All present day debate about development v/c nature is non- sense and pure noise only. When some one says world is changing for the worst, it only mean, it is changing in such a way that it is adversely affecting his vested interest (in status quo situation). If you are benefitted by change, the development is progress, if you are aversly affected it is destroying nature.
Some one says development should not be against nature. I ask, can development and nature go together. Nature means, things available to all, development means the man made things which can be used for a price (even for free road we have to pay tax to govt.).
Some one says development should not destroy/ change culture. Is it possible ?. In absence of economic activity in rainy season (not connected with town and alternate economic activity), a village does have culture and tradition of religious functions. Or when milk / perishable vegetable can not be sent to market, there is tradition or culture of free distribution. If a road is made and village is connected to town and round the year economic activity is possible, will it be possible to continue old tradition with same faith ? Definitely no. Same is true about, man and woman relations. With education, economic independence and control over birth process being available to woman now, is it possible to continue traditional power equilibrium between male and female.
The fact is that every system be it political, social, ethics, economics, science and so on, affects and get affected by other system. Development in any one system afects other.For example, Social system affects political system, science affects ethics and so on. No system is independent.
Further what is being changed, may not be correct or good in first place. What we call History, is just narration of victorious party, it need not be and generally not true. The present laws, are compromise between different groups at point of making law (highest one being constitution of country), it need not be ethical or just (Parliament / Assemblies have passed laws for reservation for woman in local bodies but not able to implement for themselves). Same can be said of other branches of knowledge. Further every system develops side effects which generates alternate process/ system and destroys old one.
Just think, in a debate over nature against development, had man not destroyed forest and developed the agriculture. If some one had banned paper manufacturing to save forest. Some one might not have cleared forest and made road (Grand Trunk Road, built by Sher Shah Suri, what feeling it evokes, pride of development or shame of nature's destruction ?). Had our forefathers chosen nature against development, what would have been our life today ?.
In this debate some one talks about sustainable development. Limit no one knows ?. Simple yardstick is, What development took place, up to my generation is sustainable but what my next generation is doing/ developing is not sustainable. That is why , Petrol wells are OK but mining at Poles is not.
This all, we decide purely on adhoc basis to suit our own convenience. There is law to punish, even if you cut one green tree of your back yard. But enviromental clearence is possible for building Roads in Himalaya. Logic is , it is defence needs. China has built Air port at the base of Himalaya. Can you now stop other development that will follow.
What is effect of our development activity over nature (negative) and conserving activity for nature (positive) ?. We measure air and water quality of city and interpolate it for whole earth, and say whole nature is being polluted or destroyed. We clean some ponds and say we saved nature. Compare it with the devasting nature of nature in form of Tsunami, Earth Quack and Volcano etc, (latest being eruption of Volacano in Iceland , distrupting Air Traffic in Europe). Similarly, if we just calculate the cleaning power of Solar Energy (This is the mother of all energy sources), through regeneration of biosphere, vaporisation of water and raining ,I wonder whether any day man can pollute the earth that much or his cleaning effort will ever match with nature's cleaning power.
If our effort is to have so little effect either way, why so much noise ?. Remember, every communication has purpose, but it may not be true. Same may be said about communications for and against development. There is marketing efforts of companies that are benefitted by the fear generated through destruction of nature. Developed world says, we have polluted world but developing world should not pollute the world. Developing world says enough of your pollution, now you stop and it is our turn now. Both exegarate damage being done by development, just to stop other party and debate and negotiations goes on just to protect or improve own positions.
To be philosophical and believe Geeta " What we are able to create ?. What we are able to destroy?. Absolutely nothing. We, at the most changing the form of things.Today we are not able to use some changed material but it does not mean it has lost its intrinsic value or utility. Remember, to days coal was nothing but compressed/ destroyed forest, deep buried millions of years back. Just like that, to days waste will also be used in some form in future.
To conclude, nature is too powerful to be destroyed by our development. Development will only bring changes in our different systems.
So, Do not worry and be happy.
It does not mean that we should behave irresponsibly, and stop cleaning rivers, planting trees etc. These are essential to protect or improve our local environment and reduce cost of living for ourselves, but to link it with big concepts like saving of earth etc. is ego of man only.
No comments:
Post a Comment