My Beef with Development
Development. It doesn’t sound like a bad word; in fact, it has some good meanings.
Development implies growth, progress, improvement. We develop from a microscopic embryo into a complex, fully-grown human being,– a positive, natural process. The word ‘development’ also means fundraising, acquiring the money necessary for charities and non-profit institutions to fulfill their mission.
But, in my mind, the word ‘development’ also has a dark side. There is a use of the word that makes me cringe. When people talk about ‘developing’ a piece of land, they are talking about building something on it, like a house, a school, a resort, or a shopping center. The traditional view is that an ‘empty’ piece of land is ‘improved’ once a building sits on it. After all, the land has gone from being simply an unused (by humans) space to a useful space that supports some human activity.
I question the notion of ‘empty land,’ the idea that a piece of ‘vacant’ ground is somehow less developed than land that is used as the platform for a human-made structure. Quite the reverse is true.
Regardless of what plants inhabit a piece of land, whether it’s a forest, or just a tree or two in a meadow, or an assortment of wild plants, or even just some dirt and weeds, the life processes going on there are so complex as to be beyond our comprehension.
And whatever plants may be found on a piece of ground, they invariably support animal life–squirrels, birds, or maybe insects, worms, grubs. Even such small animals are highly complex.
But it’s not just the plants and animals we can see that make a piece of land highly developed, even without our covering it with a building. On and under any piece of ground are billions of single-celled organisms known as microbes! They are breaking down rocks, depositing minerals, fertilizing soil and conditioning soils, among other functions.
In fact, microbiology is the fastest growing area of biology, as scientists are beginning to understand how microbes have shaped and are shaping the planet. Scientists now estimate the number of microbial species in the billions, exceeding the number of ‘large’ species by several orders of magnitude.
Now compare the complexity, the extreme level of ‘development’ of any piece of land, where life is teeming, even if largely unseen, with a structure humans have made of steel and concrete. Can there really be any question as to which one is more developed and more complex, and which one is simpler, less developed? How can we think that a structure simple enough for us to know how to build could be a ‘development’ of the land?
While we may decide that we need–or want–to put a building on a given piece of land, we shouldn’t kid ourselves by thinking we are developing that land. We are actually destroying some of the complex life present in and on the land, perhaps diminishing its complexity.
So because I know it’s ludicrous to think that the addition of a building develops land into something more or better than it was in its undisturbed state, I am offended when I hear talk of ’developing land’ by building on it.–April Moore
April 27th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I love it! Thank you, April.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Really nice meditation. There is a connection here to economics as depicted in the textbooks. “Land,” as one of the “factors of production,” (land, labor, capital, etc.) has receded well into the background of that body of theory, in favor of labor and capital. The latter two (inputs to the production process) are prominently featured in most economic analysis, almost as if land was an afterthought, or even as if labor and capital floated in space unconnected to earth.
Mainstream Economics is mostly concerned with what is called “Ricardian land,” named for David Ricardo (1772-1823). The value of land in his scheme is a locationally-based value, and its prices depend mostly on nearness to activities, people, coastlines, transportation corridors, etc. Beyond the locational value of land, it is nothing more than a stable physical platform (given that we live in a gravitational world) upon which man’s activities can occur. This meaning of land ignores land’s intrinsic, ecological worth, and the ecological functions and services that land provides us and to other living beings (indeed to the biosphere itself).
In fact, (no secret to your readers here), all economic value derives from that which is either mined or harvested, with, of course, man’s labor, tools and ingenuity added. We ignore land’s comprehensive worth at out peril. Further, our GDP calculations treat the extraction of the treasures of our earth as “income,” just the opposite of what should be done. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to incur a (-) depletion charge which would be subtracted from GDP? Our national accounts provide no method of recognizing the diminution of ecological capital that we use up every year, or that we destroy by turning it into a sink for our wastes.
So, to call the destruction of earth/land “development” is curious indeed. Development in this definition can destroy land’s capacity to operate as an ecological system. Herman Daly and Joshua Farley have the following list of ecological services (in their textbook “Ecological Economics: Principles and Practices”):
● Energy transfer
● Nutrient recycling
● Gas regulation (CO2, O2, SO2)
● Climate regulation
● The water (hydrological) cycle
● Disturbance regulation (flood control, wind protection, drought recovery, species adaptation)
● Water regulation (water storage)
● Waste absorption
● Erosion control and sediment retention
● Soil formation
● Pollination
● Biological control
● Habitat or refugia (including conditions which allow for and promote species reproduction)
● Genetic resources (genes allow for variety, adaptation, medicine, etc., etc.)
● Recreation
● Cultural (science, spiritual, artistic, education, etc.)
“Land” is more than just a level platform — it is “natural capital” (just can’t get away from econ. lingo…) that we humans did nothing to create. We were fortunate and blessed to inherit it from the ages. Economic activity as we think about it and as Econ. defines it is only a few hundred years old, not even a blink of an eye in earth time. I encourage my students to think of this list of ecological services in terms of the rainforests. Once we “develop” the rainforest, it is destroyed forever, and its services with it.
We need to begin to think of land as a bank of resourses (both renewable and non-renewable), and as a source of ecological services that sustains life.
It’s timely that you should post this column. Carol King was interviewed today on MSNBC about the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA), a bill being sponsored by an increasing number of members of Congress. See:
http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/nrepa/
for details. It’s time we adopt a new definition of “land.” Or better yet, replace the mundane term land with a more robust one such as the biosphere.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:31 am
This was a great piece. Nature is an intelligent process and can develop Herself, thank you very much. Thanks for this. Burl