[Reader-list] Farewell to our Humid Weimar

[Tapas Ray]

Thanks, Kshemendra. Interesting points. Amit's too. I feel like jumping 
in, but can't. Will join in, maybe two or three wekks later, if this 
sub-thread is still live.

Tapas



Kshmendra Kaul wrote:
> Dear Amit
>  
> You did not direct your response at any particular individual.
>  

> From: Amit Basole <abasole at gmail.com>

> The debate over consumption norms and whether "everyone" will be able to drive a car, cool off with a A/C, own a laptop and cell phone, and where the energy for all this will come from cannot be divorced from the political economy of development. The pressing question is not whether in some distant, or not so distant future, everyone can enjoy the same material comforts without eroding the basic conditions of our existence. That worry sounds (at least to me) like the worry of the already privileged who are concerned that as their consumption patterns get generalized, the very process of emulation and generalization will rob them of the life they have grown used to. 


> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Tapas
>  
> Enjoyed reading your posting.
>  
> The philosophy and parameters (with examples) of 'new framework' for a 'technological civilization' is very ennobling and sincere towards finding a solution for the 'energy crunch'.
>  
> In this, one of the main problems perhaps is what you yourself have hinted at. One where those who 'do not have' aspire to 'have' all of that which the "haves have" and that are seen as the comforts and convieniences of 'technological advancement' that they currently find unaffordable.
>  
> As an example, the graduation from walking (as a neccessity and not for relaxation) to a bicycle to a moped to a scooter (or bullock cart and then tractor)  and finally a car is aspirational. With justifiable reasons. Endless number of other scenarios as examples.
>  
> It also has at  different levels of 'accquisitions' the 'status symbol superiority'  of one product over the other; 'dekha dekhi' (oneupmanship). Humans 'desire' and 'want' much more than what might simply fulfill their 'need'.
>  
> There are also the aspects of 'convieience' and 'comfort'. It might not be 'the Law' but a fair hypothesis would be that those most willing to 'give up' products of 'convienience' and 'comfort' are the ones for whom such products are affordable.
>  
> Those who can afford 'airconditioning' can speak about shutting it down and opening the windows to get fresh air. The ones trying to cool down under the hot air blast circulated by a 'fan' would prefer a 'cooler' and then a A/C.  Endless number of other scenarios as examples
>  
> In SARAI itself a few weeks back there was derision at the TATA NANO and the merits lauded of 'biking'. Would the person who can afford only a bicycle want to be able to buy a scooter (and balance spouse and children on it)? I think yes. Would he/she be satisfied with that? I think not. He/she would next aspire to own a NANO; an Airconditioned one. Why not? 
>  
> "Biking" might be 'hot' in a cold Oslo and Helisinki but might get a 'cold' shoulder if offered as the choice in hot Ajmer and Ahmedabad.
>  
> What we also seem to disregard is that there is no limit to the instinct of humans to question, investigate, experiment, innovate, design and manufacture new products. Who is to decide that there should be a 'stop here, it is enough'? Dictate of the State?  
>  
> One area where the "State" does need to "Dictate" (by common parliamentary approval) and at the very least to "Regulate" (by common parliamentary consent) is in rationalising both  the 'consumption heads of Energy' and the 'generating modes' of Energy. A lot can be achieved by  financial / taxation "carrots and sticks" especially in cities and larger towns. 
>  
> - Shifting timings of work establishments to utilise 'daylight saving'. It kills me to acknowledge that Pakistan has taken a lead in this by adjusting their clocks for 'daylight saving'
>  
> - Limiting the work hours of 'retail establishments' to reduce evening/night Energy consumption.
>  
> - Mandatory 5 day work week for all (hmmmn what about housewives) to save "1 Energy day" and enable families to shop during daylight hours. 24x7 Process Industries are exempt from closure but the manpower has a staggered 5 day week.
>  
> - Convienient Public transportation. "Convienient" is the critical word. (what happens to the aspirational 'I want my own car'? Infrequent usage of personal transport perhaps)
>  
> - Incentivise 'free to harness' Energy sources like Solar, Hydel and Wind. (Specific problems associated with Solar and Hydel acknowledged.)   
>  
> - etc ..... etc ... etc.
>  
> Developing a practicable Vision or Philosophy is not always the hinderance, but the "common parliamentary consent/approval".  
>  
>  
> Kshmendra
>  
>