From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Population growth and cultural destruction (Re: Nasty
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:23:20 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec14.162041.14406@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com writes:

 > >Whether kerosene may or may not get too expensive remains to be seen.
 > >The point is that *now* people want to buy kerosene (and gas) stoves
 > >so their lives become that much easier *now* so they are in a better
 > >position to experiment, innovate, design, and change *later*.
 >  
 > I am not suggesting that anything be denied to people because of my
 > opinions.  I am suggesting that these things not be forced onto them.
 > And if there are any people from these countries who would like to
 > join in the debtae, I would be happy to see it. 

Denied, or forced upon them, what is the difference in this context of
discussion? Both constitute interference . . .

 > What I am _trying_ to focus on is the domination of this process by
 > outsiders such as the World Bank, and occasionally, the local elites
 > that they support.  I am not suggesting that a different set of
 > outsiders replace the function of the World Bank.  Has anything I
 > have said suggest that that is my goal?

It has simply not been clear at all what your goal is. Certainly, I
have no idea from what you are writing what disagreement there is
between you and steinly. If we all agree that local people are in the
best position to know what they want, all of us here together might
then focus our attention rather on what sort of relationships will
emerge down the track a little, that we are in a better position to
plan our *own* economic growth strategies.

Already, we have been working to bypass the Hong Kong middle-men so
that by direct dealing between, for example, respective Perth and
Guangzhou enterprises communications and market intelligence of a
far higher standard can be achieved than by someone in between with
their own separate interest in the flow of goods and services.

I have no interest particularly whether third parties are do-gooders,
philosophers, commission agents, financiers, missionaries, or anybody
else at all, nor whether they exploit the system or whatever they want
to do. So long as they stay out of the way of effective communications
between nations, and do not disrupt the processes of long term planning
and implementation of effective policy. There is plenty of room there
for both social and environmental impact analysis, BTW; it is when the
economists and lawyers ignore expert opinion on their own ideological
grounds we are in just as much strife.

 > Again, have I suggested this?  _Some_ of the centralized governments
 > we refer to were set up and supported by outsiders because it served
 > their needs to have such people in power.  If my country supported
 > such a government (and it has), then I will try to change _my_
 > governments involvement in this process.  My governments dominance
 > of so-called multi-lateral funding institutions has a similar, if
 > better disguised, effect. 

Your interference is no different from your government's interference,
is it, one position only putatively more *moral* than the other in an
endless cycle of agony and disputation?

As you sow the seeds of doubt, suspicion and hostility, surely the
worse it gets for everyone. How about some homework, some factual and
reliable analysis of reality, that we can all relax in a clear and
unambiguous understanding of what is going on so we can get on with
*doing* something about it?

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                  Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *