[Reader-list] NAXAL BRUTAL TERROR

[Nagraj Adve]

Bipin,
In September last year, there was a very interesting note in the
journal Nature. It looked at nine indicators of what it called
'planetary boundaries' - loss of biodiversity, oceanic acidification,
climate change, land use changes, the nitrogen cycle, ozone depletion,
freshwater availability, atmospheric aerosols, chemical pollution. On
three of these, it claimed that planetary boundaries have already been
crossed: climate change, loss of biodiversity and the nitrogen cycle.
But what was interesting is that they tried to quantify these
indicators and in a table showed at what levels it was at the time of
the start of the industrial revolution, what a safe level ought to be,
and where we have reached now. To me, it was startling how much worse
we are in all nine of these indicators since the Indus Rev.

The point of my long para is that the ecological crises that are
staring us in the face and which we refuse to acknowledge have
systemic causes. That, more than individual consumption, is the key.
That also makes it a much more vexed question.

Yet, to answer your question, in a word, yes, we should restrict
ourselves. By which I mean the rich and the better off in general.
(After all, one can scarcely ask the poor to restrict their
consumption, it is already generally below acceptable levels.) I would
like to believe that individuals restricting consumption would work
but unfortunately there is little evidence of it as yet on a large
scale. Yet, I also believe cutting individual consumption by the
better off has a place, if for nothing else, so we practise what we
preach. Without seeking to pat myself on the back, this desire to cut
down high end consumption has made avoid flying ever since I got into
global warming issues 4 years ago. It's not easy because both my
brothers live in the US. I walk and bus rather than auto, not easy in
these temperatures. Cutting down consumption is boring and can easily
end up making one a pompous git, worse, talking about cutting down
consumption usually puts off people, though I hope it makes some folks
think about how they lead their lives.

Fact is, in our consumption, we are complicit in what is happening to
adivasis and other underclasses. I can't oppose Vedanta and at the
same time continue to order food out regularly or do stuff that comes
in aluminium foil. One can't oppose the war in Iraq and have 2 cars.

The other obvious part about systemic causes of crises is that
violence is completely part and parcel of what is called
'development'. It is hardly accidental that Greenhunt is happening
now.

I don't want this mail to carry on too long but in a nutshell, yes we
need to cut down our own consumption while never losing sight of the
centrality of industrial capitalism as the chief villian of the piece.
Otherwise we might flounder in inanities like some of Sagarika Ghosh's
questions. There is a need to deeply question received categories like
'growth' and 'development' while at the same time recognizing that
zero growth is essentially not possible under capitalism.
Naga

On 18 April 2010 12:23, Bipin Trivedi <aliens at dataone.in> wrote:
> Dear Nagraj,
>
> I think from your content, you and may be some others believe that we should
> not use forest resources, mines  etc. and restrict ourselves, is it? Your
> reply waited.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bipin
>
>