Art Woolf (Community Forum, January 23) rightly notes that prosperity “is easier to achieve with a growing population.” However, in his advocacy for the easy answer of population growth there is one glaring omission: the resulting population.

If helping businesses by growing the population became state policy, how long could such growth go on? Should Vermont have a population of one million? Two million? Ten million? “Don’t be silly,” might be the answer. “Vermont should never be that urban, that crowded.” Fine, so do we level off at 802,000, as some have suggested? But then we would be right back to population stability, and now with the additional problems of increased carbon output, habitat loss, and infrastructure expenses that come with a larger population.

Those who advocate for population growth must specify the target population at which we once again achieve stability, and then must make the case that stability at that population is better than stability where we are now.

Jerome Shedd

Ripton