3 ms·

Environmentalism can easily become neo-colonialism in which largely Western countries impose their values and limit what developing countries do to better their

Environmentalism can easily become neo-colonialism in which largely Western countries impose their values and limit what developing countries do to better their people. The people living in the countries in question should be free to make their choices regarding how they want to develop their country and economy without interference from the West.

rexpop 8y ago
Conversely, if the companies are held, run, or funded by Western countries, then the so-called "economic development" can also be seen as an imposition of values, and an application of economic incentives to limit what developing countries do. Are people living in these countries free to make choices if Western investment interferes with their incentives?
- afandian 8y ago
  Why the focus on Western companies? Yes, they have traditionally inhabited this role (although far from exclusively) but China is making big waves in Africa.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    From what I have read, China cares not for the sort of development associated with the former colonial powers. They're in it to strip mine whatever they can, ship as much value back to mainland China as possible, and then leave the locals to their own devices after they've gone. Everything they do is set up to be self-contained, with zero reliance on the local economy. And this is wildly popular among Africans. They love how China doesn't attach all kinds of strings to their business. Western companies might think twice about selling guns to a regime that might use them to suppress dissent; Chinese companies will only count twice, once for the product and again for the payment. The only value they wish to instill is to buy more Chinese product. If an African country paid China to clear-cut every last native tree and replace it with orderly rows of oil palm, China would do it, take their profit, and leave that country alone to deal with the fallout from its own decisions. I can't say that the Chinese development model is better or worse than the Western development model in terms of the global impact, but it certainly leaves Africa free to be more African, for good or ill. Any environmentalist concerns would have to be home-grown.
  - rexpop 8y ago
    Ok, also China.
kazinator 8y ago
Note that if we disrobe your statement of its developing-versus-West rhetoric, we end up with: "People in any country should be able to do whatever they want in regard to environment without any interference from the international community."
- intended 8y ago
  Pretty much. yeah. Frankly, us environmental hopefuls are trying to stop a tank rolling towards them. We wont and we will be crushed. There is just no Hope - Most of the world lives in absolutely mind boggling scenarios. And they all hope to eventually have first world standards of living. Our models, growth projections and debt depends on the world being able to achieve that growth. Humanity has made a bet that the future will be better for all - more consumption, more growth, more resources. Except its just that our industries take advantage of unprotected commons. Amazon deforestation, sea pollution, over fishing, air pollution are the obvious big ticket examples. Heck, many smaller economies go up the ladder because "regulations are far more flexible" - which is great for business, jobs and income. Want to dredge that river for sand? Simply: The world economy does not correctly price the cost of damage to the environment in its transactions. If it did so, costs would spike and a large number of transactions would cease to be viable. ----- The illustrative example is plastic. I bet that 99% of the people reading this have plastic touching them right now. 85% of you will have more than 2 pieces of plastic on your person. Plastic use is only going to increase; worldwide plastic use is VERY far from its eventual peak - most of India and China have yet to reach first world levels of consumption. Now realize that plastic is hundreds of times cheaper than alternatives. It may also be LESS damaging than many alternatives like paper (chemical and water use). Plastic is immortal, and is never going to break down, and we arent anywhere near how much plastic we will have to make before humanity leaves this planet. If we stopped plastic tomorrow, our economy would crater. We would be back to tinning food. That will mean costs and would go up only on packaging costs, forget about cleaning and losses due to spoilage - thats just food. Forget medicines. ---- We arent going to get out of this by doing the right thing. We are going to get out of this because someone will start a plan to pull carbon out of the air and shove it into the core. And then people will keep polluting. ----- Sorry its been frustrating.
maxxxxx 8y ago
There certainly is a taste hypocrisy if European countries lecture other countries about wildlife after pretty much wiping out their own. But it would be stupid if developing countries repeated mistakes. I think in the end the West should be willing to pay more for products from countries with good environmental practices.

rexpop 8y ago

Conversely, if the companies are held, run, or funded by Western countries, then the so-called "economic development" can also be seen as an imposition of values, and an application of economic incentives to limit what developing countries do. Are people living in these countries free to make choices if Western investment interferes with their incentives?

afandian 8y ago
Why the focus on Western companies? Yes, they have traditionally inhabited this role (although far from exclusively) but China is making big waves in Africa.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  From what I have read, China cares not for the sort of development associated with the former colonial powers. They're in it to strip mine whatever they can, ship as much value back to mainland China as possible, and then leave the locals to their own devices after they've gone. Everything they do is set up to be self-contained, with zero reliance on the local economy. And this is wildly popular among Africans. They love how China doesn't attach all kinds of strings to their business. Western companies might think twice about selling guns to a regime that might use them to suppress dissent; Chinese companies will only count twice, once for the product and again for the payment. The only value they wish to instill is to buy more Chinese product. If an African country paid China to clear-cut every last native tree and replace it with orderly rows of oil palm, China would do it, take their profit, and leave that country alone to deal with the fallout from its own decisions. I can't say that the Chinese development model is better or worse than the Western development model in terms of the global impact, but it certainly leaves Africa free to be more African, for good or ill. Any environmentalist concerns would have to be home-grown.
- rexpop 8y ago
  Ok, also China.

kazinator 8y ago

Note that if we disrobe your statement of its developing-versus-West rhetoric, we end up with: "People in any country should be able to do whatever they want in regard to environment without any interference from the international community."

intended 8y ago
Pretty much. yeah. Frankly, us environmental hopefuls are trying to stop a tank rolling towards them. We wont and we will be crushed. There is just no Hope - Most of the world lives in absolutely mind boggling scenarios. And they all hope to eventually have first world standards of living. Our models, growth projections and debt depends on the world being able to achieve that growth. Humanity has made a bet that the future will be better for all - more consumption, more growth, more resources. Except its just that our industries take advantage of unprotected commons. Amazon deforestation, sea pollution, over fishing, air pollution are the obvious big ticket examples. Heck, many smaller economies go up the ladder because "regulations are far more flexible" - which is great for business, jobs and income. Want to dredge that river for sand? Simply: The world economy does not correctly price the cost of damage to the environment in its transactions. If it did so, costs would spike and a large number of transactions would cease to be viable. ----- The illustrative example is plastic. I bet that 99% of the people reading this have plastic touching them right now. 85% of you will have more than 2 pieces of plastic on your person. Plastic use is only going to increase; worldwide plastic use is VERY far from its eventual peak - most of India and China have yet to reach first world levels of consumption. Now realize that plastic is hundreds of times cheaper than alternatives. It may also be LESS damaging than many alternatives like paper (chemical and water use). Plastic is immortal, and is never going to break down, and we arent anywhere near how much plastic we will have to make before humanity leaves this planet. If we stopped plastic tomorrow, our economy would crater. We would be back to tinning food. That will mean costs and would go up only on packaging costs, forget about cleaning and losses due to spoilage - thats just food. Forget medicines. ---- We arent going to get out of this by doing the right thing. We are going to get out of this because someone will start a plan to pull carbon out of the air and shove it into the core. And then people will keep polluting. ----- Sorry its been frustrating.

maxxxxx 8y ago

There certainly is a taste hypocrisy if European countries lecture other countries about wildlife after pretty much wiping out their own. But it would be stupid if developing countries repeated mistakes. I think in the end the West should be willing to pay more for products from countries with good environmental practices.