Sprawl and Sustainability

This post is dedicated to the ideology behind a favorite blog of mine called, A Green Earth. In this post I will talk about Urban Sprawl and environmental sustainability, it will be connected with Informationalism by its focus upon teachers. Most everyone is aware of the critical role that teachers play in the realm of information. Here I will show how helping them advances informationalism, improves urban life, and helps the environment.

It has been incorporated into common knowledge for quite some time that a large pool of labor is critical to a wealthy society. It provides the basis for competitive industry and is the powerhouse behind a market economy. City, State, and National governments recognize this in the United States and claim to make the welfare of the labor force a primary concern. At the same time on the city level, where most city planning takes place, the planners vow to fight sprawl and some pledge to advance the concept of sustainable planning.

However, it appears at all levels the externalities of these workers’ wages are not taken into account. Failing to pay a wage that makes it viable to live comfortably in the city has many negative consequences. If the wages are extremely low, the workers must live in slums with high crime rates and health issues. Also, if the wages are raised but not adequately enough for all, then there is greater incentive for the workers to reside outside the city. This situation contributes to sprawl, which results in a longer commute and greater energy consumption. Also, if the residence is outside the city or county, revenue paid out to the workers is lost on the local economy. So, despite the universal acknowledgement of the value of workers, their low wages make fighting sprawl more difficult and detract from the local economy. Yet it does not seem to be a factor in planning.

Many city planners in the 21^st century have come to regard the idea of sustainability as essentially good. As always, since humans are so fond of dualisms, the “good” of sustainability finds its antithesis in sprawl. Both of these are fairly loaded terms, and so it is essential to provide a clear and concise definition of the two in order to avoid conceptual ambiguity and understand the nature of the labor paradox.

Sprawl can best be understood as the result of the expansion of an urban area into the less developed countryside having little or no controlled land use policy. Inadequate pay for workers contributes to sprawl by creating car dependent communities due to distance from any industrial or business zone, low-density housing communities, as well as the presence of many strip mall areas. Sprawl causes inefficiency in resource allocation in the urban area and makes city more difficult for planners or organize once the pattern has been set. Sprawl not only leads to inefficiency, but over time the marginal cost of living in the area so exceeds the marginal benefit that the city runs a high risk of having market failure due to an exodus from the area, thus putting these workers out of the job.

Sustainability, on the other side of the duality, is the product of careful planning. However, the concept itself is separated by schools such as new urbanism, which also seeks to fight sprawl, by its incorporation of ecological systems in the planning calculations. Sustainable planning seeks to take into account the amount of human population an area can hold while maintaining adequate resources for the planned future. This means not only reversing the tendencies of sprawl, but also managing resource allocations of goods such as: water, petroleum, electricity, food, and land. The goal of sustainability is to ensure that the resources are allocated efficiently enough in the present so they are not completely consumed or unequally diminished for future generations.

From these definitions it is clear that not addressing the issue of the labor force is contradictory to good planning and to sustainability, as it promotes sprawl and inefficient utilization of natural resources. For example, in one of the areas known for the worst sprawl, Charlotte North Carolina, a first year teacher with a bachelor degree is paid $28,510 by the state (Salary, 2007). It is difficult for the teachers, since it takes an average of $35,000 dollars to meet the basic needs of a family of four (Glasmeier, 2008). Common sense would lead one to deduce that the teacher would not locate themselves in a city with a higher cost of living.

The negative affects of this policy are also supported in a paper published by Rèmy Prud’homme and Chang-Woon Lee where they defined the efficiency of cities based upon labor productivity. In their study of 23 French cities they found that the success of the city was defined by the relative size of its labor market, which was determined by, “…the size of the city; the average potential job-home distance (sprawl); and the average speed at which journey to work takes place” (Prud’homme and Chang-Woon Lee, 1998 ). These last two are specifically the problems that face the city as a result of their inadequate payment of the labor force. The paper concludes specifically that, the city’s productivity is determined by the aforementioned factors, and that this labor pool is determined by, “…its sprawl and of the speed at which trips to the cities are made”, (Prud’homme and Chang-Woon Lee, 1998 ).

It should also be noted that the increased distance from the job denotes a greater reliability on automobiles. These automobiles add further crowding to the already busy city streets and have spiraling negative consequences for the city system. Thus, it is clear that it is not possible to confront sprawl or sustainable planning without addressing the wages of workers. The wages must be raised to a level that makes it possible and then beneficial for workers to live in areas relatively close to their schools. The economic loss incurred by keeping the wages of the labor force low ultimately outweighs the state funds saved in the process.

References

Glasmeier, Amy K (2006), An Atlas of Poverty in America: One Nation, Pulling Apart, 1960-2003, Routledge, 2006.

Beatly; Manning (1997), The Ecology of Place, Washington DC: Island Press, 1997.

“Charlotte-Mecklenburgh Schools 2006-2007 Salary Schedule for Teachers” (2006), http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/departments/HR/compensation.asp, accessed February 2, 2007.

Rèmy Prud’homme and Chang-Woon Lee (1998), “Sprawl, Speed, and the Efficiency of Cities”, Paris, France: Obervatoire de l’Economic et des Institution Locals.

Why We've Been Failing in Iraq "A Final Informationalist's Word for the time before I Move onto More Pressing Issues e.g. the Environment"


The critics of the Iraq war have become far more numerous than the supporters that were present in March of 2003. The current discontent among the public and on Capitol Hill are at levels not seen since Vietnam. The President's new plan to send more troops has been met with huge amounts of resistance, and his decision to accelerate the plan can be viewed as a complete disregard for legislative authority. In short, Bush has become almost autocratic towards Iraq because it is his last option. Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States, however, it would be an even greater disaster for George W. Bush.

So after tens of thousands of lives and a trillion dollars, why haven't things come together?


I've already outlined a plan to get us out of Iraq if we wish to stay inside. However, I fear that the American public no longer wants to dedicate the manpower or the money to try and fix the situation in Iraq. What's worse, despite the extreme weath of the builders of this war based on disinformation, their wealth is certainly not enough to bring stability to the country.


Why has Bush's vision failed?

The Bush Administration has suffered from ethnocentrism in the Iraq disaster. The toll of this ethnocentrism has been catastrophic. They are laboring under the ethnocentric assumption that every knows of and wants representative democracy. They feel that once people are allowed this "freedom" then little Americas will pop up everywhere, and they'll all be greatful that we showed them the light.

The truth, however, is more sobering. People have to be educated to live in a representative democracy. Tolerance and equality and representation are far from instincts, they are acquired disciplines. This is what makes Informationalism so important. The sharing of Information is the only way we can discover the things that work towards the progress of our species; it is the only thing that can keep us from giving into our infantile impulses and eventually destroying ourselves and those around us.

The Bush Administration has thrust democracy on Iraq without the education. Representative Democracy in a culture that has not yet accepted the tolerance of different opinions and the stipulations of majority rule as well as fear of the tyranny of that majority is useless. It is doomed to failure. It is the same mistake made in post-colonial Africa.

What must be done?

The people must be empowered. However, you cannot empower them with the vote if you do not first empower their mind. To empower their mind you must ensure that their mind and body are sound, which means they must not be wanting for food or water or the various basic resources that humans in chaotic situations must struggle in terror to acquire.

This returns us to Informationalism. Education. The Iraqi people cannot be "forced to be free" in the words of Rousseau. They must be taught to be free. In order to be taught to be free they must have a time and a place to learn. We are not providing that, and all the prime minister wants is the guns to settle the dispute once and for all.

The dispute will never be settled with guns. Force does not make right. Perhaps blood must be spilled to begin the process, but it can never be completed with blood. It must be completed with minds.


I would encourage all of you who read this blog to tell all those that you know that education is the way out of Iraq. Write your congressperson or letters to your newspaper editor and let the voice of reason be heard. Somebody has to speak for these people, for today they cannot speak for themselves. They are hungry, they are thirsty, they are afraid, and our country has helped to create this situation. If it is as Lao Tzu said, and the way for a large nation to master a small one is to be humble, then let us be humble to the people of Iraq. Let us lift them up and not trample them down with our forced government. Let us build schools and not close them, let us open minds and not shut them. We are in a race against time! Information is the way out of Iraq. Before you can free a body, you must free the mind.

Parts of Informatonalist Plan Informally Considered


I outlined in an earlier post my plan for getting out of Iraq if we were not going to begin an immediate phased withdrawal. It is pleasing to me to notice that some of the international figures of political authority are considering elements from the plan I presented.

1. I commented on the first, which was that unrestricted warfare against the militias was needed. The Bush Administration and the Iraqi prime minister have set out to do just that. However, I do not believe the commitment of the prime minister is genuine, as he appears to just be using this operation as an excuse for an ethnic cleansing of the Sunni. If that part of my plan is to be adopted, the United States must take a more independent approach of dealing with the Shi'a death squads. They are the power base of the Shi'a Prime Minister, and he will not undermine his own power base.


Now, however a more recent development has taken place involving the government of Saudi Arabia. Here is the link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16656642/

The Saudi government is talking about sending troops into Iraq, because like I said, the Shi'a dominated government is not going to be able to quell the violence, as its supporters are instigators of the violence. This begins to follow the part of my plan that calls for the phased withdrawal of US troops and their replacement with UN peacekeepers and help from the Arab League.


This is for any of you that are skeptical, as you should be, of the benefits of Informationalism. From this basic paradigm I have derived systems for solutions that even world leaders are only beginning to grasp. This is because the former systems of reasoning that these men use are pragmatic only within their own ideological realm. As I have shown earlier, many of the men making this policy don't even know the history of the region. They are a product of education systems that have rendered them almost incapable of reasoning beyond axioms that Informationalism shows to be ineffective and counterproductive to the continuation of the species.

The combinaton of the Historicism of Informationalism, its Holistic approach, and the primacy of Information within the paradigm appear to me to offer results where others cannot. If we work to free the Information, we can work our way out of many a mishap.

I will not attempt to hold secrets, my intent here is to persuade the reader to begin to adopt the perspective and the paradigm of Informationalism. Unlike many causes however, I will allow the results of this perspective to speak for themselves.

President Bush's New Plan and Informationalism

Here's an article I've been reading about the situation.

I have been perusing several articles dealing with George Bush's new plan for stability in Iraq. First of all I would like to say that I watched the speech, though not when he originally gave it, and I felt a degree of hopelessness in the air that I felt was unnecessary. President Bush has seen his doctrines fail to the point that his party has lost power, and his "new" strategy appears not new at all. Let me point out some of the key features, then I shall comment on their relationship to Informationalism and the plan I outlined only two posts ago.

1. The increase of troops by 21, 500 mostly in the Baghdad area.

2. A set of benchmarks for the Iraqis to achieve soverign security by November 2007.

3. Unrestricted warfare against the militias.

So what are we Informationalists to make of this plan?
I will first focus on what I feel is good in the plan. I have said earlier that unless we withdraw completely we must be willing to commence unrestricted warfare against the militias. I only suggested we needed an increase in troops, or the devotion of our current troops to special operations and border security.

That about does it for the good, now for the ineffective.

The benchmarks for the government do not seem to be a good idea. The government has failed to meet benchmarks in the past. The Iraqi government is headed by a man whose power base is in the Shi'a militas. He is currently using this position to commence unrestricted warfare only upon the Sunnis, and this amounts to ethnic cleansing.

I said we needed a troop increase, or we had to devote the other troops to special operations against militia leaders. This plan does not offer enough troops and does not seek special operations or swift operations. History teaches us that such an operation would need to be only days in length, with troops then securing the freed areas. This operation is planned to be long and drawn out, thus it will only generate resentment and fail.

Bush is now in such disfavor that he cannot address the main problem. Iraq's infrastructure is still devistated. People without jobs, food, water, or money will turn to anyone that will give it to them. This just happens to be the militias. They are suspicious of occupying forces and the Iraqi government, and they have right to be. If we launch another destructive operation that is sure to harm innocent civilians, we will only generate more hate.

Since it seems Bush is only barely going to get enough money to fund the operation, it is ludacris to think that congress will give him the money to go towards such a massive reconstruction effort.

In short, my Informationalist friends, this plan will only destroy more infrastructure and harm more civilians. It will increase violence in the short term, and then lessen it until we decide to abate, then it will return again. This plan, thus, is more of the same.