From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Population growth and cultural destruction (Re: Nasty
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 03:30:03 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec13.202328.21968@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com writes:

 > How useful is the kerosene stove to a population for which kerosene
 > may get too expensive? How many of the local designs would be in use
 > if the kerosene stove had not been available? How much local intiative
 > was used to design a stove thousands of miles away? Do you believe
 > local people wer at all involved in its marketing?  Why?

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*.

 > Modernization and how the developed world can help is a very long
 > topic. The current debt burden (another long subject) overwhelms
 > most other aspects since virtually all hard currency is spent servicing
 > this debt. I believe that all developed counties, including the newly
 > developing countries of east Asia, practiced extensive protectionism.

 . . . very likely to continue for some time to come. China does not
yet even permit direct currency exchange while (from conference last
Friday with a visiting Chinese delegation) one Cantonese city alone
experienced an economic growth rate of 39% last financial year. In
world terms while the US, Japan and Europe are entering a recessionary
phase that growth may be fragile, hence the obvious need for continued
currency protection, but at least it *is* growth and as the rest of
the world experiences another growth cycle as time goes by China is
going to be in an excellent position.

 > The question is how much contact is needed and to what degree local
 > conditions should be taken into consideration. Stein suggested that
 > local people should be given a lot of control. This is not the case now.

The more local control, the better. If people need assistance it is
not at all difficult in those circumstances to specific exactly what
is required, then browse the world for the most favourable terms. That
is almost impossible with a whole lot of foreigners there arguing the
pitch and toss over what is the "best thing" to do, which at best only
gives everyone a headache.

If you want to join the queue of providers to the "Third World", you
might be mindful that these days there is an international standard of
competition, and you had better be good at whatever it is you do.

 > The Soviet Union had limited tranfers to the people partly because
 > of security reasons and partly because they had a centralized system
 > that stunted production.  I am advocating local decentralized 
 > decision-making in developing cultures.  Your suggestion that 
 > countries not be "technologically special" smacks of central control
 > by the World Bank or whatever.  

Dean, however centralised or localised the decision-making process may
be in one country or another is entirely within their own prerogative
as a sovereign state. Whatever you may want to advocate, as local people
get the hands-on experience of running of their own system it is up to
them to adapt and modify it is time goes by themslves.

If you want to join the queue of advisors, again, you had better be of
world class if anyone is going to listen to you.

--
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 * *