11 ms·

India has also been given opportunities never available to western countries during their period of industrialization, such as access to a wide variety of medic

by nickff 13y ago

India has also been given opportunities never available to western countries during their period of industrialization, such as access to a wide variety of medicine and technology. I would just like it to be clear that India is in a different situation than what many others were at comparable levels of development.

ashray 13y ago
Those options are expensive. Why should the rich and powerful give up profit margins for better public health and so that other countries don't get typhoons ? Unfortunately, money is much more powerful than any other motivation. The government helps curb such attitudes but the government listens to the people (atleast in theory..), and the people are indifferent.
- waps 13y ago
  Please note that the relationship between typhoons and climate change is unproven. There is some vague idea that higher average temperature provides more energy to storms, but it's at best an idea. Please note that people aren't indifferent. Without technology and the economy, people in India would starve. I would also suggest that in a less developed economy, people are much more likely to be aware of that. Industry is not bad, it's what humans alive, in the numbers that we have.
  - kaybe 13y ago
    While it's true that the relationship is unproven (the only way to really prove it is to see it happen), it's not just an idea, it's a result of modelling. Now, these models are not entirely correct and still lack elements (climate is a very complex system), but it's not as if no thought had been put into the relationship.
lake99 13y ago
I don't see how access to medicine makes any difference to climate change policies. I'll leave that aside. I don't quite get what you mean by "during their period of industrialization". Industrial progress does not work that way. One can't just pick a number (e.g. 25) and say India is 25 years behind the developed countries in its path to industrialization. Some Indians are still living in the stone age [1]. Others, such as the average Indian commenter on HN, is working on technology that we will all use, a couple of years down the line. Whatever the case may be, I think you'd learn a great deal if you stayed in India for a couple of years. The recycling I have seen here is, in some ways, better than anywhere else in the world [2]. A few examples that you'll see commonly here: carry-bags and wrapping paper made of old newspapers, shoes re-soled using worn-out tractor tires, peddlers going door-to-door giving big discounts on new vessels, in exchange for old vessels, etc. People at various economic strata of society squeeze out every little bit of economic worth from every little thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people [2] On second thought, it's quite likely that many others of the so-called developing countries would recycle about as much as Indians do.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  I don't see how access to medicine makes any difference Look over the history of the Industrial Revolution -- roughly 1750 - 1950. At the start of that we had no real working engines, transportation systems, concept of energy or thermodynamics, understanding of evolution or germ theory, and a whole host of other concepts, as well as practical technologies: steam engines, metalurgy, steel, chemicals, electricity, communications, fertilizers, drugs, information technology. The countries modernizing now do have all of these things, and the possibility of avoiding many of the mistakes which were made by the countries which pioneered the transition (England, the US, Germany, France, and the rest of Western Europe). As late as 1860, cholera epidemics were killing millions of people throughout Europe and tens of thousands in London alone (imported from India, as it happens). Sewerage systems, water treatment, antisceptics, anesthesia, and eventually antibiotics came out of this -- but the first two alone provided the lion's share of life-expectancy gains in England and the US. The other thing we're very well aware of now is that 1) continuing to extract fossil fuel resources at the rates we've been doing will drastically change the climate and living conditions on Earth, possibly irrevocably and fatally to no only the economy but humans and most large animal species, and 2) those fossil resources will be too difficult to find and extract for net energy gain within the forseable future regardless. And those are only two of many impinging constraints humans face. The recycling economy of which you write is only one change which will likely become far more widespread. John Michael Greer's notion of "catabolic collapse" -- which explains both much of the financialization and "software eats everything" aspects of the past two decades -- extends that idea: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/01/onset-of-catabolic-collapse.html http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/01/onset-of-cata... http://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf http://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf Look to your own Indus Valley Civilization for an earlier instance (an no, this time is not different).
  - lake99 13y ago
    > I don't see how access to medicine makes any difference That's not quite what I said. > but the first two alone provided the lion's share of life-expectancy gains in England and the US. Longer lives => contributing to pollution for a longer period... Are you making the point that modern medicine has contributed to global warming? > The other thing we're very well aware of now is that 1) continuing to extract fossil fuel resources... You replied to me. So I think you're responding to something I said. I don't see to what. As for the Indus Valley Civilization, there are many hypotheses about its collapse, but there is little consensus in academia for its contributing factors. Each person seems to float his own pet theory about the matter, quickly contradicted by another person showing evidence to the contrary. Maybe "catabolic collapse" is a real phenomenon. I looked up John Michael Greer on Wikipedia, and lost all interest in it for now.
tks2103 13y ago
India was also colonized. You aren't being unbiased when you point out medicine and technology, but not colonialism.
- nickff 13y ago
  You are correct that India was colonized by the British, and the Empire extracted wealth from the subcontinent while creating institutions of debatable value; it should also be noted that England was previously within the dominion of Rome, and later France. I was not attempting to fully describe the differing circumstances surrounding industrialization of different states (, as I do not have the knowledge or ability to write a complete account); instead I tried to show that they have experienced different opportunities and circumstances through a limited example.
  - tks2103 13y ago
    Bullshit, dude. You are being a coward. Does Rome or France conquering England have an effect on the way we should manage global emissions policy or not? Because if it doesn't, why are you mentioning it? Do the different circumstances that India has during industrialization mean they should take a greater role in limiting their emissions or not? Because you mentioned just two items, medicine and technology, which are both positive. And you didn't indicate how they relate to emissions. Instead of slipping in minor irrelevant facts that betray your bias, just state your opinion.
    - adventured 13y ago
      I'm pretty confident you could have expressed what you think is wrong with the parent, without being insulting. "Be civil." http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - tks2103 13y ago
        Absolutely not. "Civility" when discussing colonialism is just stacking the deck in favor of the colonists. Read my post again. What is insulting? Describing behavior as cowardly, and then backing it up with two points that remain unanswered? I could understand if the posts were baseless rants directly insulting the person I replied to with no content whatsoever, but that is not what happened. All of the words in that post were appropriate, given the thesis.

by nickff 13y ago

ashray 13y ago

Those options are expensive. Why should the rich and powerful give up profit margins for better public health and so that other countries don't get typhoons ? Unfortunately, money is much more powerful than any other motivation. The government helps curb such attitudes but the government listens to the people (atleast in theory..), and the people are indifferent.

waps 13y ago
Please note that the relationship between typhoons and climate change is unproven. There is some vague idea that higher average temperature provides more energy to storms, but it's at best an idea. Please note that people aren't indifferent. Without technology and the economy, people in India would starve. I would also suggest that in a less developed economy, people are much more likely to be aware of that. Industry is not bad, it's what humans alive, in the numbers that we have.
- kaybe 13y ago
  While it's true that the relationship is unproven (the only way to really prove it is to see it happen), it's not just an idea, it's a result of modelling. Now, these models are not entirely correct and still lack elements (climate is a very complex system), but it's not as if no thought had been put into the relationship.

lake99 13y ago

I don't see how access to medicine makes any difference to climate change policies. I'll leave that aside. I don't quite get what you mean by "during their period of industrialization". Industrial progress does not work that way. One can't just pick a number (e.g. 25) and say India is 25 years behind the developed countries in its path to industrialization. Some Indians are still living in the stone age [1]. Others, such as the average Indian commenter on HN, is working on technology that we will all use, a couple of years down the line. Whatever the case may be, I think you'd learn a great deal if you stayed in India for a couple of years. The recycling I have seen here is, in some ways, better than anywhere else in the world [2]. A few examples that you'll see commonly here: carry-bags and wrapping paper made of old newspapers, shoes re-soled using worn-out tractor tires, peddlers going door-to-door giving big discounts on new vessels, in exchange for old vessels, etc. People at various economic strata of society squeeze out every little bit of economic worth from every little thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people [2] On second thought, it's quite likely that many others of the so-called developing countries would recycle about as much as Indians do.

dredmorbius 13y ago
I don't see how access to medicine makes any difference Look over the history of the Industrial Revolution -- roughly 1750 - 1950. At the start of that we had no real working engines, transportation systems, concept of energy or thermodynamics, understanding of evolution or germ theory, and a whole host of other concepts, as well as practical technologies: steam engines, metalurgy, steel, chemicals, electricity, communications, fertilizers, drugs, information technology. The countries modernizing now do have all of these things, and the possibility of avoiding many of the mistakes which were made by the countries which pioneered the transition (England, the US, Germany, France, and the rest of Western Europe). As late as 1860, cholera epidemics were killing millions of people throughout Europe and tens of thousands in London alone (imported from India, as it happens). Sewerage systems, water treatment, antisceptics, anesthesia, and eventually antibiotics came out of this -- but the first two alone provided the lion's share of life-expectancy gains in England and the US. The other thing we're very well aware of now is that 1) continuing to extract fossil fuel resources at the rates we've been doing will drastically change the climate and living conditions on Earth, possibly irrevocably and fatally to no only the economy but humans and most large animal species, and 2) those fossil resources will be too difficult to find and extract for net energy gain within the forseable future regardless. And those are only two of many impinging constraints humans face. The recycling economy of which you write is only one change which will likely become far more widespread. John Michael Greer's notion of "catabolic collapse" -- which explains both much of the financialization and "software eats everything" aspects of the past two decades -- extends that idea: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/01/onset-of-catabolic-collapse.html http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/01/onset-of-cata... http://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf http://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf Look to your own Indus Valley Civilization for an earlier instance (an no, this time is not different).
- lake99 13y ago
  > I don't see how access to medicine makes any difference That's not quite what I said. > but the first two alone provided the lion's share of life-expectancy gains in England and the US. Longer lives => contributing to pollution for a longer period... Are you making the point that modern medicine has contributed to global warming? > The other thing we're very well aware of now is that 1) continuing to extract fossil fuel resources... You replied to me. So I think you're responding to something I said. I don't see to what. As for the Indus Valley Civilization, there are many hypotheses about its collapse, but there is little consensus in academia for its contributing factors. Each person seems to float his own pet theory about the matter, quickly contradicted by another person showing evidence to the contrary. Maybe "catabolic collapse" is a real phenomenon. I looked up John Michael Greer on Wikipedia, and lost all interest in it for now.

tks2103 13y ago

India was also colonized. You aren't being unbiased when you point out medicine and technology, but not colonialism.

nickff 13y ago
You are correct that India was colonized by the British, and the Empire extracted wealth from the subcontinent while creating institutions of debatable value; it should also be noted that England was previously within the dominion of Rome, and later France. I was not attempting to fully describe the differing circumstances surrounding industrialization of different states (, as I do not have the knowledge or ability to write a complete account); instead I tried to show that they have experienced different opportunities and circumstances through a limited example.
- tks2103 13y ago
  Bullshit, dude. You are being a coward. Does Rome or France conquering England have an effect on the way we should manage global emissions policy or not? Because if it doesn't, why are you mentioning it? Do the different circumstances that India has during industrialization mean they should take a greater role in limiting their emissions or not? Because you mentioned just two items, medicine and technology, which are both positive. And you didn't indicate how they relate to emissions. Instead of slipping in minor irrelevant facts that betray your bias, just state your opinion.
  - adventured 13y ago
    I'm pretty confident you could have expressed what you think is wrong with the parent, without being insulting. "Be civil." http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - tks2103 13y ago
      Absolutely not. "Civility" when discussing colonialism is just stacking the deck in favor of the colonists. Read my post again. What is insulting? Describing behavior as cowardly, and then backing it up with two points that remain unanswered? I could understand if the posts were baseless rants directly insulting the person I replied to with no content whatsoever, but that is not what happened. All of the words in that post were appropriate, given the thesis.