Bebee Phool Nahin Lo

Re: Tehnoon, I`ll respond later.
Re: Safwan. You have a point. But, there are some groups of the 80% (like those resisting the narmada dam project in India) who say let us be the way we are. Dont impoverish us in the name of development. See ``Kaisay jeebo ray`` -- a documentary on the narmada dam and the resistance against it (i forget the director`s name).

Re some others: I really was not suggesting saving the rainforests for the animals and trees only (though that is a good enough reason. after all who died and made human beings chaudhry?). Our lives are inextricibly linked to the earth and for selfish reasons we should pay attention to it.

Also, I am not suggesting a return to preindustrial misery (even then there were hiearchies and processes of accumulation and inequitable distribution). Just a rethinking of how we want to produce, consume and distribute in this day and age.

Re Cynic: Can you or someone else please explain your response? I am not sure I understand.

Re:Amin,

Very well said Amin, an eloquent argument for realism. Thank you.

I would like to point out stories like classical English stories of pre- and post-industrialization age where child labour was common. Whether they were used to clean chimmneys or work in the factories. Child labour was as common in the European countries as is it today in Pakistan. This does not mean that I condone it. Far from it. But then I do not have the magic wand to make every thing alright.

Yes industrialization did improve the western quality of life but the industrialists in fact were able to overcome the feudal dominance of the economy.

And I don`t think we should be still be stuck in the 20th century but should be thinking in terms of the 21st century. If we are still crying about industries we are actually missing the bus. The wealth today is not in the hands of the industrialists but in the hand of the people that the knowledge sector (Bill Gates).

So forget what we do not have and stop trying to change the world overnight. Do something small and something now. Miss the new information age and 50 years from now we will still be asking for technology transfer.

I am amazed, that while technology which is not forthcoming, a number of things are available. Patents have a average life of 17 years only. Take expired patents and add value to those.

Take Western legal framework, tax frameworks, educational frameworks and put it to work. Stop fighting and equating those to dismal sciences.

Amin.

Dear Person,

Thanks for bringing out another perspective on the flawed industrialize-today-be-rich-tomorrow formula. I agree entirely that the world cannot afford the continuation of the `produce exportables or die` philosophy without amendment and innovation.

The replies on the article have fascinated me immensley. Surely, the desire for clean air and water is essential and uncompromisable. It is just as selfish, practical and necessary as diapers and shampoo. Objectivism demands that we do not rationalize the demented priorities of the industrialized world. To illustrate, I append a pome dedicated to you:)

*Ball of Wool *

My kitten plays with a ball of wool
she is tangling it and pulling it
apart
Her tail bobs about in angry delight
We laugh to watch it so.....

excited over a ball of wool
she spits and runs and comes back and tries
again to unravel the ball of green wool
It is such a mess now
wet and straggly
very dirty a little old
quite quite bedraggled
A little like this Earth we live on.

It is impossible to unravel it now and rewind
into a nice neat pretty green ball.
For us to us it whenever we will
just as we wish.
to make a sweater,
loop a tie
knit a beret

So like Earth,
too dirty to be of use
to anyone
anymore.

I`m going to take a lot of what you`ve said out of context, because I refuse to consider any solution that requires central oversight. In my opinion its a bad idea to sell yourself to the overseers no matter what you feel your respective intentions are.

For shame, bad girl, you`re buying into your own rhetoric. ``You have fallen into the trap of thinking there are only two options``.

With very little support you imply that it is not possible to ``correct`` the errors in a capital based system. There are very few ``pure capitalists`` around these days. The per capita harm we do has declined significantly from the early part of this century. On the other hand, we have millenia of evidence which testify to the drudgery, grime and misery of a purely agrarian solution. It is a truism that there is no trade without surplus resources. (I`m going to cheat and say, that with your background you ought to know that). Without trade you can`t pay doctors and scientists and people who innoculate babies and invent liberating devices like computers, microwaves and the contraceptive pill.

We need only look to Cambodia and Pol Pot to see how terrible the consequences of an agrarian solution are. A few more lemurs in Angkor Wat are happy. Everywhere else the people and the world lost out.

If there is anything we have learnt about human beings it is that in the long term, only win-win solutions work.

Bravo, a plea to look for answers within. Bravo, a plea to topple the cart and design new models. But what is this stuff about simplicity and all that?

Have you ever heard the 80% speak...

``You (20%) may be satiated and have had enough, we (80%) need our day now. We also need to have babies that wear soft diapers and we also need the latest video cam that records every burp and gurgle that our future makes. Who are you to deny us that moment? We will continue to strive and work hard, we will continue to discover the hidden path (even if it is cryptic as C or C++) that will bring the wealth of the West in the laps of our land. We are simply seeking what we are told is right by all.``