growth, development and garbage

Lately there have been many questions that have been bothering me. I wonder why we have to rely on someone else to come and clean up our mess after I read the story of the Garbage Girl. Don't get me wrong, it's great someone is making an effort but are we so fundamentally socially backward that we cannot even insist on basic civic sense? I wonder why we don't have in place a system of municipal waste collection that actually works - this is infrastructure at its most basic. We are the civilization that invented the zero and consequently are one of the biggest players in the IT field. We have a space program that a lot of developed nations can be proud of. We have a culture and history that is unparalleled.

But we also have so many social problems - poverty, malnourishment, the highest rates of maternal death, female infanticide, a garbage problem threatening to mask all our accomplishments. In the eyes of the world, we are still seen as a filthy country in many aspects. When are we to get rid of this image?

Behind the glitz and growth of new malls, multiplexes, supermarkets and all the trappings of the west the real India is being swallowed up in piles of garbage. All of our resources are stretched, our cities are choking with pollution, drowning in filth with not enough water or electricity for the burgeoning population. Do we not deserve more? I'm tired of trying to find a reason for the way things are - corruption, government, politics etc can only get us so far. What about individual accountability? What about you standing up to say that you don't like the way things are and doing something to change it? The father of this great nation, based our independence on the power of singular change... and things went rapidly downhill from there.

I remember reading a chapter in biology in school entitled 'growth and development' and remember thinking that they are two entirely different things that are so easily confused. The understanding of 'growth' and 'development' is not just a study of semantics but there are entire philosophies, economic policies and government principles involved in the distinction. India is sadly an example of growth without development.

This country needs to be built from ground-up. All we are currently focusing on is embellishments whilst nations like China and even Brazil are focusing on grass-roots development. They have similar problems as us, so why aren't we at least trying?

For India to take its rightful place in the world, we must invest in infrastructure, education and focus on growing holistically, sustainably. The kind of imbalanced growth we are seeing will only lead to more social problems and eventual economic collapse. The center cannot hold. The center will not hold. I wonder how long we are going to try to drive this horse with a broken cart until the wheel gives way to complete irreparability... and then what?

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake - Rabindranath Tagore

future of RTD

The Right to Development (RTD), a concept that emerged in the 1970s, is one of the most debated and contentious issues in international relations. RTD builds on the rights based approach to development, seeking to integrate the norms and principles of human rights with policies and plans to promote development. Despite its importance for the world’s poor and dispossessed, a great deal of definitional confusion still surrounds the concept.

The future of RTD depend on the extent to which governments are willing to address the political and practical obstacles to its implementation. The political obstacles appear in the tone and substance of the deliberations as well as the decisions of the Commission and General Assembly. It is up to those governments that take the RTD seriously to shift the discourse away from posturing and towards specific programs and mechanisms that will assist governments in meeting their obligations in this area.

The most important obstacle to implementing the RTD is the practical one, because of the lack of incentives to modify the formal policies of the international agencies and national governments and to incorporate meaningful approaches to this right in the practice of development. Human rights are claims of entitlement that arise as of right and are independent of external justification; they are "self evident" and fundamental to any human being living a dignified, healthy and productive and rewarding life.

Human rights are not some abstract, inchoate 'good'; they are defined, particular claims listed in international instruments such as the [U.N.'s] Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the major covenants and conventions. Like the fundamental rights guaranteed by any Constitution, these rights are inalienable; they cannot be transferred, forfeited, or waived; they cannot be lost by having been usurped, or by one's failure to exercise or assert them.

Sustainable development acts as a reconciling principle between economic development and environmental protection. Just as economic development is an inalienable right of States' self-determination; environmental protection is an erga omnes (in relation to everyone) obligation of all States for the benefit of the global commons that all share. The principle of sustainable development is thus a part of modern international law by reason not only of its inescapable logical necessity, but also by reason of its wide and general acceptance by the global community, and not just by developing countries.

sustainability - the flip side

The juxtaposition of sustainable development with ecology and development is a valid comparison and one that is open to debate. Development at an unprecedented rate cannot continue and the lack of proper ecosystem management is making it extremely difficult to support current rates of growth. Already the adverse effect of environmental abuse is being felt. There is a direct impact on world economy due to climate change – change in weather patterns, agricultural losses, increase in floods, tornadoes, droughts. All of these have impacts on world economy.

The definition of sustainability itself has large black-holes that need explanation. As a relatively new business model, it challenges the traditional notions of growth. Whilst a growing economy simply expands, a developing economy improves. Within the frame of the definition of sustainability there is no indication of how we can support current rates of growth "without compromising on the ability of future generations to support themselves". There is no basis on which to perform a projection analysis to figure out what resource use the future generation requires because we barely know what is acceptable today. However since there is a deceptive simplicity around the concept of sustainability, it is applied to every new business model.

The idea of sustainable development is based on two assumptions. The first is that we are running out of resources and the second is that economic growth is the cause of this depletion. However, resources are becoming less, not more, scarce. Agricultural yields for all the major crops like rice, corn, and wheat have been on the increase. Increased exploration of oil, coal and natural has been revealing that known reserves are expanding. This same phenomenon has been seen with metals like aluminum, zinc, iron, and copper where reserves have increased. Improved technology has ensured that more-conservative production techniques are encouraged and this in turn has ensured the exploration and new discoveries of underground reserves. Life expectancy, housing, nutrition and education levels are improving world over. In short, the prosperity we enjoy today is leaving future generations better off, not worse off.

If the definition of sustainable development incorporates the maximization of human welfare, then this is only possible if the legal system ensures property rights in order to ensure market operability. The definition of sustainability should incorporate the idea of right to development. The right to development and by proxy the right to environment can only be guaranteed when the tragedy of the commons is abolished. Since growth and increasing wealth leads to improved environmental quality by raising demands for it, economic growth cannot be the antithesis of sustainable development but the essence of it.

Political and economic systems based on property rights is the only base to sustainable development. Government regulation to stop growth is the antithesis of any development and will see a decline in environmental quality. Scarcity of resources is the excuse given for lack of institutions that ensure human freedom.

The biggest problem is that there is no common consensus that world governments and organizations can reach in order to resolve these issues. Additionally, any measure we have in place in terms of treaties etc are not mandatory not legally-binding. Unless there is some measure that legally enforces sustainable development, the change is going to be slow to come. At this point, 'slow' cannot be afforded.