMG:
"Off the top of my head, I would ask you to consider Katrina: a whole bunch of people who, without being asked, suddenly had to change, and change in ways they didn't like. "
Me:
Katrina was not the result of our automobile culture. It was a failure to maintain the system designed to protect a coastal city. We have the resources and knowledge to protect such areas. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of selfish bastards in control of the federal government who would rather ensure they and their friends wallow in money rather than invest in our nation's infrastructure (including levees, wetlands, and coastal dunes). Indeed, a good highway system is very useful for coping with such emergencies.
JMG:
"... rather have the kinds of changes that a reality-based response to climate disruption requires or would you rather that millions of people at a time, cumulatively billions, be randomly selected by nature to suffer the entire brunt of our failure to change in ways that the environment requires? "
Me:
I would prefer that the reality-based response include consideration of human nature and our tendency to cling to objects, views, and ways of life we grew up with. This is not an either/or situation. There is a gray area between doing exactly what is needed to put a halt to global climate change right now and not doing anything at all. I am not about to rip someone's automobile away from them and tell them to start biking. Nor am I denying that something must be done. I believe those who know about global climate change and the need to act should also learn more about the people effected by their decisions.
JMG:
"...would you rather have a WWII home-front style "We're all in this together, and we'll do whatever it takes to meet the threat" response or would you rather have all Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse return to the world and range freely all at once?"
Me:
I would prefer that we all act together, which mean everyone sacrifices. No one should be singled out -- like those 400,000 American soldiers and 10 million Soviet soldiers who died during WWII -- to bare the brunt of the suffering. Which means... for example... when someone mentions making living in the suburbs unaffordable, or making cars unaffordable, they should consider how it will affect those who have chosen (during better times, perhaps) to live in suburbs or construct their lives assuming there will always be automombiles.
JMG:
"Your question seems to presuppose that there are these nasty environmentalists who are all about imposing their will on you and on innocent people whose only failing was living the consumerist/carburban lifestyle."
Me:
I'm just saying it sometime seems that way. See above.
JMG:
"We are much like Wile E. Coyote in the old Roadrunner cartoons, suspended in the air well past the edge of the cliff--there is no question that we will fall, the only question is whether we thought to pack a parachute."
Me:
Hmmm... never thought of it that way. It is quite clear that we did not pack a parachute. An entire species has run past the edge of the cliff. And it is like those cartoons where one guy tries to scramble on top of the other guy, so he won't hit the ground first. It is so easy to sacrifice someone else for the good of the species. Harder to figure out a way to reduce everyone's suffering.
JMG:
"Ultimately, if the winds of change are like an F5 tornado, the winds caused by failure to change are Katrinas ..."
Me:
Yes... but do you really want to use innocent people as a wind break... and do you feel comfortable telling them not to worry, it is for the greater good?
And now I can launch into a very short Buddhist tale. A monk asked his master, "If three people are drowning and I can save only one of them, how do I decide which one to save?" The master replied, "You save all three of them."
I think it is up to environmentalist to (1) recognize the problems we face, (2) find solutions, and (3) don't leave anyone behind.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:40 am
09 May 2007
Prior to the GI bill, the pleasure of living in suburbia was primarily a reward for the wealthy. The rest of America was confined to not-so-pleasant urban environments. Is this the golden age environmentalists want to return to? The resources weren't available then to create beautiful urban settings. What makes one think it will be different now?
Forward!
Permalink