No Easy Answers

One of the points brought up in the “Rethinking the Measure of Growth” article published in The New York Times on July 18, 2010 by Wayne Arnold is the potential consequences of countries in Asia trying to attain an American standard of living.  Is this the goal they should try to reach for in terms of economic development, and if they are able to, should they?  My own personal answer to this question is no. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not saying that everyone shouldn’t have some right to property ownership. Everyone should have the chance to work hard, make something of themselves, and enjoy the material fruits of their labor as a result.

The problem is the fact that the “American standard of living” many countries want to emulate has become synonymous with materialism and overconsumption.  Everyone wants to live the good life- live in a large home, drive two or three cars, earn enough money to buy whatever whims strike our fancy, and eat whatever food we want whenever we want.  However, where has this lifestyle taken us?  The pollution from cars is damaging the environment, our national economy and the real estate market are just now slowly recovering from a terrible recession, and to top it off, according to a USA Today article published Jan. 1, 2010, about one-third of Americans are obese (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm).

The “American” way of life isn’t good for Americans.  From the strict point of view of resources, there are simply not enough resources on the planet for every single person to live the way Americans are living now.  Water, petroleum, and even land itself, are finite resources, meaning that we all have to share them as part of the world community.  America needs to take the lead in advocating a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle to show developing countries that a large GDP and material possessions aren’t the only things that matter.  Although the resources on this planet are limited, there are enough to go around.  We just need to get better at sharing.

This leads to the question of the role traditional lifestyles and practices should play in a world where modernization often means conforming to Western practices.  Ben Wisner’s “Questioning Development? Growth? Destruction? Sustainability?” concludes by saying that part of the pattern of development that is emerging throughout Africa, Latin America, and Asia includes dismissing indigenous knowledge and undermining local livelihoods.

This is basically exactly what’s going on in Botswana.  In The New York Times article “For Some Bushmen, a Homeland Worth the Fight,” published Nov. 4, 2010 by Barry Bearak, Bearak takes a look at the plight of the Bushmen in Botswana.  They’re being persuaded (or some would say being given little or no choice) to leave their traditional homelands to live in a “civilized” (aka modernized) village so that a wildlife refuge can be created on the land.  Incidentally, take a look at the Central Kalahari Game Reserve’s website (http://www.game-reserve.com/botswana_central-kalahari.html) – does anyone else find their description of the Bushmen just plain demeaning? 

This raises the question, however, of whether it is right to steamroll over the rights of a minority in order to benefit the majority of the country.  If diamonds are found on the game reserve and tourists do flock to the game reserve to see the animals and participate in the “Bushmen walk,” (which seems exploitational to say the least)  it might benefit the entire country by increasing Botswana’s wealth and leading to more economic development, but the Bushmen are the ones bearing the cost.  Despite receiving schools, clinics, and food rations on the resettlement lands, Bushmen also have to deal with unemployment, frustration, and the hopelessness of not being able to do anything about their situation.  This brings to mind the similar scenario of American settlers pushing Native Americans off their land and onto reservations in the name of economic development and modernizing progress. 

The whole issue questions the meaning of democracy.  Is democracy a type of government where strict majority rule determines what happens to a country?  On the other hand, does having a democracy mean that minorities are able to implement change and have their voices heard amid the clamor of the majority roar? 

We as Americans consider our country the world’s best example of democracy, yet we can’t say we have the best track record for acknowledging minorities throughout the years.  America is still working hard to perfect the five ideals for democracy Robert Dahl mentions in his writing, “On Democracy,” and according to him, no country will probably ever achieve them completely.   

Botswana must find a way to answer the question of whether it is right to destroy the livelihood of a small group for the benefit of an entire nation.   In the end, that’s a question every democracy has to answer in one form or another, and unfortunately, there are no easy answers.