If you’re a listener of the Freakonomics podcast, it’s
likely you’ve listened to this episode in which they explore selective outrage,
and the types of things we decide to become angered and active about, and those
which we do not. One of the central ideas explored in the episode is the idea
of anger against animal cruelty and how something that has traditionally
occupied such a relatively unimportant position in society can rise to
prominence as an issue, even above things such as warfare and violence that we
usually consider much worse.
The reason, as posited in the episode, is that we care
because we can. By living in an industrialized first world country, many of the
concerns and issues that have traditionally affected society have been
eradicated or minimalized to the extent that they no longer seem to be such an
endemic. Food is plentiful, medicine effective and available, freedom of choice
often in existence, and by and large for the most of us peace reigns in our
lands. Beyond our borders many of the troubles that have plagued mankind still
ravage distant populations, but because of the distance, both spatial and
cultural, they do not command the same urgency amongst us as before. Instead we
are left to focus on issues such as organic dog food, hybrid vehicles, and
whether or not it’s justifiable to kill a single giraffe in the name of
empathy.
I came to India enrolled in a winter session class titled
“Ecotourism and Sustainable Development in India” to explore this idea of how
these ideas which are considered luxuries of the industrialized world could be
pursued and implemented in a developing nation with much more traditional and
tangible problems. The task is not an easy one, and especially compared to the
Western world, which took generations to move from industrialization to a
society in which environmental considerations are at least on the table. With
their own “civil wars” still raging at home, is it possible to get the people
of India to even care about Marius the giraffe, to borrow from the Freakonomics
metaphor?
Thus far the exploration to the topic has been interesting,
but at the same time has left me inconclusive about these issues as they relate
to India. We’ve spent the first week in lectures and site visits with
individuals from some really amazing groups here in India who not only are
pushing sustainability, and eco-friendly development and construction
principles, but social welfare improvements through low income housing, clean
water initiatives and waste management efforts. The power of the work they do
is truly inspiring, especially when viewed through the lens of the beautiful
buildings and developments they create, ones that manage to incorporate all of
the above principles along with impressive aesthetics.
But as positive and impactful as their work truly is, it can
be hard to ignore the miles and miles of developments along the road we drive
each day that represent the complete opposite of everything they are working to
achieve at Inspiration and Costford. Here the streets are lined with hastily
constructed concrete structures, the grounds are littered with either discarded
trash or burning trash piles, and the open sewers run with untreated sewage. Looking
out through the calmness of the bus window, it’s hard not to think of these two
types of developments here in India, and then think of the relative scale to
which one persists over the other.
Kerala prides itself on having achieved such a high level of
development relative to the rest of India over the past several decades with
respect to education, health, women’s rights, literacy and many other issues.
Through various initiatives it has managed to achieve a relatively high human
development index despite a lack of heavy industrial development, and often
boasts that today it is able to meet many of the basic needs of its citizens
that are not often met in other developing states and countries.
So if the basic needs are met and the people of Kerala are
free to live safe and happy lives, does that make it easier to push luxury
issues such as sustainability and environmentally friendly development? Despite
the efforts of those around us in this program, it still seems like a difficult
sell here in one of India’s most densely populated states. It’s hard to imagine
advanced environmental initiatives such as biogas generation and recycling
programs gaining much traction here when trash, litter, soot and sewage make up
such a prominent part of the urban landscape. And it leaves me wondering, are
we fooling ourselves exploring the ideas of sustainability here when many of
these basic needs are not being met, despite what might be said otherwise? Or
is it simply a cultural matter, as has been suggested: that the differences in
cleanliness here are not viewed as an issue, and the trash in the street and
the sewage in the gutter simply just a part of life in Kerala and nothing more.
To me the former makes more sense, but the implications likely
represent the sad reality, that the ideas of sustainability and environmentally
friendly will remain for the most part a luxury good. From this it’s difficult
to envision a way in which the developing world does not follow the same path
as the developed, with an extended period of growth at the expense of their environment,
which will in time allow it to achieve the levels of prosperity required to
become passionate towards undoing the damage caused by said growth. But the
major difference is that in India, a country of 1.2 billion people, the stakes
are that much higher.
No comments:
Post a Comment