The Future of Progress

This morning I read a book section called The Future of Progress by Helena Norberg-Hodge and Peter Georing, written in 1995 (which is a little while ago now, which is a little scary because the content is truer than ever).

It describes the concept of developmental progress (mainly, the forcing of western ways upon everyone else) - which all of the worlds major governments and institutions believe in as the cure to all world problems - and the method of achieving it, namely, continuous economic growth and technological advance.  Yes... I can say I've heard of that before.  Then it goes on to point out many reasons why this concept is flawed and how it has contributed to the worlds problems and how it will need to be countered either directly or via alternative solutions.

The chapter took me over an hour to read, because it struck so many chords with me that I kept dashing away scribbling down thoughts or ideas.  Here are a few excerpts and some of my responses:

"The natural world is largely absent from the economic models...there is an implied assumption that the Earth has an infinite capacity to supply the resources...and absorb the resulting wastes...this is not true...industrial society is seriously overburdening the biosphere...in effect borrowing from future generations, which will inherit a depleted and degraded Earth" --- This idea I know well, and as a 26 year old feel a part of, and it is exactly why groups like Generation Zero (whose goal is to empower NZ youth to stand up against this injustice, albeit in regards to climate change) are sprouting up.  I feel like my generation will be the first to really-really interact with the impacts our entire lives.

"The UN lists Bhutan as one of the world's most impoverished countries, even though almost all of its people have adequate food, clothing and shelter, as well as sophisticated works of art and music - and more time for families and friends than most Westerners...what matters is GDP and per capita income, and on that count the Bhutanese are deemed to be no different from homeless people on urban streets" --- Whilst I knew of the concept I hadn't heard such an example before.  Leaving out the social category in how we measure things is really quite illogical!  Perhaps this is how many of us will feel one day about the next paragraph also...

"The economic paradigm goes hand in hand with modern science and technology; together they form the driving force behind industrial society.  Science gains its understanding of the world largely by isolating and studying small pieces out of the interconnected continuum of nature.  This approach has had undeniable success...however, the ability of scientists to predict the consequences of their actions is limited to the narrow parameters implicit in the scientific method...science has come to dominate all other systems of knowledge.  Traditions of non-Western cultures and the experience and intuition of individuals are accepted only to the extent that they can be verified by scientific observation....the focus of scientific inquiry is getting narrower by the year, while its manipulations of the natural world deepen."  --- As a scientist, I am of course very aware of the specialisation aspect, but I hadn't really thought about the other side of the coin (i.e. the flaws) of this in a while.  I know from my experience that Cancer research for example is in dire need for a systems approach, but I won't go off on a tangent.  Despite this flaw, I really respect the scientific method, it has given us so much power to learn!  Also, it is only a tool, and science is bigger than that in my mind.  Science also evolves and we get to use it as our thinking evolves.  It isn't currently designed to understand things that it can't yet measure, and it's up to us to decide if we want to give attention to those things.  I guess the moral I see there is that scientists should always stay humble too and not be blinkered by only one filter by finding balance through diverse activities and interactions.  I have heard great scientists say this before, now I get why a little better.

There's a few good paragraphs on how the industrialised nations have expanded into the developing nations with their own ideas and ways of doing things (and for their own gain), and how this has destabilized self-sufficiency and sustainability there, e.g. via infrastructure development and urbanisation, breaking down local economies, media images, introducing western as opposed to locally-relevant education, and the uptake of industrial agriculture methods, etc.  --- I find it quite sad that the developing nations are not just losing their way of doing things but more-so that they are aiming to adopt what industrialised nations already have.  If everyone is the same, we are less resilient and less interesting!  I am a naturally curious person, and love to learn, to think that there is knowledge out there being lost is highly annoying! Just to clarify though, I'm not advocating for a conservation where everything stays the same - everything evolves always - but it would be nice if other cultures got to evolve mainly based on their roots and then seeing where they go based on the topics where humanity agrees e.g. common values.

"Many regions...where the way of life is still based on traditional and ecologically-sensitive patterns, contain the seed for their own sustainable future.  Recreating strong local economies and vibrant human-scale communities is a much bigger challenge in the highly urbanised."  --- I can see why one might think so, but I'm not sure if I agree - perhaps it's because I like a challenge!  I think it is just as possible to bring about real change in the highly urbanised, but it will of course look very different.  Also, I don't think we have the time for counter-development in the rural parts to build up and show the urbanised how great it is; the change needs to happen in the urban environment at the same time that we tackle the outlying towns.

I agree with the authors that those in the developing nations need to know that the cities don't necessarily hold the life portrayed on billboards and that the individuals in industrialised nations know what destruction is happening in other parts of the world to bring them a lot of the not-necessarily-satisfying goods they spend their money on.  There is a note in there that states "The educated....who enjoy the privilege in the current world order have a special responsibility for implementing change.  They have many more resources at their disposal and greater influence than the marginalised...who are often struggling just to survive...democracies also tend to be more responsive to citizen pressure", well I can't really argue with that. The authors and I are westerners, and we do know a fair bit about what makes westerners tick - just the other day I heard a long-time sustainability manager say that the way to get people on board is via the normalisation of sustainable practice and the resulting peer pressure.  If we know how, we have a greater chance of success also.

A lot of effort has been put into countering development which I think has contributed to the large perception that the environmental movement is very negative and whiny.  Whilst both is helpful I'd say the alternative solutions are highly required, especially in education, and may even be easier to tackle since they are new creations.  We'll see.

Since this has been such a long post and I want to lighten the mood but stay on topic, here's a short video: