In this mutli-part series, Sanat Mohanty discusses why we have to look for alternatives and what kinds of alternatives we should look for. This fifth piece of the series questions the broadly held assumptions of development.

Part I: What is the point of this discussion?
Part II: Therefore Alternatives: Fundamentalism of our Societies
Part III: Therefore Alternatives: Survival of the Fittest
Part IV: Therefore Alternatives: Capitalism, Communism and Free Markets

Questioning Development
Surely, you agree that industrial development has been the basis of progress and any alternative you suggest must continue with such industrial development? You cannot but agree that such development has been the basis of increased social justice?

As Gandhi argued in Hind Swaraj (M. K. Gandhi, “Hind Swaraj”, Navjivan Press”), such industrial development is in fact the cause of increased exploitation. At the same time, Polanyi (Karl Polanyi, “The Great Transformation”) describes in great detail the systematic changes in laws that restricted the livelihood generation abilities of the peasants forcing them to migrate to cities and live in inhuman conditions thus ensuring a large reservoir of inexpensive labor that was the basis for industrial revolution.

How developed a country is most often measured by its GDP – the Gross Domestic Product – (Cuba, for example, has among the best health care systems. Yet, it is never counted among the developed countries), which is calculated as the quantity of all products (or services) that are involved in the country’s economy times the price of each product (or service) – a reflection of the economic fundamentalism of the modern world.

Since the people of a hundred fifty-some countries are trying to achieve a standard of living defined by the ‘developed’ world, let us first ask whether that is possible? If all the people on this Earth consumed as much as an average person in the United States consumes, we would need about eleven Earths to satisfy our wants. With three hundred million people – about 5% of the world’s population – United States consumes in the range of 40% of the Earth’s resources. Western Europe is not too far behind. Clearly, every one on Earth cannot live in this ‘developed’ way – the resources do not exist. The pattern of development followed by the ‘developed’ world is highly energy intensive. We cannot sustain this level of energy usage much longer. Even now, we do not have enough resources for all of us to live at this level of ‘development’. Hence, some of us on Earth are forced to die of hunger and live in subhuman conditions so that the ‘developed’ world can use more than 60% of the Earth’s resources.

Given that the entire world cannot live at the state of ‘development’ of the developed, many people have to live in subhuman levels that some – we – may maintain our ‘high standards of living’. This implies that a small set maintains its lifestyle by exploiting a large fraction of the people. This kind of exploitation can exist only in the presence of violent control. Development based on violence and exploitation cannot be economically, socially or environmentally sustainable and has to be abandoned (Sanat Mohanty, “An Elephant Named Sustainability”, American Publishers).

Arguments against such development can be made on three related grounds. Morally, such development implies that we constantly take resources owned by communities – often weak and marginalized, sometimes less so – so that companies can make more profit or a small section of the community can live better. The trickle down theory has failed; when corporations make more profit, it is seldom true that local economies bloom or small communities grow bigger (except by migration). Why, then, should we follow a path of development that more often than not results in displacement of people, reduced access of people to natural resources, and ravage of the land and water. Why do a small fraction of people have greater right over those resources than the people who have been living there for centuries? Why do we have a right to ask them to move, every time we dream of development? Why does change have to occur as we, the ‘educated’ think it should and why can we force these ideas on the rest of the world? Why can we expect some people to live in subhuman conditions so that we can have more?

Socially, we are seeing the effects of years of exploitation. The oppression has resulted in militancy and terrorism in various parts of the world. This is not a justification of terrorism; however, people are not born terrorists. Unless one understands why terrorism occurs, catching and killing terrorists will solve nothing. One of the biggest causes of terrorism is years of oppression. When a community has been robbed and beaten, or when it perceives to have been exploited and humiliated, it will engender individuals who will be willing to react to the oppressors – real or perceived – by perpetrating acts that terrorize. Terrorism is an extreme reaction. In more moderate cases, the symptoms are manifested as crime, and as violence. The path of development we have taken goes through exploitation. This certainly is not socially sustainable. We just cannot go on living with so much violence – physical and emotional.

Sustainability of this method of development is not feasible. The path of development is energy intensive. We need to feed it with humungous amounts of fossil fuels, hydro-electricity and other forms of energy so that we may maintain the standards of living that exist today. The question that needs to be asked is what happens when these resources run out? We are already seeing the preview of such circumstances play itself. Water scarcity in South America and in Central Africa is a reality today and is affecting large populations in Asia. (Water scarcity in various parts of South America and Africa has caused riots and civil wars. In India, Cochabamba, absence of access to affordable potable water caused riots. Fights within communities around limited water resources are usual in various parts of India including Gujarat and Tamil Nadu.) Energy crisis is beginning to affect the ‘developed’ world as well. Where is this race for ‘development’ taking us? The question is not only how we can maintain this level of energy but also what kind of life do we envision? How does the next generation, or the generation after live life? Should we not worry about the way they live since it is affected by how we live? Should we not worry about what infrastructures we are building for our children and what problems we bequeath them?

Related Links
An Elephant Named Sustainability
Water Scarcity in India
Vernacular Values
Energy and Equity