Pages

Monday, November 23, 2009

Development or Disaster!


Today’s aggressive development in various fields causes sadness and depression, the joys of simple life are gone. The social loafing and mingling with people is stagnant. Day and night hardworking becomes a fashion and passion of the people. The gap in between generations is widening due to westernization and Americanization’s impacts through media and other channels.

Free moment of people, liberalization, privatization and deregulation are good but for few days, the long-run would be hazardous and disastrous. TV, radio, internet, mobile phones, computers, and things like these were created to benefit and facilitate people but they turned to be adversely affecting human beings lives and natural environment.

You might have heard that how much the so-called toxic technology such as computer, mobile phones and internet and so on are harmful and contribute amply to the global warming and environmental pollution in large. Of course they have facilitated us but point to be noted is; these all facilities are for short-run not long-run.

I wonder that how much the industries would like to produce. For how long they are going to go ahead and expect every day high growth (especially unsought and luxury goods) and when they are going to be satisfied? Every thing has got a limit and we should maintain an equal balance of the things we do over here. But I thing we have already crossed the limit and almost destroyed the natural cycle.

1 comment:

  1. Robert Skidelsky commented on the logic of the quest for permanent economic growth and materialism in an op-ed piece in the Guardian on Monday 23 November. He states the credit crunch has caused an explosion of criticism of "growthmanship"- which he calls the pursuit of growth or wealth regardless of the damage it may do to the environment or shared values. He refers to the writings of Maynard Keynes in the 1930s who predicted that growth would eventually stop because people would have enough to lead the "good life". Skidelsky argues that Keynes underestimated the importance of relative needs - it is not enough to have enough if people feel that their neighbours are doing better than them and so this will drive them on to more and more consumption and wealth acquisition. Also Kenyes did not state what we would do with our increased lesiure time once econmoic needs had been satisfied. Possibly even if we did reach an economic utopia where we did not have to work the problem would arise as to what people would then direct their energies to. It might well be for example that the devil would find work for idle hands to do - and utopia would be undermined by the fact that it had been reached. Skidelsky assumes that the quest for growth will continue - unless nature itself calls a halt and we run out of resources. This also raises the question of whether it is possible for all zones and peoples on the planet to enjoy the standard of living of say the average Swede at one and the same time or whether disparities in global development and wealth are necessary for some to enjoy the good life while others do not. With the expected industrial growth in China, India and Brazil we will probably find out this century!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.