[Reader-list] Farewell to our Humid Weimar

Thu Jul 17 20:03:51 IST 2008

Dear Amit

You did not direct your response at any particular individual.

That understood - I was not talking about the 'politics' of consumption but about the 'aspirational' aspect of consumption.

That 'aspirational' aspect of consumption is the strongest and most fervent  amongst those very sections of the society whom you have referred to as 'losers' in the 'development game'. It is justified because in their case the 'aspiring', to start with and through many progessively higher levels of consumption is need-based for basic convienience and comfort. If that is to be called 'continutity of the capitalist accumulation process', so be it.

The earlier Communist Russia and subsequently China, at some stage 'niched' for attention and encouragement that very human desire of 'capitalist accumulation' through the route of Personal Profit. The motive of course was not to better the lot of the Individual but that of the State.   

No arguing (from me) over the need to rectify the situation where a disproportionate proportion of the "costs" is being borne by the 'losers' in the 'development game'. 

I only have an issue about the "striving to expose its continued obscene present day costs". I have an issue with "expose". Individuals and Organisations seem to be doing the 'exposing' day in and day out. Words, Words, Words.Yet, each one is indulging 'day in and day out' in using the products of that very 'development game' where the 'losers' bear a disproportionate proportion of the costs. It is not an accusation. It is an acknowledgement of helplessness. My own included.

Kshmendra 

--- On Thu, 7/17/08, Amit Basole <abasole at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Amit Basole <abasole at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Farewell to our Humid Weimar
To: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 7:05 PM

The debate over consumption norms and whether "everyone" will be able to drive a car, cool off with a A/C, own a laptop and cell phone, and where the energy for all this will come from cannot be divorced from the political economy of development. The pressing question is not whether in some distant, or not so distant future, everyone can enjoy the same material comforts without eroding the basic conditions of our existence. That worry sounds (at least to me) like the worry of the already privileged who are concerned that as their consumption patterns get generalized, the very process of emulation and generalization will rob them of the life they have grown used to. 

Rather what to me is far more pressing is, in the present, what costs are winners of the development game, who are securing automobiles, A/Cs, and laptops, able to enforce on the losers?  Who is bearing the costs of development, in what proportion? Nandigram, Plachimada, Kalinganagar, God knows how many Nandigrams in China, this long and unfortunate list provides the answer. And going further back into the history of the colonized nations as well as Western Europe, many more examples can be piled on.

That previously oppressed groups can later be counted among the oppressors, that the person with a bicycle graduates to a scooter and then a car, does not detract from the continuity of the capitalist accumulation process itself. It will be a long time before the world runs out of the underclass that disproportionately bears the cost of development and during this time, "benefits" in the form of cars etc, will undoubtedly trickle down further to the hitherto underprivileged.

So rather than debating the long-term sustainability of the present advanced industrial lifestyle, we should with all the resources at our command, be striving to expose its continued obscene present day costs. Incidentally, there is no doubt in my mind that it is unsustainable, but "proving" it is another matter, it involves making a claim about the future that makes one vulnerable to charges of pessimism and lack of faith in human ingenuity. This debate is unnecessary, the immense suffering of beings today weighs more heavily with me than the destruction of the entire human species a hundred years in the future.

Apologies for the strident tone. It is not directed at any one individual, except perhaps my own self.

Amit

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Tapas

Enjoyed reading your posting.

The philosophy and parameters (with examples) of 'new framework' for a 'technological civilization' is very ennobling and sincere towards finding a solution for the 'energy crunch'.

In this, one of the main problems perhaps is what you yourself have hinted at. One where those who 'do not have' aspire to 'have' all of that which the "haves have" and that are seen as the comforts and convieniences of 'technological advancement' that they currently find unaffordable.

As an example, the graduation from walking (as a neccessity and not for relaxation) to a bicycle to a moped to a scooter (or bullock cart and then tractor)  and finally a car is aspirational. With justifiable reasons. Endless number of other scenarios as examples.

It also has at  different levels of 'accquisitions' the 'status symbol superiority'  of one product over the other; 'dekha dekhi' (oneupmanship). Humans 'desire' and 'want' much more than what might simply fulfill their 'need'.

There are also the aspects of 'convieience' and 'comfort'. It might not be 'the Law' but a fair hypothesis would be that those most willing to 'give up' products of 'convienience' and 'comfort' are the ones for whom such products are affordable.

Those who can afford 'airconditioning' can speak about shutting it down and opening the windows to get fresh air. The ones trying to cool down under the hot air blast circulated by a 'fan' would prefer a 'cooler' and then a A/C.  Endless number of other scenarios as examples

In SARAI itself a few weeks back there was derision at the TATA NANO and the merits lauded of 'biking'. Would the person who can afford only a bicycle want to be able to buy a scooter (and balance spouse and children on it)? I think yes. Would he/she be satisfied with that? I think not. He/she would next aspire to own a NANO; an Airconditioned one. Why not? 

"Biking" might be 'hot' in a cold Oslo and Helisinki but might get a 'cold' shoulder if offered as the choice in hot Ajmer and Ahmedabad.

What we also seem to disregard is that there is no limit to the instinct of humans to question, investigate, experiment, innovate, design and manufacture new products. Who is to decide that there should be a 'stop here, it is enough'? Dictate of the State?  

One area where the "State" does need to "Dictate" (by common parliamentary approval) and at the very least to "Regulate" (by common parliamentary consent) is in rationalising both  the 'consumption heads of Energy' and the 'generating modes' of Energy. A lot can be achieved by  financial / taxation "carrots and sticks" especially in cities and larger towns. 

- Shifting timings of work establishments to utilise 'daylight saving'. It kills me to acknowledge that Pakistan has taken a lead in this by adjusting their clocks for 'daylight saving'

- Limiting the work hours of 'retail establishments' to reduce evening/night Energy consumption.

- Mandatory 5 day work week for all (hmmmn what about housewives) to save "1 Energy day" and enable families to shop during daylight hours. 24x7 Process Industries are exempt from closure but the manpower has a staggered 5 day week.

- Convienient Public transportation. "Convienient" is the critical word. (what happens to the aspirational 'I want my own car'? Infrequent usage of personal transport perhaps)

- Incentivise 'free to harness' Energy sources like Solar, Hydel and Wind. (Specific problems associated with Solar and Hydel acknowledged.)   

- etc ..... etc ... etc.

Developing a practicable Vision or Philosophy is not always the hinderance, but the "common parliamentary consent/approval".  

Kshmendra

--- On Tue, 7/15/08, Tapas Ray <tapasrayx at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Tapas Ray <tapasrayx at gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Farewell to our Humid Weimar
To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 6:47 PM

Partha,

Although you were writing in response to Kshemendra's reply to
Radhikarajen, I hope you won't mind if I butt in, because your post is
on an issue I wrote about yesterday, and also earlier.

Your question is straightforward, but I am afraid the answer cannot be
simple or straightforward, and any solution to the problem cannot be a
quick one. Not simple because it lies outside the framework within which
your question has meaning. Not quick, because adopting a new framework
is not something the world can do quickly. The situation we see today
has not developed in a year or a decade. The way of thinking that has
led to it, has matured over centuries. So, it wouldn't be reasonable to
expect a solution that would work in a couple of years or a decade.

The framework I am talking about is the "technological civilization"
of
the modern world. "Technological" here is broader than what we
usually
mean by technological, which is something that has to do with the
practical application of scientific knowledge. Here it means a
civilization of fixes.

This is how it works. You encounter problem A, and you find a solution.
You come up against another problem. So you find another fix. So on, ad
infinitum. Your response to problems B, C, D, etc., go the same way. The
problems are treated as discrete, and the solutions you look for are
discrete. You may find links between C and D, and work out a solution
that take care of both, but your overall approach is the above.

Take an example. Air pollution is too bad in Delhi. So they got
autorickshaws, taxis and buses to switch from diesel to LNG, and autos
from two-stroke to four-stroke engines. Then researchers saw that
pollutants A and B went down, but C and D went up. So the government has
to look for another fix. Then a fix for the unintended consequences of
that second fix, etc.

At the same time, you notice that the ever-growing number of vehicles is
canceling out your gains from all these fixes. So you switch to
electric. Then you notice you need huge amounts of electricity to charge
all those batteries. But oil, coal, hydel, etc. are scarce resources.
You turn to nuclear power, which is fundamentally, by its very nature,
an unsafe technology. You devise safety measures. Then, when you face
new problems that you hadn't foreseen, you find more solutions. One
cannot blame the technologists, because nobody can anticipate every new
type of problem that may arise, or even every kind of failure your
safety mechanisms may be susceptible to.

In the meantime, the demand for power hasn't remained constant. You need
more and more nuclear plants until other technologies, such as hydrogen,
wind, and solar become economically viable on the scale we are talking
about. That could take a long time. Even if it doesn't, once those are
used on the scale we need, maybe earlier, you may find problems that you
had not, or could not have anticipated. Etc.

To find an answer to your question that goes beyond a fix-to-fix
existence, we need to come out of this way of thinking, and adopt a new
way, in which energy shortage would not be the problem. It is the way we
think about comfort, necessity, etc. That would be the "problem" we
need
to "solve". If we had continued to beat the heat in the way our
ancestors had learned to do from thousands of years of living in hot
climates, we would have seen our relationship to the weather in a
different way. Hot weather would not be a problem to be fixed or an
enemy to be conquered with airconditioners, but something to be lived
with as a normal part of life, and to accommodate ourselves within.

That would not be difficult: over hundreds of thousands of years of
evolution (from apes and earlier), the human body has constantly adapted
itself to its habitat - even in extreme climates like the Sahara and the
Arctic region. But by changing its habitat in fundamental ways over the
last few centuries, it has interrupted that adaptive process and turned
it in a new direction, away from harmony with our natural habitat. On
the evolutionary time scale, this has happened what would probably be a
few minutes ago or less on our human time scale. So it is not too late
to turn back.

As for the ways of keeping cool that people have learned over thousands
of years, one is the simple way of the ancient Roman civilization. They
would keep their windows closed during the day and open them wide in the
evening. I have personally seen that it's very effective. But then,
partly out of necessity, I live with heat, not eliminate it - a better
word would be expel - from my life. And the Roman method is not the only
one. Other methods have evolved in different regions and continents.
Those are being used, as we speak, by the vast majority of the global
population, which cannot afford airconditioners.

If we were to start thinking in this way - I mean, look at our
relationship with nature not as a matter of conquest or problem solving
but as a matter of integration and harmony - the energy crunch would be
a thing of the past.

What I have said so far is nothing new, and many people have been
thinking this way for a long time. But it's not individuals who count
for such a fundamental change. It's the entire human civilization.
Obviously, this cannot happen in a matter of years. Even if every human
being were to start today, it would still take decades, maybe a century
or more, to change the direction, given the momentum human civilization
as a whole has picked up over centuries.

But we need to start the process now, because every day lost is one more
day in the wrong direction and a little more momentum in that direction.
In practical terms, the immediate thing to do is to contain and then
reduce levels of consumption, and at the same time bring about some kind
of redistributive justice so that the poor, who have to live in harsh
conditions, can get some degree of comfort. Apart from the moral and
ethical side, this also has a practical side.

If the poor do not see an improvement in their standard of living, which
comes to at least some of them through the trickle-down effect, they
will say, logically enough, that the new direction is not acceptable
because it prevents them from even aspiring to even a small fraction of
the comforts the rich have been enjoying for quite a while. That is what
India and China have been saying when rich countries press for an
across-the-board limit in greenhouse gas emissions.

I know this is not a complete answer and there are many complexities of
the issue that I haven't touched upon. I wish I could write more, but
I really cannot spend more time over this. Maybe later.

Tapas

parthaekka at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we forgot to look at another issue as well.
>
> With the growing requirement for power generation which is well below
> par as well as the fact that the hydro power generation is facing
> issues of lessened water flow, and solar and wind powered generation
> not viable for a large volume, what are the alternatives India has to
> generate power for a growing population - given the fact that we do
> not have enough power for current requirement.
>
> With oil prices going the way they are, oil based generation does not
> seem a sensible route either, as doesn't coal - both non sustainable
> in any case.
>
> Doesn't seem to be much of an alternative barring the nuclear power
route.
>
> Rgds, Partha
> ..............................................
>
> On 7/14/08, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dear Radhikarajen
>>
>> You are lecturing me on everything else but not addressing the simpler
>> issues that would put things in perspective with regards to approaches
to
>> IAEA and subsequently the NSG.
>>
>> I repeat, going through the IAEA and NSG routines are stand-alone
issues and
>> not connected with or to be clubbed with any "deal with the
USA". If the USA
>> helps us with IAEA and NSG, they are to be thanked. Thankfulness is
not sale
>> of "National Interest".
>>
>> The (relative) HONESTY or DISHONESTY of Manmohan Singh is also
>> inconsequential to the much more important issue of negotiations with
IAEA
>> and NSG being satisfactorily concluded.
>>
>> Kshmendra
>>

_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

-- 
Amit Basole
Department of Economics
Thompson Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Phone: 413-665-2463
http://www.people.umass.edu/abasole/
blog: http://www.mehr-e-niimroz.org/ 