From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:57:30 GMT

In article <726383316snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1993Jan6.170329.5528@megatek.com> max@megatek.com writes:
|> 
|>  >   How can we share technology with the 'more heavily populated of the
|>  >   poorer countries' ?  I agree that it doesn't hurt to share knowledge,
|>  >   but how do you successfully do that?  It goes against the cultural
|>  >   traditions of thousands of years in those places. There is no base
|>  >   infrastructure to support this technology. We have to start at the
|>  >   very bottom and teach the first things first, like 'how to dig a well,
|>  >   and check that the water is good'.  Only much later can we teach them
|>  >   'how to hybridize rice' (IMHO).  How can we teach population control
|>  >   from *our* perspective?  Population control from *their* perspective 
|>  >   is that of the natural god, i.e. force of nature, i.e. famine etc.
|> 
|> Just a small problem here with the idea that a society which has
|> managed to maintain its cultural traditions for thousands of years
|> suddenly need to be taught by Americans how to dig a well and check
|> that the water is good, or how to cross rice varieties, or indeed now
|> need to change such cultures.
|> 
|> Who wants to learn anything at all from the American perspective?
|> Surely the Australian perspective is most appropriate for Australia,
|> and the Somali perspective for Somalia (and so on), yes?

Well, I begin to see the intellectual framework behind all your verbiage,
Gil. Your main point is a sort of isolationism predicated on the nation-
state system. The first problem here is your introduction of the word
"American" into the discussion. I cannot see how the suggestion of sharing
technology applies less to you Australians or us Canadians. So allow me
to substitute the word "Western" (despite your location) which is to
be taken as the technologically advanced martket-economy countries.

As for who wants to learn anything at all from the Western perspective,
I believe it is almost everyone. If you can provide an example of a 
traditional society that does NOT want modern medicine, education,
technology, and economy, I will freely agree that (to the extent that
they are not impinging on other societies) they should be left
alone. Now name one. (Burma a.k.a. Myanmar has been left alone for
a few decades now. See how happy they are in their cultural stability?)

|> It is *not* up to the US to "share technology" with anyone else at all.
|> It is only up to anyone to shop around for whatever technology they may
|> want from time to time on the world market.

Well, most of those countries believe otherwise, and are rather vehemently
requesting that the west make those techniques available. By your argument
there is no particular reason on the part of the western countries to 
make their techniques (rather than their products) available.

Of course, making those techniques readily available
is not in the short term interest of the individual institutions that 
control the technologies. But from the western point of view, our long term
best interests are served by efforts to overcome this resistance. Stable
economies provide more customers and less immigration pressures, not
to mention a more stable planetary environment. (Oh I've forgotten, you
do not believe in a planetary environment.)

Since you utterly refuse to consider the point of view of humanity as a whole,
I will refrain from stressing the profound human misery that currently is
widespread in the poorer countries. You believe they deserve everything they
get, don't you?

What was all that brouhaha at Rio about "technology transfer" anyway?
Do you really believe that the west is foisting its ways on the rest of the
world? Most of the rest of the world believes that the west is withholding
information in pursuit of short-term advantage. 

|>  >   I'm not convinced that attempting *either* population control *or*
|>  >   technology advancement in those countries is 1) possible, or 2)
|>  >   appropriate. Maybe those societies need *cultural* change before any
|>  >   of this other stuff?  Are we really a good enough example of a 
|>  >   'successful' modern society to assume that 'we have' what 'they need'?
|>  >   Please elaborate.
 
|> Regardless of what you find convincing, there is nothing inherently
|> difficult to understand about such processes.

Um, he seems to be agreeing with you, Gil. The problem is that the
countries we are discussing generally do not.
 
|> If people are dysfunctional their society will no longer be viable,
|> will it?

Charming.
 
|> If a society is not viable it will die out, won't it?
|> 
|> If such dysfunction is of their own making we can't do much to help
|> them, can we?

I suppose the geographic isolation of your country allows you the illusion
that their failure will have no effect on your own well-being. This is
not only factually wrong but imho morally dubious. 

mt