Page 9 - Griffenomics

FACT:

INDIA IS THE TENTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD

SPRING ISSUE

GRIFFENOMICS

9

On top of the wonder of washing ma-

chines, there have been seismic changes

in medical and social provisions: the es-

tablishment of Social Security, due to the

government’s su¢cient revenue sources.

This is only one way that industrialisa-

tion enriches the lives of its citizens, but

it is also one of the most compelling, be-

cause even the most diehard green activ-

ist still uses their washing machine. To

deprive a family in the slums of Rio from

such a luxury that we take for granted,

seems callous at best, and inexcusable in

any just world.

On the other hand, it would be puer-

ile of me not to recognise that industrial-

isation is no silver bullet for the world’s

problems. In fact, many would argue

that industrialisation has caused most

of these problems. Often, the eects of

industrialisation are rapid population

growth, such, that the ability of infra-

structure to cope is overwhelmed, re-

sulting in overcrowding and the general

degradation of livelihoods. Moreover, we

see how people become exploited by the

opportunities created by industrialisa-

tion. In Hyderabad, India, there are great

brick kilns supplying India with millions

of bricks, supporting its rapidly growing

property industry. However, working in

kilns requires such stoicism and resil-

ience to hardship, I both question, and

admire, how any man, woman and, sadly,

child can endure such conditions. Often

each worker will produce around 1500

bricks per day, which are hardened by

burning coal, the smoke of which lingers

on the ground, causing innumerable cas-

es of bronchial diseases, as well as bar-

baric punishments. Workers who refuse

to work, in what looks like the aftermath

of Sodom and Gomorrah with the sul-

phur still burning the land, in some cases

can expect to have their hands cut o. All

of which is fuelled by India’s industrial-

isation, which uses the bricks baked in

the blood of the poor, that are bought by

those who are both blind to the price and

consequences.

Sadly, the idea of industrialisation

also leads us, unfortunately, onto the is-

sue of climate change. The IPCC, in its

latest report, stated that we, the world,

have used half of our carbon budget to

prevent dangerously high temperature

rises of over two degrees. Despite this

worrying ruling, it is still as hard as ever

to build international support for com-

bating climate change, so much so that

the delegate from the Philippines at the

recent Warsaw Summit, went on hunger

strike due to the inability for delegates

to come to any meaningful conclusions.

Some may say that this inability to form

targets for climate change and interna-

tional cohesion on the issue is due to the

self-interested nature of independent

nation-states. Redressing the idea and

culture of hypocrisy is the area that, in

my opinion, should have the greatest

amount of political capital invested in.

Currently industrialising, BRIC nations

often cite the unchecked and uninhib-

ited industrialisation of other Western

nations, through the burning of fossil fu-

els, arguing that they should be entitled

to the same freedom of industrialisation

and the benefits that come with it, as we

were during our industrial revolution.

This unfortunately is undeniably true,

and poses the industrialised nations with

a great dilemma. It is a dilemma that sad-

ly no nation has proposed a solution to.

However, I do not believe that the

world is consigned to a

Day After To-

morrow

fate due to the inability for com-

promise. Though I’m fearful of human

nature; I do not believe it to be a partic-

ularly good thing, I have read too much

Hobbes to think humans are good; least

of all when it is magnified through the

lens of the free market. There is the very

real possibility of governments not un-

derstanding that every action they take

does not merely aect them, but the

whole world. Or not appreciating such a

global change will have such an unpre-

dictable eect on the world that it would

be an exercise in madness to bet on the

outcomes of a roulette game where one

does not see nor know the wheel, where

one does not know where one is placing

their bet and cannot tell if one has won.

Yet the only certainty that I would bet

upon is that the house will always win.

Nonetheless, it would be perhaps too

cynical to assume that nothing can be

done, that we are consigned to the de-

struction of our planet and our society,

held to ransom by our own self-interest.

I think, I hope, that countries will start

to think of themselves as not merely in-

dividual nations that only cooperate with

others because it is beneficial for them;

instead to think of themselves as a cohe-

sive global unit of governance. This iswhy

supranational agencies are so important:

they break down entrenched state lines,

encouraging and fostering an attitude of

mutual respect and collaboration, free

from the constraints and diktats of the

statusquo fromeconomichierarchy. Ifwe

start to see ourselves as a collective, then

the issues of climate change on emission

targets may potentially become easier to

negotiate and attain. However; there is

another benefit to this collective system:

if you are flying to St Marie, first class; of

course, what else; and halfway across the

Atlantic, a fire breaks out in cattle, Imean

economy, class one would not simply sit

back and say, ‘Oh it’s their problem, let

them deal with it themselves, no need

to get involved’. No, you would sacrifice

your complimentary flute of Bollinger

for the good of the plane (if I may add,

putting fires out with champagne is not

advised by this writer, mainly as it’s an

awful waste of such a wonderful elixir for

its basest of properties, it also does get

quite expensive after a while).

I believe it is high time to see these

problems are not only confined to the

borders of arbitrary lines on amap; we, as

nations that have the means to intercede

to prevent the suering of thousands,

have a moral responsibility to do so. This

is not to disregard the sovereignty of the

country and impose what we naively

think is the right way of governance or

development; but instead to acknowl-

edge the problems that face that country,

not patronising themon their inability to

govern, or judge their past actions. “To

understand the heart and the mind of a

person, look not at what he has already

achieved”- Kahlil Gibran, but at what he

aspires to do. We should allow these na-

tions to benefit from the mistakes that

we have made and share in the advan-

tages of prudent actions that benefit all

of society. The West should allow these

countries to develop in the best possible

way, not hindered by the constraints and

amorality of the market, so that they can

truly fulfil their mandate of responsibil-

ity to their people. Perhaps then, when

countries do not feel the need to compete

and see each other through the lessons of

ignorance and distrust, might we be able

to truly aect the world for the better, for

all.