The Cavalier daily :: Friday, April 27, 1973 :: University of Virginia Library

A few years ago it was
likely that if you picked up
any publication you would find
an article, pro or con,
concerning the alarming rate of
population growth and how it
spelled doom for mankind.
During the same time, the
environmental craze era,
population stabilization groups
were growing at an
astronomical rate and some
idealistic environmentalists
were playing with the idea of
having a third political party
based on the environmental
movement.

Things have changed. Such
organizations as Zero
Population Growth, a leader in
the population movement, are
losing members or just barely
holding their own, and the
torrent of publicity has turned
into a trickle.

Opposition

One reason for this falling
off of interest is that the
novelty of the movement is
past. No longer is it necessary
to have an interest in
population and the
environment to be a
fashionable liberal. Fads have
changed and people are more
concerned about nostalgia
than environment these days.

Also, many people joined the
organizations with the idea
that the problem would be
solved in a years time. When
they found that it would take
years of intensive work, they
quickly lost interest.

Another reason, is that
organized opposition has
recently sprung up. Such
groups as Right to Life and
Friends of Fetus have
materialized seemingly over
night with the helpful
assistance of the Catholic
Church. They were created to
fight the legalization of
abortion, which was one of the
objectives of the population
groups.

However the primary reason
for disinterest is the rapidly
falling birth rate. In 1967
women 18 to 25 expected to
have 2.9 children. Now the
average has dropped to 2.4 and
continues to drop each month.
The causes for this drop
include the high cost of living,
the changing lifestyle of young
people, and the success of the
population groups.

Nevertheless, these
population groups do not
consider the recent drops in
the birth rate the end of the
problem. They quickly point
out that because there is an
over-abundance of young
people producing children and
very few old people dying, the
population will continue to
grow for 60 more years at the
present rate.

One of the major victories
for the population movement,
though, has been the
legalization of abortion by the
Supreme Court. On January 22
the Supreme Court ruled that
the state could make no laws
prohibiting an abortion in the
first three months of
pregnancy. This is a measure
that was felt to be vitally
important by the groups, and it
was acclaimed throughout the
movement.

But not long after the
victory, opposition groups
mounted a counter-attack. The
attack took the form of a
constitutional amendment
recognizing the fetus as a legal
individual protected by all the
laws of the state. To date the
amendment has been passed in
the Maine legislature, and has
been introduced into the U.S.
House of Representatives.
Meanwhile, Congress has been
deluged by Right to Life
letters, with Senator Hubert
Humphrey of Minnesota
receiving 35,000 letters alone.

This ruling, it should be
noted, is considered only half
victories, the population
groups are now turning
towards new goals. The new
thrust of the movement is
attacking local growth, both
economic and population.

Growth

In Oregon, one of the most
environmentally aware states,
there is an aggressive campaign
to discourage people from
coming to the state. They are
publicizing miserable aspects of
the states such as its heavy
rainfall. "People don't tan in
Oregon, they rust," is an
example of the propaganda.
Another indicator is the defeat
of proposed Olympic games in
Colorado due primarily to the
fear that it would stimulate
new growth and destroy the
natural beauty of the
country-side.

The most publicized
opposition to local growth has
centered in Fairfax county,
Vs., A suburb just outside of
Washington, D.C., it has been
growing at a spectacular rate:
from 262,482 in 1960 to
538,700 in 1972. Rising taxes
and increased congestion has
caused many of the residents
to question the maxim, "Bigger
is better."

In 1970 a study was
released by Mrs. Audrey
Moore, a member of the Board
of Supervisors, and David
Southern, a Virginia state
delegate which showed that by
developing the Bull Run
watershed of the Western
country, it would cost the
taxpayers $5.5 million more in
yearly capital outlays than it
would bring them in new
borrowing capacity.

This and other findings
contributed to the defeat of a
$39 million sewer bond issue
on September 22, 1970.
Sewers are the principal object
of attack since they are
necessary for any development
to progress.

Social Changes

Fairfax is not the only area
in Virginia that is fighting
growth. In Charlottesville the
fight is being lead by such
groups as Zero Population
Growth, the American
Association of University
Women, and the Ivy Citizens
Association. These groups are
seeking something "in-between
the stagnation of no growth
and the suffocation of fast
acceleration," according to
Albemarle Supervisor Gerald
Fischer.

Mr. Fischer does not accept
the assumption that growth is
good. "We must define good.
Does 'good' mean bulldozed
land, erosion, urban blight,
pollution, increased crime,
social changes and
aggressiveness which become
more natural with more traffic
jams, parking shortages and
checkout lines?" Mr. Fisher
said at a meeting of Citizens
for Albemarle.

Coping

June Allen, president of the
Charlottesville ZPG, shares Mr.
Fischer's concern and hopes
that Charlottesville will be able
to avoid problems which have
confronted areas like Fairfax.
Mrs. Allen feels that "In the
past year we have attempted to
educate the people in the
Charlottesville-Albemarle area
about local growth, the threats
to their quality of life and the
measure taken in many of the
communities across the
country that are coping with
similar problems – too rapid
growth."