For closing notes on Walden, Thoreau demonstrates his journey through different senses and lots of detail and imagery. His goal was in part to inspire people to find their own spiritual calling through nature, seclusion, and self-sufficiency. But also, its in some ways an instruction book for how to achieve this, just a bit outdated. Overall, I enjoyed the parts of the book that said very spiritually awakening things.
Moving on to Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful, he starts off talking about the problem starting in production. We do everything on such a large scale and at an alarming rate that it is destroying the health of our planet and people. There is an illusion that we have unlimited resources, and that the issues of production have been solved, when that is not the case. Then he dives into how we as humans are suffering from our systems because they disturb the peace, such as countries going to war over commodities. Next Schumacher talks about Buddhist economics. At first, I thought the word was just something made up because I didn’t see how a spiritual view could tie to an economic one. He explains it as something that is spiritually connected, “Spiritual health and material well-being are not enemies: they are natural allies” (Schumacher, Page 56). In this chapter he compares modern economics to Buddhist economics. Buddhists do not have materialistic cravings and connections and Schumacher’s saying the economy should take an approach more like this, for the better of the Earth and people.
Question: How would we go about scaling down a system that is already so overpowering and large? Is it too late? How do we start?
Most people would assume that those living in developed and technologically advanced countries live a overall better life than those in less developed countries. The logic behind this idea is sound, more technology means there is less work for the humans to do which means more leisure time for the people of that country. In theory this makes sense, but as Schumacher points out people in developed countries such as Germany and the United States actually live much more stressful lives than those in a less developed country such as Burma (158). Having so much technology at our disposal puts pressure on people to produce more products and to constantly continue the advancement of technology. Schumacher also argues that the people who live with highly advanced technology are much farther removed from the actual production process. The work the technology most replaces is “skillful, productive work of human hands, in touch with real materials of one kind or another” (158). Today there are very few jobs out there that require a highly skilled craftsman of some kind, as most of these jobs have been taken over by machines. The actual jobs that most people do require less hands on skill and are moving farther and farther away from the actual production of goods. My question is, in our technology obsessed culture are people becoming less skilled? How does having all this technology disconnect people from what is really going on in the world and what problems does that cause for society? If something catastrophic were to happen and we lose much of our technology what would happen to the people of a highly developed region? How would people in a less developed region handle a situation like that differently?
Schumacher begins the second part of his book with a chapter titled “The Greatest Resource – Education,” a chapter focusing on the impact of educated humans on development. He says, “All history- as well as current experience- points to the fact that it is man, not nature, who provides the primary resource: that the key factor of all economic development comes out of the mind of a man.” (79). After this he goes on to say that with growing technology, education must grow as well, and that when someone asks for education they are not merely asking for knowledge of facts, but some sort of ideas that would make the world around them more tangible. Education is one of the most influential things in a person’s life.
My question is why has the United States, such a wealthy and developed country, made education so inaccessible to a majority of its people? Clamored with budget cuts, public schools are deteriorating, and people are unlikely to pursue a career in education as the salary is so low. Beyond this, college tuitions are rising as well as student loan interest rates. If we consider ourselves to be the greatest nation on the planet, how can we not provide a high quality education to ALL of our people?
In chapter 5 “Technology with a Human Face” Schumacher describes Western societies as being under strain and dominated by technology. Technology has created a fractured sense of community through social media and idiotic marketing campaigns that only serve to trick people into spending their wealth on meaningless items. Schumacher emphasizes how this technological addiction only serves to stress and complicate people’s lives. In the West more people are doing more things faster than ever, however, this does not mean more things of substance are being done. In terms of gross national happiness countries like Burma as Schumacher illustrates are much farther ahead. The average person in Burma does not share the same burden as a westerner. This means as Schumacher states “the burden of living rests much more lightly on their shoulders than on ours”(158).This is overwhelmingly apparent in my life as I have seen technology strip away skills from people. Work has become dominated by technology without a human face leaving people with jobs that are often meaningless to them that require no skill and leaving the person with no sense of pride. Work has become a way of giving technology what it needs to continue its unimpeded growth that is strangling nature and hindering our society. In some ways we have begun to work for technology when technology has always been intended to work for us. So my question is what steps would need to be taken for a country like the United States to turn away from technology as the answer to all problems and focus on an approach such as gross national happiness that is much more human focused?
“One of the unhealthy and disruptive tendencies in virtually all the developing countries is the emergence, in an ever more accentuated form, of the ‘dual economy’, in which there are two different patterns of living as widely separated from each other as two different worlds.” (Schumacher, 174)
Schumacher brings up the point of economic duality when discussing the mutual relationship between the wealth of industrialized countries in the Global North and poverty in the
Global South. He recognizes that there seems to be a symbiotic relationship between the rich getting richer and the poor remaining poor or becoming poorer. Two opposite poles are moving away from each other, creating both a wealth gap between nations and sociopolitical tension. Schumacher references the widespread example of population migration to urban cities from rural communities in search of work. “…development experts rarely referred to the dual economy and its twin evils of mass unemployment and mass migration into cities” (177). Migration simultaneously leads to the degradation of urban lifestyles with the influx of poverty stricken individuals in a “process of mutual poisoning” (177). The duality of this relationship stems from the development of population dependence on emerging authorities, infrastructures, and technology.
How can economic duality be deconstructed in order to lessen harmful tendencies of current economic trends? Would cutting economic ties between nations in the Global South and nations in the Global North lead developing countries to greater economic independence and improve human well-being? If countries were to create policies and trade networks with rural communities, would this lessen the influx of migration to cities while also alleviating the stress of poverty?
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is a very sad novel. It is sad because it goes in to great detail about all of the different ways that we are poisoning the water, the air, the vegetation, animals, and even ourselves, but we are doing nothing to stop this poisoning. It talks about all of the specific case studies like Crystal Lake, where everything just began to die, and no matter how much we try to clean it up, those chemicals are going to persist there for a long long time. She mentions several times that we as humans always think the best option to any issue is to get more technical and add more chemicals, even when there is a simpler, healthier option. We ignore what we are doing to the environment around us and continue to add more and more poison into the earth.
My question is, why do you think people/corporations/etc. continue to use these chemicals without knowing the long term consequences that it can have on the environment and our health. Why does the government allow, and sometimes endorse, these chemicals when they do not know how they will affect us in the long run. We know it is not ethical, but why do they think it is acceptable?
In Schumacher’s chapter “Buddhist Economics”, he describes the difference between a modern economists viewpoint and a Buddhist economist. A Buddhist economist seeing work and labor as a blessing and a way to honor one’s character as modern economists see it only as a means of production and growth. Schumacher writes “It is not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for them.” Buddhist economics centers on “simplicity and non-violence.” As we discussed in class, Buddhist economics focuses not on a consumeristic society but trying to free oneself from the desires that are placed upon ourselves in such a modernistic economy. My question is, how does one try and pursue a system of Buddhist economics while living in a modern society? Is it possible with the capitalistic influences that we live with?
The beginning of the chapter “Buddhist Economics” talks about labor and wealth. One quote that stood out to me was, “Hence the ideal from the point of view of the employer is to have output without employees, and the ideal from the point of view of the employee is to have income without employment” (pg 57). An idea that stemmed from this is the division of labor which divides of work into smaller parts that require no skills resulting in unhappy employees. In Buddhist economics, the idea that work is organized in such a boring way should not be allowed. People are more materialistic while the Buddhist is more interested in liberation. The attachment to wealth stands in the way of liberation. People have a craving for pleasurable things. One of the main goals of Buddhist economics is that through compassionate and meaningful work, one can discover their true potential.
This brings me to two questions. One of the questions that I have is that since reading Walden and getting Thoreau’s take on different aspects of life, what do you think his take would be on the concept of Buddhist economics? The other question I had is in a system that makes it impossible for every person to have a meaningful job due to our materialistic society, how can people apply Buddhist economics to our day to day lives in another way?
Schumacher got me thinking about how bizarre yet profound the use of GDP and GNP to measure a country is. To sum up a country based on the economic value equivalent of the amount of production and income made in a year, to try to understand an entire homeland based on investments, savings, and products is quite bizarre considering all the other important attributes of a country that makes it livable. Because of western societies’ emphasis on economic value, our way of life is impacted in many facets. Schumacher points out “the common criterion of success, namely the growth of GNP, is utterly misleading and, in fact, must of necessity lead to phenomena which can only be described as neocolonialism” (205). What I believe he means by this is that what our society believes to be success, such as economic and materialistic consumerism like GNP, is leading us to change our way of life, community and governmental goals, trade, agriculture, and education systems, consumeristic cravings, as well as the idea of the good life which could be categorized as neocolonialism. My questions are: how different do you think our society would be if we adopted Buddhist economics? If money wasn’t so important in our culture would you be in school right now? If money wasn’t so important would there be more preservation of natural resources, less crime, more community?
In Buddhist Economies, Schumacher states “He (the modern economist) is used to measuring the “standard of living” by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is “better off” than a man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human wellbeing, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well being with the minimum of consumption.” This statement makes me wonder if a concept like GNH (gross national happiness) could be used to measure wellbeing in the rest of the world. As well as being a more efficient way to measure wellbeing of citizens, this method of measurement would also reduce consumption.
My question is this: is a Buddhist economy something that would work on a global scale? Can the entire world switch from measuring gross national product to something like GNH? Is a transition of this scale even possible? What steps would need to be taken to implement a type of economy where consumption isn’t the priority, but the wellbeing of people is?
In Schumacher’s chapter Peace and Permanence, says that the dominant belief about peace today is that the “soundest foundation of peace would be universal prosperity.” This belief leads people to assume that the faster you obtain one thing the more securely you may obtain another and promotes a cycle of greed. Some ways discussed in the chapter to disarm greed. Simply being less greedy in our personal lives by analyzing our needs to see if we can reduce them and further simplify our lives. Additionally we may do this by resisting temptation to let our luxuries become needs. He goes on to make the point that in order to overcome greed and hate within oneself, there must be a recognition of living faith. And quotes Ghandi saying “…non-violence does not avail those who do not possess a living faith in the God of Love.” My question is, Do you agree with this point? Must you have a recognition which amounts to a living faith to uphold non-violence or to overcome hate and greed.
As Schumacher pointed out, thinking we solved the problem of production is one of the main causes for us neglecting nature and society. I think even today we think we have solved it, or know how. Humanity has definitely been blinded by our confidence in our inventive abilities. You have hand pollinators in China doing the once “free” ecological service provided from bees. We have scientist wanting to inject more chemicals into the biosphere to put a bandage on the problem as that wouldn’t stop the consumption habits. We have grown confident and comfortable with always having a new solution to keep the business going as usual. With that being said I am not anti-technology as I do not think the humanless technologies to be the issue as I do the wielder of the technology. Which goes back to Schumacher’s points of having these powers decentralized so that they are not in anyone’s hand for misuse and injustice to occur.
My question is this: Do you think community economies helped by decentralized technologies and renewable energies a viable alternative to today’s society?
As discussed before, Schumacher is a proponent of full employment and engagement with labor. This work should be nourishing and creative but has been now clouded and gone away with, for many people, by modern technology. “We may say, therefore, that modern technology has deprived man of the kind of work that he enjoys most, creative, useful work with hands and brains, and given him plenty of work of a fragmented kind, most of which he does not enjoy at all” (160). Here he is referring to modern technology enabling us to reduce amount of time spent on actual production, but in the most elementary sense that the amount of social time it gives in return of time saved is quite small as other pressures are added in the process. Here Schumacher is expressing how technology, although praised for reducing work time is not doing as much good as it is usually shown to do; “…technology has enabled us to do: namely, to reduce the amount of time actually spent on production in its most elementary sense to such a tiny percentage of total social time that it pales into insignificance, that it carries no real weight, let alone prestige” (159). I agree with Schumacher in that technology with a human face- that is one that “instead of making human hands and brains redundant, helps them to become far more productive than they have ever been before” (163) would be more beneficial. This would help in equitable “production by the masses” instead of the current mass production that is violent in nature. The “servant of machines”, which many have become as mass production rises, is what would be mitigated with technology with a human face, serving to decentralize modes of production and not show prejudice towards those that can gain from it. Modern technology, as Schumacher sees it, is showing an inhuman face, one that should make us question our goals for the future and what it could look like. My question would be; Could modern technologies be used to displace current oppressive economic systems, as they are heavily intertwined would these systems need to be completely uprooted by these same technologies or new ones to allow for equitable systems to become established?
According to E.F. Schumacher, the poor are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer. Foreign aid and development are only making the problem worse. There is vast decay of rural and urban sectors, and the masses migrate to the megopolis where they are left without hope for employment. Is there hope for the world? Schumacher sure thought there was.
He thought that the chance to work was the greatest of all needs, and he developed the idea of Intermediate Technology. Intermediate Technology can be a part of opportunity for the people who go short of even the most essential means of subsistence. Intermediate Technology involves local production of tools, resources and goods to meet a community’s basic needs. Additionally, Schumacher’s regional and district approach seems to provide ample education, employment and cultural structure on a manageable level.
My question for you is, if you were born in India to an indigenous family who has been displaced by a major dam project, would you find sense in Schumacher’s teaching’s of local economy and intermediate technology in your community of displaced people?
Next, for Rachel Carson in Silent Spring. She tactfully describes how the development of chemical weapons in the United States during World War 2 led to the contamination of air, earth, rivers and sea because the lethal materials were applied for the use of killing pests, managing weeds, increasing the production of industrial agriculture and more. She elaborates by saying how the central problem of our time is the contamination of the environment including nuclear fallout from the testing and use of nuclear weapons, and the abundance of toxic chemicals sprayed onto and within the environment. Numerous cases of fatal contact with lethal chemicals are described in detail by Carson, and she goes on to support the idea of how our waters have become “universally contaminated” by referring to a 1960 report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are cancer producing materials in the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breathe. Carson elaborates, “The common salad bowl may easily present a combination of organic phosphate insecticides” (32).
My question remains, is Rachel Carson’s framing of the problem of chemical insecticides and lethal materials effective? How so?
In the chapter, Technology with a Human Face, Schumacher speaks to the irony of the situation when he says, “we, the rich countries, have found it in our heart at least to consider the Third World and to try to mitigate its poverty” (pg 162) — for if those who have the resources actually wanted to make a difference among third world countries, they most definitely could, but they choose to turn a blind eye. The quote “more, further, quicker, richer,” on page 164-165, “are the watchwords of present-day society”. This speaks to those who want growth and continued profit, but is this the viewpoint of all of society, or just those at the top? The rest of the world is brainwashed into thinking that that’s what it wants, but whose motive is it really? Their true motivation stems from the want for profit, not for the well-being of the rest of the world; the quote, “…the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer,” (pg 181) speaks to this exactly. The solution lies in productivity, so how do you make a nation, each nation, more productive? How do you redirect the flow of wealth away from the greedy minority and towards the rest of the world?
In the “Development” chapter, Schumacher emphasizes the need for a regional approach to development and the application of “intermediate” technologies (page 186). He states, on page 187, “If the purpose of development is to bring help to those who need it most, each “region” or “district” within the country needs its own development”, later citing the need for internal structure and a decentralized approach to development. I agree with Schumacher’s proposal that development should be regional/local. Different communities have different needs, and there are several factors that play into development (politics, economy, population demographics) that won’t be uniform everywhere. As we’ve learned, and Schumacher would agree, there is no one approach to solving the problems of development. Development initiatives should never be “one-size-fits-all”. Following his call for regional development, Schumacher states that regional approaches to development (however, he is really only focused on economic development) will not be successful without “appropriate” (later called “intermediate”) technology.
Economic development and technological solutions are only two facets of sustainable development, which is why I have problems with Schumacher’s heavy focus on only these two. Sustainable development encompasses the environment and society as much as it does economy. If we only focus on technological fixes for development in ‘underdeveloped’ countries, will we reach true sustainability? And, when it comes to these “intermediate technologies”, do the receiving communities even want them? Who are the actors in the process and who will have agency in the adoption of these technologies?
I personally found “Technology with a Human Face” to be the most intriguing chapter throughout the book. In the chapter, Schumacher holds what I would believe to be a strongly neo-luddite perspective that I also hold, which I would assume most sustainable development students hold as well. Schumacher states on pg. 160 “modern technology has deprived man of the kind of work that he enjoys most, creative, useful work with hands and brains, and given him plenty of work of a fragmented kind, most of which he does not enjoy at all.” He also states multiple times the phrase “production by the masses instead of mass production.” While this may be a stretch, I’m personally most skeptical of Artificial Intelligence and I see some parallels between Schumacher’s argument and the argument against AI. This train of thought is funny enough given the title of the chapter but how would Schumacher go about discussing Artificial Intelligence?
In Buddhist Economics, Schumacher makes several distinctions between the modern economist and the Buddhist economist. He creates the idea of Buddhist economics based on countries like Burma which attempt to both embrace Buddhism spiritually and culturally but also embrace modern economics and progression. He argues that a country that practices Buddhism spiritually and culturally can not also engage in modern economics and should therefore engage in the Buddhist economy. (56-57) Concisely, he describes modern economists as valuing commodity and consumption and the buddhist economist as valuing the actual work itself. The modern economist believes it is most economical to use as little labor as possible in order to produce the highest amount of product possible. The Buddhist economist wants to use the least amount of materials (in order to create the least amount violence possible on whatever resource was exploited) to create the least amount of consumption. Whereas work as seen as a “sacrifice of ones leisure and comfort” in the Modern Economy (57), work is seen as a three fold process of liberation (60). Buddhist economics do not entirely reject material goods, it just rejects livelihood derives from material goods entirely. On page 61, Schumacher sums up these ideas as follows: The former [Modern economics], in short, tries to maximize human satisfactions by the optimal pattern of consumption, while the latter tries to maximize consumption by the optimal pattern of productive effort. Modern sees consumption as an end to the means of labor as Buddhist sees consumption as a means to the end of livelihood and dignified work. He ends the chapter simply stating that these two ideas of economies is not like choosing between “modern growth” or “traditional stagnation” but finding the most sustainable, and worthwhile path of development.
My question is: How did the idea of economics trumping livelihood even develop in the first place? I guess these are more historical questions but who created the idea of the modern economy, why did they, and did they truly believe that it would lead to overall better livelihood?
In the chapter “Social and Economic Problems calling for the Development of Intermediate Technology” Schumacher, discusses the idea of intermediate technology for developing countries. The idea of providing technologies to the developing countries that are not the same as the technologies in the developed countries but things that provide value and useful for them. Providing technologies that bring more value and create a smoother working and living situation. On the other hand how can this technologies be given with out the idea of it being the outdated technologies that no longer has value in the developed world. When reading that chapter specifically I could only think of why is there a supply of technology that is not fully useful going to the developing countries? Also should the developed world be rethinking how they perceive and use technologies?
In Silent Spring chapters 3-5, Carson meticulously lays out the specifics of the ways that chemicals affect the environment. She gives a background of the chemicals themselves, explaining the chemistry and providing examples and stories of human and animal sufferings from them. The water chapter describes just how uncontrollable water is to the point where we cannot even predict the ways it may carry chemicals (specifically the example in Denver), and all the steps to those chemicals ending up in humans. The soil chapter explains the intricate connections between life within soil and our life, all the way down to the billions of microorganisms in a teaspoon of soil.
What is the purpose of using detail and tons of specific examples here? What effect does it have or what kind of understandings does it create or attempt to create specifically pertaining to environmental issues? How does interdisciplinary writing enhance our reading experiences?
I interpreted the chapter “Buddhist Economics” as Schumacher saying economics are based behind the cultural and social values and norms. If you look at different cultures and societies the social values vary a lot and in this example he is comparing Buddhist culture to Westernized. Westernized culture is one valuing profit, and individualism and because of this we have gone to exploit people and nature in order to make that profit. Along with the exploitative behavior, the West has an interesting relationship with nature and one that separates ourselves from nature. On the other hand the Buddhist culture goes off of the EightFold Path allowing spirituality and economics to be allies of each other. Buddhist economics focuses on non-violence and liberation and their connection with nature is very different from the West. They view that humans themselves are apart of nature and they have a strong connection to all of nature.
After reading this chapter I have begun to think about the ways of changing our current economic system in the West, and from this chapter I am wondering: Is it necessary to change social and cultural norms before making change in the economic system?
A concept that I was particularly captured by in the Silent Springs reading was that of the quick fix. This almost seems the American way; any problem can and should be fixed using the technologies that we have as soon as we can, even before in depth research can go into alternative work-arounds, or even the full effect of the problem itself. Bugs are warded off with chemicals we don’t even know the full scope of effects for. Pathogens are flushed downstream because its convenient, not realizing how well things can move into the groundwater supply. But it was convenient at the time, so it must be justifiable! On page 34 Carson talked about poisoning hazards in treating cows for parasites vs dogs for fleas; the dog’s blood is literally too poisonous for fleas to survive after treatment. And we can justify it because it’s an animal, and nobody seems to want to develop a human equivalent to poison the mosquitos via our own toxicity.
In Surface Water and Underground Seas we get an intro into chemicals as they move into different trophic levels of the food chain. Biomagnification shows us that nothing exists in a vacuum, and if you chemically poison one species near the bottom, the effects will inevitably move up to the top. And worse yet, these effects last longer than the intentional application (p.48). For instance, after the application of DDD in a lake was halted and the water was trace free, the chemical still existed in in the fish, the amphibians, and the local birds, even years after chemical applications ceased. What can that tell us about the creatures of our modern era, affected by our current chemical runoffs? Just how long will our anthropogenic activities leave a chemical trace in the life on Earth?
On page 58 I nearly startled in familiarity at the old phrase “a pound of DDT to the acre is harmless”, because that was the actual mantra of my grandparents age on their tobacco farm. It’s almost frustrating to know that information and warnings about the overuse of pest/insecticides have been present for so many decades, yet in modernity such practices exist and continue to the detriment of the farmer’s health (every generation on the aforementioned farm at home has had at least two people suffer from cancers tracing back to chemical use in the agriculture).
If Silent Spring was the war cry, and the modern environmental movement was its rally, where should we rank the attitudes of today? A sort of “oh yeah we need to…yeah, bad on pollution.”? At the time of this book’s release the reactions and further actions of the populace spurned huge demonstrations, policy change, and an irreversible change in the environmental discourse. Where is this call to action and concern in today’s society? How did we lose the momentum that Silent Spring kickstarted?
In the chapter “Buddhist economics” the differences between western capitalism and the buddhist was of economy are explored. They both consider work to be a labor but the buddhist ideology makes the labor more of a blessing because it brings fulfillment to a person. The western views of economics only value a person on the status of their job rather than the joy that job brings the person or others. The buddhist view is about having more meaning being given to your life through the labors and taking that joy it brings and spreading it.
How do yall find fulfillment in the work that you do? Does your job or schooling give your life meaning or are they burdens?
The 2nd chapter of Silent Spring, “The Obligation To Endure,” Carson gives an ideological framework to her arguments on chemicals and chemical pollution that is laid out in extreme scientific detail in the following chapter. The general thesis of the chapter is that nature works as a system, a system that functions on time, a system that has checks and balances, a system where no one life form overtakes the integrity of the others. However, this is the exact opposite that man works in nature. Her arguments work well with Schumacher’s problem of production, in that we are shortsightedly abusing nature without regard at all to how it supports us and works naturally.
Carson says this of our attitudes “Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or vision to demand that which is good?” (p.12) There are so many voices on the topic of “what is good” and we tend to follow the loudest of those voices, folding ourselves into their understanding of the good life and feeling the pain/discontent of that folding. Is it utopian to think that we could demand that the natural world be respected and allowed to pursue its own good or good life even? What would it look like for us to do so? And how would a world function where every person had the freedom and space to pursue their own good? Or is there only room in environmentalism for another form of authoritarian hierarchy of what is right and wrong but instead of chasing capital or goods, chasing healthy ecosystems?
In the chapter Technology with a human face Schumacher writes that “The primary task of technology, it would seem, is to lighten the burden of work man has to carry in order to stay alive and develop his potential (157). He goes on to say that at first glance it appears as if this is the case but under closer inspection it has put people under much more strain than in countries that lack these labor savers. Is this the nature of the technology causing the strain or is it because of the society that has been set up around this technology? One could argue that it is not the technology itself causing this strain, that its the society that is set up around the technology. But at the same time the bases of our modern society has been built upon the technology that we have available changing as the technology changes. So my question is to what is the relationship between technology and our quality of life as it occurs today?
Taking a closer look at Schumacher’s chapter, “Buddhist Economics” I am continuously taken back by a western education economist taking such a bold, logical counter stance to our current status quo in terms of production. Although this was written 50 years ago, Schumacher’s argument for people based economics is more relevant than ever. In summary, Buddhist Economics views work as a nourishing act of man that encourages him to be the best that he is capable of (p. 59). Schumacher states a harsh critique on the division of labors deskilling production techniques, as well as the general goal of using labor as a means to consumption, which is the end goal. This cycle that we are so familiar with today, Buddhist economics would deem a craving for pleasurable things and an attachment to wealth.
Schumacher’s philosophy parallels Thoreau’s in many ways, the main point, internal introspection and micropolitics. Therefore, if Schumacher was to advise on our current state, would he prioritize pushing for a shift in the top-down ways that the market focuses on products rather than people, or would he advise the workers to empower themselves to find meaning and therefore build character in their current employment area?
In the chapter entitled Two Million Villages, Schumacher makes some interesting points about Gross Domestic Product. As we discussed in class, JFK was raising similar arguments in front of the entire nation of America as well as the entire world during the 1960’s. Our author makes the point that “Unless life in the hinterlands can be made tolerable, the problem of world poverty is insoluble and will inevitably get worse;” and goes onto say if we should not see our GDP as a sign of prosperity or health. Schumacher compares those with obsessions of GDP as neocolonialists; on the next page (206), he speaks of a textile mill in Africa that is on par with the “highest techological lecel to be found anywhere in the world” when he asked why the mill was so advanced and employed very little due to all the machinery done work, he was told by the owner of the mill that products would not sell if they were flawed in any way, all his equipment and materials had to be imported form other places and machines took jobs away from locals due to the differences in productivity.
Last year in SD Theory with Professor Dinesh Paudel, we discussed Bhutan and how instead of measuring their Gross National Product, they measure Gross National Happiness. Monetary growth does not mean anything if an entire nation is suffering through wars, famines, diseases or environmental harms. Gross National Happiness seems like what we should really be focused on improving not only in our own nation, but globally.
How do you think society would look if economies and governments shifted their efforts to improving GNH rather than GDP?
Technology has allowed the human race to progress and grow in population and production at a rapid pace, however, our use of technology could actually be reducing our production of happiness. Schumacher talks about how we spend so little of our social time actually producing things that are of value to us, instead “96 ½ percent of total social time is spent in other ways, including sleeping, eating, watching television, doing jobs that are not directly productive” ( 159). I took this to mean that technology is preventing us from really enjoying our lives and learning how to enjoy it, instead, we are turned into consumers of entertainment, drugs, and other forms of consumable happiness (162). Using our free time to produce real things ( Schumacher describes this as “employing hands and brains and, naturally, excellent tools”) would allow us to not only increase production but also happiness (161) . This leads me to the question, could a society modeled after this idea really work? Would this society need to be constructed based on this concept or could a technologically centered society change and adapt to this model?
I understand why Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” had such a profound impact and when it was released in 1962 it was during a fragile time. She provided profound information, and proposes profound questions such as; “How could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by a method that contaminated the entire environment and brought the threat of disease and death even to their own kind?”. Questions such as this one frame how humans just abuse nature for their own gain but don’t seem to comprehend that it affects them as well.
My question is one regarding the impact “Silent Spring” carried when it first came out; what happened to it? It’s almost as if half of the population is aware and tries to change and be environmentally aware, and the other denies we have a part in it at all. Why?
In hopes of an intermediate technology benefiting my own life, Schumacher may very well have approved of a horseback low capital rural agroforestry company. To achieve detachment from worldly wealth, do we need community members sleepung under the stars amongst literal a grassroots, swadeshi economy? One in which the words we mouth necessarily invoke the endless mystery behind real dairy or true work pants?
On page six of Silent Spring, Rachel Carson quotes Albert Schweitzer saying “Man can hardly recognize the devils of his own creation.” Carson uses this quote as a warning about the unknown effects of synthetic chemicals. When Carson wrote Silent Spring very little was known about the chemical compounds Americans were liberally applying to their homes, lawns and even children. Many of Carson’s concerns, particularly those about DDT were later proven to be valid. In so many cases, humanity has turned a blind eye to the devils of our creations because to confront them would require atonement. It would require for us, as Carson points out, to safeguard the balance of individual ecosystems and the planet as a whole, to forgo profits to foster a healthy environment. For me this quote is just as applicable to Schumacher’s remarks on technology as it is to Caron’s criticism of toxic pesticides. Schumacher states the high levels of stress, anxiety, and isolation in “technologically advanced” societies should have been eradicated had technology served its goals to “lighten the burden of work man has to carry in order to stay alive and develop his potential. (157)” And even as technologically developed countries continue to report high rates of depression and anxiety and even as more and more research connects these conditions to screen time and technological dependence, many of our most important institutions and legislation still place technological advancement as a top priority. The questions I pose here came from consideration of Schweitzter’s quote in relation to the “devils” Carson and Schumacher respectively identified. I do not consider the synthesis of chemicals or technology as a whole devils, as their existence has saved many lives. What I consider the devils of these creations to be is their irresponsible or misuse, the way the waste from their production is disposed of, the mistreatment of the workers who produce them and so on? Are these creations possible, however, without these devils? Just because they have never existed without them before, does this mean they could not in the future? What is it that keeps us from recognizing the devils of our own creation? Is it simply that the globalized capitalist mode of production and consumption requires their existence and it is our faith in this economic model that keeps us from addressing them? Or is what keeps us from recognizing them something more individualized? Is it our desire for the good life so strong, and our faith that these creations will make it more attainable so steadfast that we are willing to accept the planetary and social consequences of their existence?
Western capital-intensive technology has been made and implemented to substitute for scarce labor. In the “intermediate technology” chapter, Schumacher suggests this type of technology is inappropriate in countries where labor is abundant. Moreover that this capital-intensive technology first damages the current economy by destroying regional production and secondly, dividing the society into the “haves and the have-nots”.
Schumacher suggests that technology that is introduced must remain within the reach of the people, must help create workplaces where they are needed. Moreover that this must be done cheaply using simple methods and local materials.
My question is this. What are some examples of successful currently applied Intermediate stages of technology taking place within developing countries? Specifically, a system of simple methods using local materials that generate income and economic growth?
In “technology with a human face” it is pointed out that human technological improvement faces three main problems: human nature resists certain societal structure (tech., politics, organizations, etc.), the living environment is showing signs of breakdown and excess pollution, and bottleneck effects for species and extreme resource exhaustion is appearing due to increased resource extraction. Even though all of this is in an effort to lighten the burden of work, those people from more echnologically advanced countries actually need to work longer hours.
Also, developing counties do not have the capital to take part in technologically advanced industry. An attempt to do so will be met with failure, with heavy machinery sitting around useless. Perhaps a better approach for these countries to develop lie in intermediate technology. For example, say a company needs to dig a very deep pit in the ground, and move the dirt to a far off location. The 100% labor intensive approach would be to use a ton of workers digging the pit by hand, or with very simple tools. The 100% technology intensive approach would involve a few workers using excavators and other such heavy machinery to move everything. The intermediate technology approach would include using an intermediate amount of workers using tools like shovels and wheelbarrows and light trucks to move the dirt.
My question of the week:
Would you as a modern day American, give up some of your luxuries if it meant that you would have to work significantly less and have more social time?
When Schumacher discusses the application of technology, it becomes personified as an entity of itself, or a “foreign body”. He states that he wants to give it a “human face”, in that it would accurately address development issues. However, what face would it have, and for whom? It is assumed that “what is good for the rich must be good for the poor” and that production of technology and its output to “underdeveloped countries” must increase for their prosperity and well being. However, such forms of technology that are brought out to “underdeveloped” countries are technologies that enjoyed by the rich; those who use technology for leisure. In implementation of intermediate technology, or $100-technology (190), he says, would be able to meld with the indigenous technology and infrastructure better than implementing the infrastructure of an already advanced nation. However, when talking about intermediate technology/appropriate technology, I have seen that Schumacher and the economists he seems to defy are all still talking about technology that has some sort of capital output as this should reintegrate them with the “modern world”. I am afraid that the issue that we have been having is implementing technology/infrastructure that is unsustainable, and leads these people down a path of environmental degradation and continued divides in power through social classes. Shouldn’t the types of technology that we should be focusing on be the ones that we would want applied here, in the “developed” world? Technologies that are entirely renewable and equitable? (Those that have a true human face?)
I find Schumacher’s thoughts about intermediate technology very interesting and thought provoking. I think the idea is great in theory and could produce a lot more jobs, but I question the practical application of it in the present economy. The Capitalistic economy runs off of the exploitation of people and the continual progress of technology. I don’t think the United States or any other capitalistic government would ever consider this type of technology because in their eyes it is taking a step back. Schumacher is also talking about doing this in “developing” countries, but why can’t we do it here? The Western world caused many of the problems in developing countries, so shouldn’t we start the solution? Shouldn’t we be implementing these technologies before we ask other countries to do so?
If we attempt to move towards “technology with a human face,” how must we approach large scale, “brutal” technologies directed by the state like the energy grid, industrial agriculture, or the auto-driven infrastructure like roads and fossil fuel pipelines? Must we? How does Schumacher, whose outline of Buddhist economics highlights non-violence, think of changes in these systems? How does scale impact the implementation of intermediate technologies? In moving away from brutal, large-scales technologies, who would be impacted, and who would catch the negative externalities prompted by the changes? Schumacher says on page 169 that “And what is the cost of a reorientation? We might remind ourselves that to calculate the cost of survival is perverse. No doubt, a price has to be paid for anything worth while: to redirect technology so that it serves man instead of destroying him requires primarily an effort of the imagination and an abandonment of fear.” To me, this efforts speak to the costs of social changes and necessary sacrifices, changes in our way of living and thinking. Where is the line between necessary discomfort/sacrifice and causing more suffering for vulnerable peoples and individuals? If (when) these changes come, who exactly is going to bear the heaviest burden? When we reorient, how can we care for the vulnerabilities in our societies and individuals? What does Schumacher have to say about this?
After reading Small is Beautiful it seems as though E.F. Schumacher has a more people based vision of development within societies. On pg. 157 he states that the amount of machinery a society has within the infrastructure of the workplace, the less leisure time there is. My question is, do you think the implementation of machinery and new technology impacts the wellbeing of a society? And if it does then in what ways can new technology be implemented without depriving the working class of decent jobs?
In The Obligation to Endure Carson gives us the tools and the knowledge to ask questions about what poisons are being put into our air, water, and land. Carson also explains how man has morphed natural processes (such as radiation) into unnatural processes to be feared. Later in the chapter Carson explains the need of man to move away from technological fixes and more towards natural process changes. She says that we already have much of the knowledge we need to implement natural processes of animal and pest control, yet we don’t train our ecologists this way. How do natural processes (not ecosystem services), but natural resources such as organic pest control etc. fit into an economy? How do we shift our knowledge base away from the technological savior viewpoint? Are we, as SD students, tasked with the burden of educating others or can we use economics to help spread the ideas of natural solutions?
In the chapter “The Problem of Unemployment in India”, I thought the concept of using education as a tool to then serve the rest of the population was a fascinating and novel idea that I’d never examined before. Our current society relies on certain people advancing while others are forced to remain subjugated (socially, economically, etc.) or, at the very least, are stuck in an economic class that is hard to escape while other parts of the world thrive. A someone who would likely be considered as “thriving” economically (i.e. getting an education, living in a nice house, pursuing a career, and more), I feel like I should consider my education as “a monastic vow, a sacred obligation to serve the people” (219). I think in this highly individualized, personal-success-obsessed society, we forget how many different moving parts there were and are in getting us to our current positions. Schumacher proposes that our education system should teach people how to help others, and yet we currently have a system that teaches “the wrong things,… things that set them apart with a contempt for manual labor, a contempt for primary production, a contempt for rural life…” (221). Upon reading that quote I found myself at least partially identifying with everything Schumacher regarded as “wrong”. How, then, can we push for education that seeks to teach people without perpetuating a money-centric, individualistic path of development? Is the fact that we’ve established education as a tool to help get a job the main issue?
It is clear to see why Schumacher is considered to be a thought leader in the push for ‘Sustainable’ Development. His views of holistic development, and condemnation of the sole push for economic growth were quite revolutionary during his time. One of his points that I found most insightful was regarding “intermediate technologies”. It has often frustrated me how people in the developed world celebrate “innovative, entrepreneurial” solutions to issues in the developing world. Now I understand further that introducing complex technological solutions can kill any chance for natural market innovations that happen at early stages of technological development. It’s not that the developing world lacks “entrepreneurial spirt”… it just lacks opportunities to innovate unless an intermediate technology is utilized instead.
How can we assess whether a technology is truly appropriate for a nation’s economy… and how can we further encourage autonomy and “innovation” by people within the developing world.
As spring arrives at Walden Pond, Thoreau takes the opportunity to reflect on what the change means. He observes how the melting of the ice gives way to new life, how the melting of the pond leads to a rebirth of life surrounding it. The melting is universal and complete; its scope seemingly infinite and absolute. In this way, Thoreau theorizes that the coming of spring is further illustration of the power of nature, and the lengths to which it’s influence can be felt. The widespread change changed the entire ecosystem, and the feeling of revitalizing the wildlife makes Thoreau ponder change as a whole, seeing it as not only inescapable, but an opportunity. The world is full of potential, with new life and renewal becoming dominant forces. With this knowledge, Thoreau leaves Walden Pond with a sense of satisfaction and a new sense of direction, knowing that now he must go out and live other lives, experiencing change and all that the rest of the world has to offer, much life the coming of spring drives change and rebirth.
My question is, how does Thoreau take all he has learned and effectively rejoin the rest society? Have the lessons and philosophies he pondered while at Walden pond all for naught if he’s just going right back to the situation that drove him to this experiment in the first place? Or, is it possible for Thoreau to continue to satisfy the loft ideals and motives that he found at Walden while still being a member of society?
In the chapter “Technology with a Human Face”, Schumacher says that technology “does not possess the virtues of being self-balancing, self-adjusting and self-cleansing”. Schumacher says that technology seems to develop on it own terms and principles. In a way it is the complete opposite of nature. He says that nature knows when and where to stop. It’s interesting to think about how technology and nature differ. It seems like we as humans have created a technology that is dominating us more than we are dominating it. Nature has created a system where the good and the bad work in a way that creates a balanced system. Schumacher brings up the point of if we can form technology in a way that works the same as nature.
Question: Is it possible to form technology in a way that works like nature and eventually can work with nature instead of against it?
In “The Greatest Resource-Education” Schumacher claims that the separation and resulting ignorance of morals and ethics of the humanities from scientific know-how is the greatest threat to man. Schumacher writes, “it is man, not nature, who provides the primary resource: that the key factor of all economic development comes out of the mind of man…education is the most vital of resources” (83-84). When technology inevitably leads to unintended consequences, we depend on more and better education to fix them. However, this process inherently avoids the root cause of those environmental and social problems that arise from solely teaching know-how. Progress is based on better and more efficient technology and scientific innovation, but as Schumacher says, this is only a means without an end. We are too focused on what we can do and what we want to be able to do, without considering the effects of these innovations from a moral standpoint: “the most powerful ideas of the nineteenth century, as we have seen, have denied or at least obscured the whole concept of ‘levels of being’ and the idea that some things are higher than others” (105) which has further lead to the destruction of ethics. As such, Schumacher calls for metaphysical reconstruction, that is the reconstruction of our morals and ethics from one of progress and destruction to a more comprehensive understanding of the meaning of life, which is essentially found in happiness and positive relationships, not in technological or material wealth.
This chapter speaks heavily to the fundamental issue of our relationship with nature and with each other. In a highly individualistic society, and one that is inextricably linked with monetary wealth, we only focus on what we have to do to make more money to live well instead of asking why it is that money is promoted as the key to happiness. The power of education cannot be understated as it is the avenue by which our younger generations receive all the information for which to base their beliefs and attitudes on. If science and maths are encouraged in singularity, without indulging in the humanities which provide guidance on morals, ethics, and the interconnectedness of different subjects with reality, we will only have more single-minded generations stuck in the trap of capitalism.
My question is, is a transformation of education to be more inclusive and interwoven between science and humanities a direct threat to our society? In other words, is the teaching of ethics in education the beginning of a societal transformation to be more inclusive and sustainable? What are the barriers to changing the education system, assuming that policymakers and curriculum writers have a priority to train students to become workers in the capitalist system?
This is the second time I have read Silent Spring, which was great because before I was not able to connect many of the relationships we made during class discussions. I was once again informed of how our methods to addressing people and nature and the drive for economic gains are so detrimental to natural systems and the health of people. This semester I found a greater focus on realizing the suppression of facts and cases of injustice in our society and how we are still living with power minds that do not address these issues which have been exposed for decades! Carson and her work was so scrutinized and torn apart by scientists, people in power, and greater society because of the ‘attack’ it put onto modern western lifestyles. Companies and governments continue to ignore science and accounts of their destruction and push the narrative onto greater society that these refutes are invalid.
“The road we have been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster… The choice, after all, is ours to make… we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless and frightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us that we must full our world with poisonous chemicals; we should look about and see what other course is open to us” (277-278). Although we can learn and connect and know the degradation we are allowing to happen, our choices on accepting or resisting this is the most important personal decision. We need to not be passive in our stances, and we need to embrace the joy and peace that can only come from changing our methods to more holistic and accepting and sustainable ways of living. This is the only path to justice for people and the earth and the solution to improving our health. Carson touches on the improvements we can take as society, but if there are not criticisms and clear solutions being displayed, how effective can arguments be in changing the mindset of the individual?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
For closing notes on Walden, Thoreau demonstrates his journey through different senses and lots of detail and imagery. His goal was in part to inspire people to find their own spiritual calling through nature, seclusion, and self-sufficiency. But also, its in some ways an instruction book for how to achieve this, just a bit outdated. Overall, I enjoyed the parts of the book that said very spiritually awakening things.
Moving on to Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful, he starts off talking about the problem starting in production. We do everything on such a large scale and at an alarming rate that it is destroying the health of our planet and people. There is an illusion that we have unlimited resources, and that the issues of production have been solved, when that is not the case. Then he dives into how we as humans are suffering from our systems because they disturb the peace, such as countries going to war over commodities. Next Schumacher talks about Buddhist economics. At first, I thought the word was just something made up because I didn’t see how a spiritual view could tie to an economic one. He explains it as something that is spiritually connected, “Spiritual health and material well-being are not enemies: they are natural allies” (Schumacher, Page 56). In this chapter he compares modern economics to Buddhist economics. Buddhists do not have materialistic cravings and connections and Schumacher’s saying the economy should take an approach more like this, for the better of the Earth and people.
Question: How would we go about scaling down a system that is already so overpowering and large? Is it too late? How do we start?
Most people would assume that those living in developed and technologically advanced countries live a overall better life than those in less developed countries. The logic behind this idea is sound, more technology means there is less work for the humans to do which means more leisure time for the people of that country. In theory this makes sense, but as Schumacher points out people in developed countries such as Germany and the United States actually live much more stressful lives than those in a less developed country such as Burma (158). Having so much technology at our disposal puts pressure on people to produce more products and to constantly continue the advancement of technology. Schumacher also argues that the people who live with highly advanced technology are much farther removed from the actual production process. The work the technology most replaces is “skillful, productive work of human hands, in touch with real materials of one kind or another” (158). Today there are very few jobs out there that require a highly skilled craftsman of some kind, as most of these jobs have been taken over by machines. The actual jobs that most people do require less hands on skill and are moving farther and farther away from the actual production of goods. My question is, in our technology obsessed culture are people becoming less skilled? How does having all this technology disconnect people from what is really going on in the world and what problems does that cause for society? If something catastrophic were to happen and we lose much of our technology what would happen to the people of a highly developed region? How would people in a less developed region handle a situation like that differently?
Schumacher begins the second part of his book with a chapter titled “The Greatest Resource – Education,” a chapter focusing on the impact of educated humans on development. He says, “All history- as well as current experience- points to the fact that it is man, not nature, who provides the primary resource: that the key factor of all economic development comes out of the mind of a man.” (79). After this he goes on to say that with growing technology, education must grow as well, and that when someone asks for education they are not merely asking for knowledge of facts, but some sort of ideas that would make the world around them more tangible. Education is one of the most influential things in a person’s life.
My question is why has the United States, such a wealthy and developed country, made education so inaccessible to a majority of its people? Clamored with budget cuts, public schools are deteriorating, and people are unlikely to pursue a career in education as the salary is so low. Beyond this, college tuitions are rising as well as student loan interest rates. If we consider ourselves to be the greatest nation on the planet, how can we not provide a high quality education to ALL of our people?
In chapter 5 “Technology with a Human Face” Schumacher describes Western societies as being under strain and dominated by technology. Technology has created a fractured sense of community through social media and idiotic marketing campaigns that only serve to trick people into spending their wealth on meaningless items. Schumacher emphasizes how this technological addiction only serves to stress and complicate people’s lives. In the West more people are doing more things faster than ever, however, this does not mean more things of substance are being done. In terms of gross national happiness countries like Burma as Schumacher illustrates are much farther ahead. The average person in Burma does not share the same burden as a westerner. This means as Schumacher states “the burden of living rests much more lightly on their shoulders than on ours”(158).This is overwhelmingly apparent in my life as I have seen technology strip away skills from people. Work has become dominated by technology without a human face leaving people with jobs that are often meaningless to them that require no skill and leaving the person with no sense of pride. Work has become a way of giving technology what it needs to continue its unimpeded growth that is strangling nature and hindering our society. In some ways we have begun to work for technology when technology has always been intended to work for us. So my question is what steps would need to be taken for a country like the United States to turn away from technology as the answer to all problems and focus on an approach such as gross national happiness that is much more human focused?
“One of the unhealthy and disruptive tendencies in virtually all the developing countries is the emergence, in an ever more accentuated form, of the ‘dual economy’, in which there are two different patterns of living as widely separated from each other as two different worlds.” (Schumacher, 174)
Schumacher brings up the point of economic duality when discussing the mutual relationship between the wealth of industrialized countries in the Global North and poverty in the
Global South. He recognizes that there seems to be a symbiotic relationship between the rich getting richer and the poor remaining poor or becoming poorer. Two opposite poles are moving away from each other, creating both a wealth gap between nations and sociopolitical tension. Schumacher references the widespread example of population migration to urban cities from rural communities in search of work. “…development experts rarely referred to the dual economy and its twin evils of mass unemployment and mass migration into cities” (177). Migration simultaneously leads to the degradation of urban lifestyles with the influx of poverty stricken individuals in a “process of mutual poisoning” (177). The duality of this relationship stems from the development of population dependence on emerging authorities, infrastructures, and technology.
How can economic duality be deconstructed in order to lessen harmful tendencies of current economic trends? Would cutting economic ties between nations in the Global South and nations in the Global North lead developing countries to greater economic independence and improve human well-being? If countries were to create policies and trade networks with rural communities, would this lessen the influx of migration to cities while also alleviating the stress of poverty?
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is a very sad novel. It is sad because it goes in to great detail about all of the different ways that we are poisoning the water, the air, the vegetation, animals, and even ourselves, but we are doing nothing to stop this poisoning. It talks about all of the specific case studies like Crystal Lake, where everything just began to die, and no matter how much we try to clean it up, those chemicals are going to persist there for a long long time. She mentions several times that we as humans always think the best option to any issue is to get more technical and add more chemicals, even when there is a simpler, healthier option. We ignore what we are doing to the environment around us and continue to add more and more poison into the earth.
My question is, why do you think people/corporations/etc. continue to use these chemicals without knowing the long term consequences that it can have on the environment and our health. Why does the government allow, and sometimes endorse, these chemicals when they do not know how they will affect us in the long run. We know it is not ethical, but why do they think it is acceptable?
In Schumacher’s chapter “Buddhist Economics”, he describes the difference between a modern economists viewpoint and a Buddhist economist. A Buddhist economist seeing work and labor as a blessing and a way to honor one’s character as modern economists see it only as a means of production and growth. Schumacher writes “It is not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for them.” Buddhist economics centers on “simplicity and non-violence.” As we discussed in class, Buddhist economics focuses not on a consumeristic society but trying to free oneself from the desires that are placed upon ourselves in such a modernistic economy. My question is, how does one try and pursue a system of Buddhist economics while living in a modern society? Is it possible with the capitalistic influences that we live with?
The beginning of the chapter “Buddhist Economics” talks about labor and wealth. One quote that stood out to me was, “Hence the ideal from the point of view of the employer is to have output without employees, and the ideal from the point of view of the employee is to have income without employment” (pg 57). An idea that stemmed from this is the division of labor which divides of work into smaller parts that require no skills resulting in unhappy employees. In Buddhist economics, the idea that work is organized in such a boring way should not be allowed. People are more materialistic while the Buddhist is more interested in liberation. The attachment to wealth stands in the way of liberation. People have a craving for pleasurable things. One of the main goals of Buddhist economics is that through compassionate and meaningful work, one can discover their true potential.
This brings me to two questions. One of the questions that I have is that since reading Walden and getting Thoreau’s take on different aspects of life, what do you think his take would be on the concept of Buddhist economics? The other question I had is in a system that makes it impossible for every person to have a meaningful job due to our materialistic society, how can people apply Buddhist economics to our day to day lives in another way?
Schumacher got me thinking about how bizarre yet profound the use of GDP and GNP to measure a country is. To sum up a country based on the economic value equivalent of the amount of production and income made in a year, to try to understand an entire homeland based on investments, savings, and products is quite bizarre considering all the other important attributes of a country that makes it livable. Because of western societies’ emphasis on economic value, our way of life is impacted in many facets. Schumacher points out “the common criterion of success, namely the growth of GNP, is utterly misleading and, in fact, must of necessity lead to phenomena which can only be described as neocolonialism” (205). What I believe he means by this is that what our society believes to be success, such as economic and materialistic consumerism like GNP, is leading us to change our way of life, community and governmental goals, trade, agriculture, and education systems, consumeristic cravings, as well as the idea of the good life which could be categorized as neocolonialism. My questions are: how different do you think our society would be if we adopted Buddhist economics? If money wasn’t so important in our culture would you be in school right now? If money wasn’t so important would there be more preservation of natural resources, less crime, more community?
In Buddhist Economies, Schumacher states “He (the modern economist) is used to measuring the “standard of living” by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is “better off” than a man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human wellbeing, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well being with the minimum of consumption.” This statement makes me wonder if a concept like GNH (gross national happiness) could be used to measure wellbeing in the rest of the world. As well as being a more efficient way to measure wellbeing of citizens, this method of measurement would also reduce consumption.
My question is this: is a Buddhist economy something that would work on a global scale? Can the entire world switch from measuring gross national product to something like GNH? Is a transition of this scale even possible? What steps would need to be taken to implement a type of economy where consumption isn’t the priority, but the wellbeing of people is?
In Schumacher’s chapter Peace and Permanence, says that the dominant belief about peace today is that the “soundest foundation of peace would be universal prosperity.” This belief leads people to assume that the faster you obtain one thing the more securely you may obtain another and promotes a cycle of greed. Some ways discussed in the chapter to disarm greed. Simply being less greedy in our personal lives by analyzing our needs to see if we can reduce them and further simplify our lives. Additionally we may do this by resisting temptation to let our luxuries become needs. He goes on to make the point that in order to overcome greed and hate within oneself, there must be a recognition of living faith. And quotes Ghandi saying “…non-violence does not avail those who do not possess a living faith in the God of Love.” My question is, Do you agree with this point? Must you have a recognition which amounts to a living faith to uphold non-violence or to overcome hate and greed.
As Schumacher pointed out, thinking we solved the problem of production is one of the main causes for us neglecting nature and society. I think even today we think we have solved it, or know how. Humanity has definitely been blinded by our confidence in our inventive abilities. You have hand pollinators in China doing the once “free” ecological service provided from bees. We have scientist wanting to inject more chemicals into the biosphere to put a bandage on the problem as that wouldn’t stop the consumption habits. We have grown confident and comfortable with always having a new solution to keep the business going as usual. With that being said I am not anti-technology as I do not think the humanless technologies to be the issue as I do the wielder of the technology. Which goes back to Schumacher’s points of having these powers decentralized so that they are not in anyone’s hand for misuse and injustice to occur.
My question is this: Do you think community economies helped by decentralized technologies and renewable energies a viable alternative to today’s society?
As discussed before, Schumacher is a proponent of full employment and engagement with labor. This work should be nourishing and creative but has been now clouded and gone away with, for many people, by modern technology. “We may say, therefore, that modern technology has deprived man of the kind of work that he enjoys most, creative, useful work with hands and brains, and given him plenty of work of a fragmented kind, most of which he does not enjoy at all” (160). Here he is referring to modern technology enabling us to reduce amount of time spent on actual production, but in the most elementary sense that the amount of social time it gives in return of time saved is quite small as other pressures are added in the process. Here Schumacher is expressing how technology, although praised for reducing work time is not doing as much good as it is usually shown to do; “…technology has enabled us to do: namely, to reduce the amount of time actually spent on production in its most elementary sense to such a tiny percentage of total social time that it pales into insignificance, that it carries no real weight, let alone prestige” (159). I agree with Schumacher in that technology with a human face- that is one that “instead of making human hands and brains redundant, helps them to become far more productive than they have ever been before” (163) would be more beneficial. This would help in equitable “production by the masses” instead of the current mass production that is violent in nature. The “servant of machines”, which many have become as mass production rises, is what would be mitigated with technology with a human face, serving to decentralize modes of production and not show prejudice towards those that can gain from it. Modern technology, as Schumacher sees it, is showing an inhuman face, one that should make us question our goals for the future and what it could look like. My question would be; Could modern technologies be used to displace current oppressive economic systems, as they are heavily intertwined would these systems need to be completely uprooted by these same technologies or new ones to allow for equitable systems to become established?
According to E.F. Schumacher, the poor are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer. Foreign aid and development are only making the problem worse. There is vast decay of rural and urban sectors, and the masses migrate to the megopolis where they are left without hope for employment. Is there hope for the world? Schumacher sure thought there was.
He thought that the chance to work was the greatest of all needs, and he developed the idea of Intermediate Technology. Intermediate Technology can be a part of opportunity for the people who go short of even the most essential means of subsistence. Intermediate Technology involves local production of tools, resources and goods to meet a community’s basic needs. Additionally, Schumacher’s regional and district approach seems to provide ample education, employment and cultural structure on a manageable level.
My question for you is, if you were born in India to an indigenous family who has been displaced by a major dam project, would you find sense in Schumacher’s teaching’s of local economy and intermediate technology in your community of displaced people?
Next, for Rachel Carson in Silent Spring. She tactfully describes how the development of chemical weapons in the United States during World War 2 led to the contamination of air, earth, rivers and sea because the lethal materials were applied for the use of killing pests, managing weeds, increasing the production of industrial agriculture and more. She elaborates by saying how the central problem of our time is the contamination of the environment including nuclear fallout from the testing and use of nuclear weapons, and the abundance of toxic chemicals sprayed onto and within the environment. Numerous cases of fatal contact with lethal chemicals are described in detail by Carson, and she goes on to support the idea of how our waters have become “universally contaminated” by referring to a 1960 report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are cancer producing materials in the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breathe. Carson elaborates, “The common salad bowl may easily present a combination of organic phosphate insecticides” (32).
My question remains, is Rachel Carson’s framing of the problem of chemical insecticides and lethal materials effective? How so?
In the chapter, Technology with a Human Face, Schumacher speaks to the irony of the situation when he says, “we, the rich countries, have found it in our heart at least to consider the Third World and to try to mitigate its poverty” (pg 162) — for if those who have the resources actually wanted to make a difference among third world countries, they most definitely could, but they choose to turn a blind eye. The quote “more, further, quicker, richer,” on page 164-165, “are the watchwords of present-day society”. This speaks to those who want growth and continued profit, but is this the viewpoint of all of society, or just those at the top? The rest of the world is brainwashed into thinking that that’s what it wants, but whose motive is it really? Their true motivation stems from the want for profit, not for the well-being of the rest of the world; the quote, “…the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer,” (pg 181) speaks to this exactly. The solution lies in productivity, so how do you make a nation, each nation, more productive? How do you redirect the flow of wealth away from the greedy minority and towards the rest of the world?
In the “Development” chapter, Schumacher emphasizes the need for a regional approach to development and the application of “intermediate” technologies (page 186). He states, on page 187, “If the purpose of development is to bring help to those who need it most, each “region” or “district” within the country needs its own development”, later citing the need for internal structure and a decentralized approach to development. I agree with Schumacher’s proposal that development should be regional/local. Different communities have different needs, and there are several factors that play into development (politics, economy, population demographics) that won’t be uniform everywhere. As we’ve learned, and Schumacher would agree, there is no one approach to solving the problems of development. Development initiatives should never be “one-size-fits-all”. Following his call for regional development, Schumacher states that regional approaches to development (however, he is really only focused on economic development) will not be successful without “appropriate” (later called “intermediate”) technology.
Economic development and technological solutions are only two facets of sustainable development, which is why I have problems with Schumacher’s heavy focus on only these two. Sustainable development encompasses the environment and society as much as it does economy. If we only focus on technological fixes for development in ‘underdeveloped’ countries, will we reach true sustainability? And, when it comes to these “intermediate technologies”, do the receiving communities even want them? Who are the actors in the process and who will have agency in the adoption of these technologies?
I personally found “Technology with a Human Face” to be the most intriguing chapter throughout the book. In the chapter, Schumacher holds what I would believe to be a strongly neo-luddite perspective that I also hold, which I would assume most sustainable development students hold as well. Schumacher states on pg. 160 “modern technology has deprived man of the kind of work that he enjoys most, creative, useful work with hands and brains, and given him plenty of work of a fragmented kind, most of which he does not enjoy at all.” He also states multiple times the phrase “production by the masses instead of mass production.” While this may be a stretch, I’m personally most skeptical of Artificial Intelligence and I see some parallels between Schumacher’s argument and the argument against AI. This train of thought is funny enough given the title of the chapter but how would Schumacher go about discussing Artificial Intelligence?
In Buddhist Economics, Schumacher makes several distinctions between the modern economist and the Buddhist economist. He creates the idea of Buddhist economics based on countries like Burma which attempt to both embrace Buddhism spiritually and culturally but also embrace modern economics and progression. He argues that a country that practices Buddhism spiritually and culturally can not also engage in modern economics and should therefore engage in the Buddhist economy. (56-57) Concisely, he describes modern economists as valuing commodity and consumption and the buddhist economist as valuing the actual work itself. The modern economist believes it is most economical to use as little labor as possible in order to produce the highest amount of product possible. The Buddhist economist wants to use the least amount of materials (in order to create the least amount violence possible on whatever resource was exploited) to create the least amount of consumption. Whereas work as seen as a “sacrifice of ones leisure and comfort” in the Modern Economy (57), work is seen as a three fold process of liberation (60). Buddhist economics do not entirely reject material goods, it just rejects livelihood derives from material goods entirely. On page 61, Schumacher sums up these ideas as follows: The former [Modern economics], in short, tries to maximize human satisfactions by the optimal pattern of consumption, while the latter tries to maximize consumption by the optimal pattern of productive effort. Modern sees consumption as an end to the means of labor as Buddhist sees consumption as a means to the end of livelihood and dignified work. He ends the chapter simply stating that these two ideas of economies is not like choosing between “modern growth” or “traditional stagnation” but finding the most sustainable, and worthwhile path of development.
My question is: How did the idea of economics trumping livelihood even develop in the first place? I guess these are more historical questions but who created the idea of the modern economy, why did they, and did they truly believe that it would lead to overall better livelihood?
In the chapter “Social and Economic Problems calling for the Development of Intermediate Technology” Schumacher, discusses the idea of intermediate technology for developing countries. The idea of providing technologies to the developing countries that are not the same as the technologies in the developed countries but things that provide value and useful for them. Providing technologies that bring more value and create a smoother working and living situation. On the other hand how can this technologies be given with out the idea of it being the outdated technologies that no longer has value in the developed world. When reading that chapter specifically I could only think of why is there a supply of technology that is not fully useful going to the developing countries? Also should the developed world be rethinking how they perceive and use technologies?
In Silent Spring chapters 3-5, Carson meticulously lays out the specifics of the ways that chemicals affect the environment. She gives a background of the chemicals themselves, explaining the chemistry and providing examples and stories of human and animal sufferings from them. The water chapter describes just how uncontrollable water is to the point where we cannot even predict the ways it may carry chemicals (specifically the example in Denver), and all the steps to those chemicals ending up in humans. The soil chapter explains the intricate connections between life within soil and our life, all the way down to the billions of microorganisms in a teaspoon of soil.
What is the purpose of using detail and tons of specific examples here? What effect does it have or what kind of understandings does it create or attempt to create specifically pertaining to environmental issues? How does interdisciplinary writing enhance our reading experiences?
I interpreted the chapter “Buddhist Economics” as Schumacher saying economics are based behind the cultural and social values and norms. If you look at different cultures and societies the social values vary a lot and in this example he is comparing Buddhist culture to Westernized. Westernized culture is one valuing profit, and individualism and because of this we have gone to exploit people and nature in order to make that profit. Along with the exploitative behavior, the West has an interesting relationship with nature and one that separates ourselves from nature. On the other hand the Buddhist culture goes off of the EightFold Path allowing spirituality and economics to be allies of each other. Buddhist economics focuses on non-violence and liberation and their connection with nature is very different from the West. They view that humans themselves are apart of nature and they have a strong connection to all of nature.
After reading this chapter I have begun to think about the ways of changing our current economic system in the West, and from this chapter I am wondering: Is it necessary to change social and cultural norms before making change in the economic system?
A concept that I was particularly captured by in the Silent Springs reading was that of the quick fix. This almost seems the American way; any problem can and should be fixed using the technologies that we have as soon as we can, even before in depth research can go into alternative work-arounds, or even the full effect of the problem itself. Bugs are warded off with chemicals we don’t even know the full scope of effects for. Pathogens are flushed downstream because its convenient, not realizing how well things can move into the groundwater supply. But it was convenient at the time, so it must be justifiable! On page 34 Carson talked about poisoning hazards in treating cows for parasites vs dogs for fleas; the dog’s blood is literally too poisonous for fleas to survive after treatment. And we can justify it because it’s an animal, and nobody seems to want to develop a human equivalent to poison the mosquitos via our own toxicity.
In Surface Water and Underground Seas we get an intro into chemicals as they move into different trophic levels of the food chain. Biomagnification shows us that nothing exists in a vacuum, and if you chemically poison one species near the bottom, the effects will inevitably move up to the top. And worse yet, these effects last longer than the intentional application (p.48). For instance, after the application of DDD in a lake was halted and the water was trace free, the chemical still existed in in the fish, the amphibians, and the local birds, even years after chemical applications ceased. What can that tell us about the creatures of our modern era, affected by our current chemical runoffs? Just how long will our anthropogenic activities leave a chemical trace in the life on Earth?
On page 58 I nearly startled in familiarity at the old phrase “a pound of DDT to the acre is harmless”, because that was the actual mantra of my grandparents age on their tobacco farm. It’s almost frustrating to know that information and warnings about the overuse of pest/insecticides have been present for so many decades, yet in modernity such practices exist and continue to the detriment of the farmer’s health (every generation on the aforementioned farm at home has had at least two people suffer from cancers tracing back to chemical use in the agriculture).
If Silent Spring was the war cry, and the modern environmental movement was its rally, where should we rank the attitudes of today? A sort of “oh yeah we need to…yeah, bad on pollution.”? At the time of this book’s release the reactions and further actions of the populace spurned huge demonstrations, policy change, and an irreversible change in the environmental discourse. Where is this call to action and concern in today’s society? How did we lose the momentum that Silent Spring kickstarted?
In the chapter “Buddhist economics” the differences between western capitalism and the buddhist was of economy are explored. They both consider work to be a labor but the buddhist ideology makes the labor more of a blessing because it brings fulfillment to a person. The western views of economics only value a person on the status of their job rather than the joy that job brings the person or others. The buddhist view is about having more meaning being given to your life through the labors and taking that joy it brings and spreading it.
How do yall find fulfillment in the work that you do? Does your job or schooling give your life meaning or are they burdens?
The 2nd chapter of Silent Spring, “The Obligation To Endure,” Carson gives an ideological framework to her arguments on chemicals and chemical pollution that is laid out in extreme scientific detail in the following chapter. The general thesis of the chapter is that nature works as a system, a system that functions on time, a system that has checks and balances, a system where no one life form overtakes the integrity of the others. However, this is the exact opposite that man works in nature. Her arguments work well with Schumacher’s problem of production, in that we are shortsightedly abusing nature without regard at all to how it supports us and works naturally.
Carson says this of our attitudes “Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or vision to demand that which is good?” (p.12) There are so many voices on the topic of “what is good” and we tend to follow the loudest of those voices, folding ourselves into their understanding of the good life and feeling the pain/discontent of that folding. Is it utopian to think that we could demand that the natural world be respected and allowed to pursue its own good or good life even? What would it look like for us to do so? And how would a world function where every person had the freedom and space to pursue their own good? Or is there only room in environmentalism for another form of authoritarian hierarchy of what is right and wrong but instead of chasing capital or goods, chasing healthy ecosystems?
In the chapter Technology with a human face Schumacher writes that “The primary task of technology, it would seem, is to lighten the burden of work man has to carry in order to stay alive and develop his potential (157). He goes on to say that at first glance it appears as if this is the case but under closer inspection it has put people under much more strain than in countries that lack these labor savers. Is this the nature of the technology causing the strain or is it because of the society that has been set up around this technology? One could argue that it is not the technology itself causing this strain, that its the society that is set up around the technology. But at the same time the bases of our modern society has been built upon the technology that we have available changing as the technology changes. So my question is to what is the relationship between technology and our quality of life as it occurs today?
Taking a closer look at Schumacher’s chapter, “Buddhist Economics” I am continuously taken back by a western education economist taking such a bold, logical counter stance to our current status quo in terms of production. Although this was written 50 years ago, Schumacher’s argument for people based economics is more relevant than ever. In summary, Buddhist Economics views work as a nourishing act of man that encourages him to be the best that he is capable of (p. 59). Schumacher states a harsh critique on the division of labors deskilling production techniques, as well as the general goal of using labor as a means to consumption, which is the end goal. This cycle that we are so familiar with today, Buddhist economics would deem a craving for pleasurable things and an attachment to wealth.
Schumacher’s philosophy parallels Thoreau’s in many ways, the main point, internal introspection and micropolitics. Therefore, if Schumacher was to advise on our current state, would he prioritize pushing for a shift in the top-down ways that the market focuses on products rather than people, or would he advise the workers to empower themselves to find meaning and therefore build character in their current employment area?
In the chapter entitled Two Million Villages, Schumacher makes some interesting points about Gross Domestic Product. As we discussed in class, JFK was raising similar arguments in front of the entire nation of America as well as the entire world during the 1960’s. Our author makes the point that “Unless life in the hinterlands can be made tolerable, the problem of world poverty is insoluble and will inevitably get worse;” and goes onto say if we should not see our GDP as a sign of prosperity or health. Schumacher compares those with obsessions of GDP as neocolonialists; on the next page (206), he speaks of a textile mill in Africa that is on par with the “highest techological lecel to be found anywhere in the world” when he asked why the mill was so advanced and employed very little due to all the machinery done work, he was told by the owner of the mill that products would not sell if they were flawed in any way, all his equipment and materials had to be imported form other places and machines took jobs away from locals due to the differences in productivity.
Last year in SD Theory with Professor Dinesh Paudel, we discussed Bhutan and how instead of measuring their Gross National Product, they measure Gross National Happiness. Monetary growth does not mean anything if an entire nation is suffering through wars, famines, diseases or environmental harms. Gross National Happiness seems like what we should really be focused on improving not only in our own nation, but globally.
How do you think society would look if economies and governments shifted their efforts to improving GNH rather than GDP?
First quote was on page 204.
Technology has allowed the human race to progress and grow in population and production at a rapid pace, however, our use of technology could actually be reducing our production of happiness. Schumacher talks about how we spend so little of our social time actually producing things that are of value to us, instead “96 ½ percent of total social time is spent in other ways, including sleeping, eating, watching television, doing jobs that are not directly productive” ( 159). I took this to mean that technology is preventing us from really enjoying our lives and learning how to enjoy it, instead, we are turned into consumers of entertainment, drugs, and other forms of consumable happiness (162). Using our free time to produce real things ( Schumacher describes this as “employing hands and brains and, naturally, excellent tools”) would allow us to not only increase production but also happiness (161) . This leads me to the question, could a society modeled after this idea really work? Would this society need to be constructed based on this concept or could a technologically centered society change and adapt to this model?
I understand why Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” had such a profound impact and when it was released in 1962 it was during a fragile time. She provided profound information, and proposes profound questions such as; “How could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by a method that contaminated the entire environment and brought the threat of disease and death even to their own kind?”. Questions such as this one frame how humans just abuse nature for their own gain but don’t seem to comprehend that it affects them as well.
My question is one regarding the impact “Silent Spring” carried when it first came out; what happened to it? It’s almost as if half of the population is aware and tries to change and be environmentally aware, and the other denies we have a part in it at all. Why?
In hopes of an intermediate technology benefiting my own life, Schumacher may very well have approved of a horseback low capital rural agroforestry company. To achieve detachment from worldly wealth, do we need community members sleepung under the stars amongst literal a grassroots, swadeshi economy? One in which the words we mouth necessarily invoke the endless mystery behind real dairy or true work pants?
On page six of Silent Spring, Rachel Carson quotes Albert Schweitzer saying “Man can hardly recognize the devils of his own creation.” Carson uses this quote as a warning about the unknown effects of synthetic chemicals. When Carson wrote Silent Spring very little was known about the chemical compounds Americans were liberally applying to their homes, lawns and even children. Many of Carson’s concerns, particularly those about DDT were later proven to be valid. In so many cases, humanity has turned a blind eye to the devils of our creations because to confront them would require atonement. It would require for us, as Carson points out, to safeguard the balance of individual ecosystems and the planet as a whole, to forgo profits to foster a healthy environment. For me this quote is just as applicable to Schumacher’s remarks on technology as it is to Caron’s criticism of toxic pesticides. Schumacher states the high levels of stress, anxiety, and isolation in “technologically advanced” societies should have been eradicated had technology served its goals to “lighten the burden of work man has to carry in order to stay alive and develop his potential. (157)” And even as technologically developed countries continue to report high rates of depression and anxiety and even as more and more research connects these conditions to screen time and technological dependence, many of our most important institutions and legislation still place technological advancement as a top priority. The questions I pose here came from consideration of Schweitzter’s quote in relation to the “devils” Carson and Schumacher respectively identified. I do not consider the synthesis of chemicals or technology as a whole devils, as their existence has saved many lives. What I consider the devils of these creations to be is their irresponsible or misuse, the way the waste from their production is disposed of, the mistreatment of the workers who produce them and so on? Are these creations possible, however, without these devils? Just because they have never existed without them before, does this mean they could not in the future? What is it that keeps us from recognizing the devils of our own creation? Is it simply that the globalized capitalist mode of production and consumption requires their existence and it is our faith in this economic model that keeps us from addressing them? Or is what keeps us from recognizing them something more individualized? Is it our desire for the good life so strong, and our faith that these creations will make it more attainable so steadfast that we are willing to accept the planetary and social consequences of their existence?
Western capital-intensive technology has been made and implemented to substitute for scarce labor. In the “intermediate technology” chapter, Schumacher suggests this type of technology is inappropriate in countries where labor is abundant. Moreover that this capital-intensive technology first damages the current economy by destroying regional production and secondly, dividing the society into the “haves and the have-nots”.
Schumacher suggests that technology that is introduced must remain within the reach of the people, must help create workplaces where they are needed. Moreover that this must be done cheaply using simple methods and local materials.
My question is this. What are some examples of successful currently applied Intermediate stages of technology taking place within developing countries? Specifically, a system of simple methods using local materials that generate income and economic growth?
In “technology with a human face” it is pointed out that human technological improvement faces three main problems: human nature resists certain societal structure (tech., politics, organizations, etc.), the living environment is showing signs of breakdown and excess pollution, and bottleneck effects for species and extreme resource exhaustion is appearing due to increased resource extraction. Even though all of this is in an effort to lighten the burden of work, those people from more echnologically advanced countries actually need to work longer hours.
Also, developing counties do not have the capital to take part in technologically advanced industry. An attempt to do so will be met with failure, with heavy machinery sitting around useless. Perhaps a better approach for these countries to develop lie in intermediate technology. For example, say a company needs to dig a very deep pit in the ground, and move the dirt to a far off location. The 100% labor intensive approach would be to use a ton of workers digging the pit by hand, or with very simple tools. The 100% technology intensive approach would involve a few workers using excavators and other such heavy machinery to move everything. The intermediate technology approach would include using an intermediate amount of workers using tools like shovels and wheelbarrows and light trucks to move the dirt.
My question of the week:
Would you as a modern day American, give up some of your luxuries if it meant that you would have to work significantly less and have more social time?
When Schumacher discusses the application of technology, it becomes personified as an entity of itself, or a “foreign body”. He states that he wants to give it a “human face”, in that it would accurately address development issues. However, what face would it have, and for whom? It is assumed that “what is good for the rich must be good for the poor” and that production of technology and its output to “underdeveloped countries” must increase for their prosperity and well being. However, such forms of technology that are brought out to “underdeveloped” countries are technologies that enjoyed by the rich; those who use technology for leisure. In implementation of intermediate technology, or $100-technology (190), he says, would be able to meld with the indigenous technology and infrastructure better than implementing the infrastructure of an already advanced nation. However, when talking about intermediate technology/appropriate technology, I have seen that Schumacher and the economists he seems to defy are all still talking about technology that has some sort of capital output as this should reintegrate them with the “modern world”. I am afraid that the issue that we have been having is implementing technology/infrastructure that is unsustainable, and leads these people down a path of environmental degradation and continued divides in power through social classes. Shouldn’t the types of technology that we should be focusing on be the ones that we would want applied here, in the “developed” world? Technologies that are entirely renewable and equitable? (Those that have a true human face?)
I find Schumacher’s thoughts about intermediate technology very interesting and thought provoking. I think the idea is great in theory and could produce a lot more jobs, but I question the practical application of it in the present economy. The Capitalistic economy runs off of the exploitation of people and the continual progress of technology. I don’t think the United States or any other capitalistic government would ever consider this type of technology because in their eyes it is taking a step back. Schumacher is also talking about doing this in “developing” countries, but why can’t we do it here? The Western world caused many of the problems in developing countries, so shouldn’t we start the solution? Shouldn’t we be implementing these technologies before we ask other countries to do so?
If we attempt to move towards “technology with a human face,” how must we approach large scale, “brutal” technologies directed by the state like the energy grid, industrial agriculture, or the auto-driven infrastructure like roads and fossil fuel pipelines? Must we? How does Schumacher, whose outline of Buddhist economics highlights non-violence, think of changes in these systems? How does scale impact the implementation of intermediate technologies? In moving away from brutal, large-scales technologies, who would be impacted, and who would catch the negative externalities prompted by the changes? Schumacher says on page 169 that “And what is the cost of a reorientation? We might remind ourselves that to calculate the cost of survival is perverse. No doubt, a price has to be paid for anything worth while: to redirect technology so that it serves man instead of destroying him requires primarily an effort of the imagination and an abandonment of fear.” To me, this efforts speak to the costs of social changes and necessary sacrifices, changes in our way of living and thinking. Where is the line between necessary discomfort/sacrifice and causing more suffering for vulnerable peoples and individuals? If (when) these changes come, who exactly is going to bear the heaviest burden? When we reorient, how can we care for the vulnerabilities in our societies and individuals? What does Schumacher have to say about this?
After reading Small is Beautiful it seems as though E.F. Schumacher has a more people based vision of development within societies. On pg. 157 he states that the amount of machinery a society has within the infrastructure of the workplace, the less leisure time there is. My question is, do you think the implementation of machinery and new technology impacts the wellbeing of a society? And if it does then in what ways can new technology be implemented without depriving the working class of decent jobs?
In The Obligation to Endure Carson gives us the tools and the knowledge to ask questions about what poisons are being put into our air, water, and land. Carson also explains how man has morphed natural processes (such as radiation) into unnatural processes to be feared. Later in the chapter Carson explains the need of man to move away from technological fixes and more towards natural process changes. She says that we already have much of the knowledge we need to implement natural processes of animal and pest control, yet we don’t train our ecologists this way. How do natural processes (not ecosystem services), but natural resources such as organic pest control etc. fit into an economy? How do we shift our knowledge base away from the technological savior viewpoint? Are we, as SD students, tasked with the burden of educating others or can we use economics to help spread the ideas of natural solutions?
In the chapter “The Problem of Unemployment in India”, I thought the concept of using education as a tool to then serve the rest of the population was a fascinating and novel idea that I’d never examined before. Our current society relies on certain people advancing while others are forced to remain subjugated (socially, economically, etc.) or, at the very least, are stuck in an economic class that is hard to escape while other parts of the world thrive. A someone who would likely be considered as “thriving” economically (i.e. getting an education, living in a nice house, pursuing a career, and more), I feel like I should consider my education as “a monastic vow, a sacred obligation to serve the people” (219). I think in this highly individualized, personal-success-obsessed society, we forget how many different moving parts there were and are in getting us to our current positions. Schumacher proposes that our education system should teach people how to help others, and yet we currently have a system that teaches “the wrong things,… things that set them apart with a contempt for manual labor, a contempt for primary production, a contempt for rural life…” (221). Upon reading that quote I found myself at least partially identifying with everything Schumacher regarded as “wrong”. How, then, can we push for education that seeks to teach people without perpetuating a money-centric, individualistic path of development? Is the fact that we’ve established education as a tool to help get a job the main issue?
It is clear to see why Schumacher is considered to be a thought leader in the push for ‘Sustainable’ Development. His views of holistic development, and condemnation of the sole push for economic growth were quite revolutionary during his time. One of his points that I found most insightful was regarding “intermediate technologies”. It has often frustrated me how people in the developed world celebrate “innovative, entrepreneurial” solutions to issues in the developing world. Now I understand further that introducing complex technological solutions can kill any chance for natural market innovations that happen at early stages of technological development. It’s not that the developing world lacks “entrepreneurial spirt”… it just lacks opportunities to innovate unless an intermediate technology is utilized instead.
How can we assess whether a technology is truly appropriate for a nation’s economy… and how can we further encourage autonomy and “innovation” by people within the developing world.
As spring arrives at Walden Pond, Thoreau takes the opportunity to reflect on what the change means. He observes how the melting of the ice gives way to new life, how the melting of the pond leads to a rebirth of life surrounding it. The melting is universal and complete; its scope seemingly infinite and absolute. In this way, Thoreau theorizes that the coming of spring is further illustration of the power of nature, and the lengths to which it’s influence can be felt. The widespread change changed the entire ecosystem, and the feeling of revitalizing the wildlife makes Thoreau ponder change as a whole, seeing it as not only inescapable, but an opportunity. The world is full of potential, with new life and renewal becoming dominant forces. With this knowledge, Thoreau leaves Walden Pond with a sense of satisfaction and a new sense of direction, knowing that now he must go out and live other lives, experiencing change and all that the rest of the world has to offer, much life the coming of spring drives change and rebirth.
My question is, how does Thoreau take all he has learned and effectively rejoin the rest society? Have the lessons and philosophies he pondered while at Walden pond all for naught if he’s just going right back to the situation that drove him to this experiment in the first place? Or, is it possible for Thoreau to continue to satisfy the loft ideals and motives that he found at Walden while still being a member of society?
In the chapter “Technology with a Human Face”, Schumacher says that technology “does not possess the virtues of being self-balancing, self-adjusting and self-cleansing”. Schumacher says that technology seems to develop on it own terms and principles. In a way it is the complete opposite of nature. He says that nature knows when and where to stop. It’s interesting to think about how technology and nature differ. It seems like we as humans have created a technology that is dominating us more than we are dominating it. Nature has created a system where the good and the bad work in a way that creates a balanced system. Schumacher brings up the point of if we can form technology in a way that works the same as nature.
Question: Is it possible to form technology in a way that works like nature and eventually can work with nature instead of against it?
In “The Greatest Resource-Education” Schumacher claims that the separation and resulting ignorance of morals and ethics of the humanities from scientific know-how is the greatest threat to man. Schumacher writes, “it is man, not nature, who provides the primary resource: that the key factor of all economic development comes out of the mind of man…education is the most vital of resources” (83-84). When technology inevitably leads to unintended consequences, we depend on more and better education to fix them. However, this process inherently avoids the root cause of those environmental and social problems that arise from solely teaching know-how. Progress is based on better and more efficient technology and scientific innovation, but as Schumacher says, this is only a means without an end. We are too focused on what we can do and what we want to be able to do, without considering the effects of these innovations from a moral standpoint: “the most powerful ideas of the nineteenth century, as we have seen, have denied or at least obscured the whole concept of ‘levels of being’ and the idea that some things are higher than others” (105) which has further lead to the destruction of ethics. As such, Schumacher calls for metaphysical reconstruction, that is the reconstruction of our morals and ethics from one of progress and destruction to a more comprehensive understanding of the meaning of life, which is essentially found in happiness and positive relationships, not in technological or material wealth.
This chapter speaks heavily to the fundamental issue of our relationship with nature and with each other. In a highly individualistic society, and one that is inextricably linked with monetary wealth, we only focus on what we have to do to make more money to live well instead of asking why it is that money is promoted as the key to happiness. The power of education cannot be understated as it is the avenue by which our younger generations receive all the information for which to base their beliefs and attitudes on. If science and maths are encouraged in singularity, without indulging in the humanities which provide guidance on morals, ethics, and the interconnectedness of different subjects with reality, we will only have more single-minded generations stuck in the trap of capitalism.
My question is, is a transformation of education to be more inclusive and interwoven between science and humanities a direct threat to our society? In other words, is the teaching of ethics in education the beginning of a societal transformation to be more inclusive and sustainable? What are the barriers to changing the education system, assuming that policymakers and curriculum writers have a priority to train students to become workers in the capitalist system?
This is the second time I have read Silent Spring, which was great because before I was not able to connect many of the relationships we made during class discussions. I was once again informed of how our methods to addressing people and nature and the drive for economic gains are so detrimental to natural systems and the health of people. This semester I found a greater focus on realizing the suppression of facts and cases of injustice in our society and how we are still living with power minds that do not address these issues which have been exposed for decades! Carson and her work was so scrutinized and torn apart by scientists, people in power, and greater society because of the ‘attack’ it put onto modern western lifestyles. Companies and governments continue to ignore science and accounts of their destruction and push the narrative onto greater society that these refutes are invalid.
“The road we have been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster… The choice, after all, is ours to make… we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless and frightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us that we must full our world with poisonous chemicals; we should look about and see what other course is open to us” (277-278). Although we can learn and connect and know the degradation we are allowing to happen, our choices on accepting or resisting this is the most important personal decision. We need to not be passive in our stances, and we need to embrace the joy and peace that can only come from changing our methods to more holistic and accepting and sustainable ways of living. This is the only path to justice for people and the earth and the solution to improving our health. Carson touches on the improvements we can take as society, but if there are not criticisms and clear solutions being displayed, how effective can arguments be in changing the mindset of the individual?