“All development is destructive” is a sweeping statement, as startling as to portray the protection and preservation of ecology as the fad and freak of a few elitist groups, who are out to run down development as the root cause of all our ills and irritations. Charles Reich, in his book “The Greening of America’, writes: “In pre-industrial societies change takes place very gradually, subject at all times to a humanistic, cultural and social system. In contrast, when rapid and drastic changes are made to accomplish specific, scientific or rational objectives, the unconscious, invisible and non-material human values are likely to be neglected. Gradual change allows the cultural tradition to carry along a more balanced set of values. Industrialism was not only violently rapid, it was single-minded, and had little concern for what happened to other values. Industrialism placed man under the rule of laws that were not hurrian.”
Economic affluence, whether in the developed world or in the devel­oping world like India, has its drawbacks. It commonly spoils human rela­tionships and creates forms of environmental degradation that increasingly damage the physical and biological quality of the globe as a whole, for the simple reason that most pollutants spread far beyond their points of emission.
During the early euphoric phase of the industrial revolution, it was almost universally believed that the result of industrial growth would be for the betterment of human life, and that the earth was spacious enough and rich enough in resources to accommodate unlimited growth of the human species and of its ambitions. However, now it has become painfully obvious that the world’s population, especially the population of developing and under-developed countries, cannot safely exceed a level higher than the present one, and that many dangers inevitably follow the undisciplined growth of industry.
The awareness and realisation that there were inescapable limits to quantitative growth rapidly spread from a few specialists to the general pub­lic, generating an explosion of concern for what has come to be called, vaguely, the quality of human life and of the environment. The official ex­pression of this concern was the United Nations’ Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, which was soon followed by the creation of international and national agencies focussed on aspects of environmental
IttlN, In 1983, the World Conservation Strategy was published by the It (nvlronment Programme, the World Wildlife Fund and the Interna-til Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, appealing Iftll Millions to bring about economic and scientific development without I’tlon, The World Commission, appointed by the U.N. General As-(ly on Environment and Development in December 1983, took nearly f yettf* to arrive at a finding on the various economic, political and social “lien prevailing in different countries, .which are responsible for irre-ibly damaging the natural resources of the earth, and to suggest rem-I by consensus for the future of mankind. The startling revelation was [ (he earth is one, even if the world is divided by national interests and “” lUei; and it is not mere compassion or philosophy but sheer physical lily that all human activities ought to be influenced by this realisation. JNUemi transcend national boundaries.
The technological explosion has brought in its wake such rapidly ac-”IJHI change in social environment, that those within it are increasingly lit to adjust themselves to the pace of that change. In such a situation, I Confusion and anxiety levels must rise for individuals subjected to i filter than they can adjust to it or they will take the path of least toe and simply be borne along flaccidly on the surface of the flood, Ifllither the desire nor the capacity to make any meaningful decision Helves. It is admittedly difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine •ly in advance the “environmental impact” of human interventions Ural and social systems; but it is certain, nevertheless, that much of Age that was done in the past could have been prevented if environ-I IWareness had-been as widespread as it is now becoming. t No doubt, industrial growth has long been considered desirable, be-j) §f ill contribution to health and happiness, for the creation of wealth, ^~~ly for its own sake. Until recent times, progress was indeed identi-l luch quantitative growth. In contrast, modern societies have begun Jon the desirability of certain innovations that are technologically I end economically profitable, but that have undesirable social as-fc -The evaluation of potential, long-range dangers for human beings H Ihe environment is becoming one of the crucial factors in the lltttlon of technological policies.
During all periods of history, there have been people who believed *iilf time was out of joint, that all coherance was gone. Contemporary Itiim, however, goes far beyond this traditional worry about the state lift. Its new aspect is the assumption that our descendants will be I WOrae off than we are, because the world will have become too com-i fcf COmperhension by the human brain. These developments, together I the recklessly wasteful use of the world’s limited resources by the ad-vanced market economies, even at the cost of damaging the eco-system and denying the poor countries the succour they need desperately, and the disconcerting experience of half-baked modernisation plans, which have distorted both priorities of development and living mores in large parts of the Third World, have made many intellectuals lose heart. Some have joined the campaign to save the environment. Some others wonder how poor coun­tries can save their soul. A few have been provoked into looking far more critically at the whole course of development and feel that the Gandhian legacy offers the best hope.
Mahatma Gandhi’s saying that the future of India is not in mass production, but in production by the masses, may have meaning for the Western world as well. The human tragedies resulting from unemployment may lead industrial societies to rediscover that, except for the dullest, most repetitive, and painful tasks, human beings are better than machines—and certainly more creative.
Much water .has flowed into the Dams, big and small, since Jawaharlal Nehru inaugurated the Bhakra Dam and called it the ‘modern temple’ of progress and prosperity. In between, India has harnessed its water resources in such a way that they could provide electricity to the industry and water to agriculture to enable her to become an industrialised power in her own right, and also become self-sufficient in food as a result of Green Revolution.
But the construction of big dams has not turned out to be a blessed bag of good fortune. According to a World Bank report, big dams the world over have displaced a billion people, including 16 million in India. An ILO report warns that “tribals in Asia and elsewhere in the world face a common threat—submergence under the onslaught of development”.
The tragedies such as the repeated African famines, the leak in Union Carbide’s pesticide factory at Bhopal, and the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl were recent disasters which roused the conscience of international commu­nity to evolve by common consent a code for acceptance by all the nations, towards sustainable development for the advancement of mankind on earth. According to Dr Gordon R. Conway, Imperial College of Science, Technol­ogy and Medicine, London, agriculture too is a global polluter, producing through its normal activities gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and ammonia that contribute to acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer and global warming. An agricultural system that does not cause pollution, or at least contamination of the environment” is an impossible goal. However, by designing appropriate technologies, it is possible to ensure that the nature of the wastes is as harmless as possible.
Our environment means our long-term survival, and it is, therefore, not good enough to ignore facts and discuss factoids. We have, in our coun­try, both mass poverty and ecological degradation, which are mutually rein-, economic and developmental goals must have a strong itnl element in them. Today, a major challenge, as also an oppor-i the country is how soon we can move towards sustainability. i If we go on the way we have so far, we will continue to have a India of a large number of poor and dispossessed toilers and I who live in medieval times, arid an affluent India of a small number I who are jet-set and wealthy. In essence, sustainable development M of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction f n(, the orientation of technological development and institutional I ill In harmony and enhance both current and future potential to I needs and aspirations. Of the most remarkable achievements of the campaigns, con-
I ftoie who have been castigated as eco-freaks or anti-technologists,
Importunity to live in a good environment is coming to be regarded
“Inalienable” rights, along with rights to freedom, to education, I form of medical care. A good environment, furthermore, means I iOIUlltions that are favourable to the maintenance of physical health, ln emotional and aesthetic qualities of the surroundings. These Ewntch are very different from those that governed industrial growth i ire likely to generate new forms of growth in which the quality
II Uke precedence over the quantity of goods produced.
ill are almost completely prisoners of biological evolution, but |l are blessed with the freedom and inventiveness of social evo-can retrace their steps and start on a new course, whenever ahead. They can integrate the raw materials of the earth, [ knowledge derived from past experience and from new learning, * lUOUS evolutionary process of creation.