NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/sci/environm/13538

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-15 | 4.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!vexcel!dean
From: [e-mail] (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Population growth and cultural destruction (Re: Nasty
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:50:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Lines: 82

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> > 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 . . .

Wasn't that my point?  The above paragraph indicates I am against
both forcing and denying.
>
> > 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.

The original disagreement with Stein was about the dynamics of
population growth when traditional cultures "meet" technological
cultures.  I claimed that mortality decreases were not the sole,
or even dominant, component in this growth.  When the issue got
to local in;ut, then Stein and myself appeared to agree.  My goal,
then, is to convince people in _my_ culture to let development
proceed on a path under more control of the people being "developed",
that it not be forced on them by the United States or its loaning
institutions.
>
>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?

What is my interference?
>
>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?
>

How am I sowing the seeds of suspicion and hostility?  Among whom?

As for homework, see my thread on development.
--

        dingo in boulder    ([e-mail])