I was thinking today about The Three Gorges conversation we were having on Friday. Mr. Adams pointed out that although this dam may help hydroelectric advances, but it displaced a lot of people. According to: http://internationalrivers.org/en/china/three-gorges-dam, the dam displaced at least 1.3 million people. Although this number is 1 million less than the other, the amount of people is still very significant.
Once Mr. Adams brought this up, I accused everyone all over the world, basically, of always "nit-picking." I basically said that nothing is ever good enough for anyone and when someone tries to fix one issue, another person finds something wrong with it. Then, pretty much the rest of the class said to me, "well, 2.5 million people isn't exactly nit-picking." Then, I said okay fine may it isn't but. . . and then I used another example.
I regret that I took back my statement that the dam situation is nit-picking. Although it is really unfortunate that so many people got displaced, someone needs to stand up and make those tough decisions. Is it more important to become less oil dependent by creating a source of hydroelectric power, or are the at least 1.3 million people more important. Perhaps I would make a terrible politician and I would never be elected, because I do not think those 1.3 million people are always the most important.
Yell at me for saying that and say I have no heart or what not, but hear me out first. The reason why we are in this oil predicament, if you will, is that no one said 50-100 years ago, "We need to stop making our lives SO EASY and we need to stop using oil so much because it will be detrimental to our society and the WORLD in the next 100 years." No one got up and said that. No one dared to defy the growing oil companies and the profiting governments. No one dared to defy the people that were now getting the chance to have energy easily available to them. No one dared to put the men that led various oil companies out of business. Can you imagine if you lived in that time period and some one said to you: ehh let's drop this amazing source of fuel we found and stop using it so much just because it will benefit people we won't even know ONE HUNDRED years from now?
The reason why you probably can't imagine this is because everyone is about the present. It is basic human instinct to fend for yourself and your loved ones. It is basic instinct to live in the now. However, like I said before, this is what lead us to the oil problem we're in now.
Now, we have ANOTHER chance to try and make things better by expanding other source of energy. But if people cannot prioritize then it will never happen. Some bold person out there needs to say the future is more important.
Perhaps that is impossible to say, because is it philosophically or psychologically whatever possible to value something that is not attainable and has not happened yet?
Either way, I wrote this post because sometimes 2.5 million people is nit-picking. Come to me in 100 years (although that is not highly unlikely) and tell me that. I know that I am not part of that 2.5 million people so I don't know what it's like. But me and everyone in the world needs to realize that it's not just about us. I am guilty of fending for myself and I am not trying to say I am better than anyone, it is just the first step to realize that what I have just said is true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree that people often nit-pick in this situation; I myself am often rather skeptical of what I hear and read. I think it really sucks that everyone is so skeptical all the time, and it sucks that we put this off for so long, and it sucks that we are now in a crisis that we may not be able to get out of. I agree that it is skeptical to be pessimistic about alternative energy sources, and to say that there is no hope in development when there is evidence otherwise. However, I don't agree that it is necessarily nit-pciking to be concerned about displacing 1.3 million people. 2 milllion or 1.3 million or 2, you are still removing people from their homes when, for all you know, they could be completely self-sufficient people who have done nothing to contribute to the energy crisis. I understand that sacrifices have to be made, and that if we refuse to make sacrifices nothing will ever get done. We know this because the generations before us got held up at every roadblock and refused to make the sacrifices we now have to make. I don't know if this sacrifice is necessarily the one we need to focus on so much though. I think some more reasonable sacrifices would be the quality of life Americans maintain right now--we don't need to have ipods, we don't need to have tvs and lights on all the time. We don't need to process our foods so heavily and we don't need Hummers. While these changes seem insignificant, if they were mandated or enforced on a more large scale then they could make a difference. It might not be as immediate, but it would happen, and I think that if there are ways to create alternative energy or conserve the energy we have now without displacing millions of people, we should try doing that first before jumping the gun.
I realize that sacrifices need to be made and we just can't keep going on the way we are, but I think we do still have some control over the situation and we shouldn't panick just yet. I think people focus a lot on the negative side of this issue, and wasting our time nit-picking isn't going to fix anything. While it is nice and certainly a moral obligation to protest the displacement of millions of people, the dam has already been built and the people displaced. Taking it down now isn't going to fix anything, so complaining and arguing about what has already been done is futile. We need to focus now on other ways to decrease fossil fuel dependence, preferably in ways that don't require the dislocation of millions of potentially innocent people.
Whose right it is to determine who is innocent or not? Am I "guilty" because I have an iPod and I run my air conditioner virtually 24-7 during the summer? Does that mean I can be displaced? No.
In no way am I trying to argue and complain about something that has already happened, I am simply clarifying my opinion. It would be preferable to find solutions that don't displace people, but everyone has to be careful to make sure that whatever decision they make (they meaning mostly governments) is actually going to help.
The idea that Jensen proposed about cutting use of iPods and Hummers is a good one. Although it may seem like a little bit, I do believe it could go a long way.
** Regarding my first paragraph:
I don't mean "no" it's completely unacceptable for me to ever be displaced. I mean it is unacceptable for me to be displaced based on the criteria of being innocent or not.
I agree that it is impossible to decide who is innocent and who is not, and even if standards are made to do so, the decision is ultimately still subjective and in my opinion unfair and unjustified. Nobody can be singled out as being to blame or being worthy of displacement; for that reason, I think we should try to not displace anyone. I understand why people were displaced and that it may be necessary in the future, but right now there is still hope and it isn't inevitable just yet. Other changes can be made, and I think that although these changes are less easy and convenient for us, they are more morally sound. Sacrifices are going to have to be made, and I don't think we should take the easy way out when there are better ways of doing things.
It is interesting that the people who consume rarely see the effects their actions and choices have on the rest of the world, or the individual locations where their resources/ products come from.
For example, buying a pair of Nike shoes or shopping at the Gap is not as bad now as it was a decade ago, when most Nike shoes and a lot of Gap clothing was made by child labor, basically slaves.
Innocent or guilty- we are all guilty until we grow some of our food, make some of our clothes, or in some way gain a deep appreciation for what it takes and how many it takes for us to live as we do. But as we are all guilty, it is no ones' place to judge.
Jensen makes a good point that the people displaced may not, probably are not, the ones who need the power, or are getting the power.
Does having an ipod or using the AC make us guilty? I think we can safely say that the power source for the AC is using fossil fuels, and therefore not exactly helping.
Try to imagine living in your house, perhaps it was the house of your grandparents, and then one day a government agent comes along and tells you you have to move because some people in a continent far away needs the fuel that is buried beneath you. Titles to land, tenancy rights, history, culture and tradition do not matter when the consumer society wants what you live on.
The difficult choices will come in the form of higher costs to get the things we want- food, material goods, energy. Nothing will allow us to produce as we have using fossil fuels- we will still produce, but it will come at an economic cost. Organic food costs more, clothes made locally cost more, etc.
We are making the assumption that these people are not getting the power or any other benefits for that matter. I can hardly imagine that a government would just tell a million people to pack up and leave without some sort of compensation, granted that compensation may not be sufficient but we act like these people were just kicked out like they were nothing.
First, we say, "they're probably not getting the power" to... "a govt agent comes along and tells you to move because they need the resources you live on for some country far away." I may be completely mistaken, but I didn't think that hydroelectric power was easily transportable.
I was displaced. In no where near (emphasis on the near) as big of a deal as the Three Gorges, but I still was. A company told ALL of the people in my building to get out, so they could take down a pre-war building that I had lived in since I can remember, just so they can build a fancy expensive apartment building in its place. The company of course had to make some sort of deal with us. So they threw everyone an equal amount of money and told us to leave by June of 2007. My rent stabilized apartment in Midtown Manhattan - 15 minutes away from school got changed to an apartment LITERALLY 5 times as expensive in Astoria, Queens 50 minutes away from school. Of course, we needed a relatively big house because I have 6 people in my family.
Once again, that is different from the Three Gorges situation but things happen. That fancy new apartment building that they're building where I used to live isn't going to help me in any way. However, the long term affects of establishing alternative energy sources is a pay back. Maybe not a tangible pay back for the specific individual, but it is a pay back to the entire world 20 years down the road.
We need to stop say let's do something now. now. now. and let's actually do it. China did something. No it was not perfect. But will anything ever be "perfect"?
Thank you for sharing your 'diplacement' story with us, Caroline. I did not mean to infer that the displaced were not receiving the benefits of the new hydro-electric, that is unknown to me, but I feel confident in is that many did not want to move or have a choice, as was the case in your situation.
Electricity can travel great distances with minimal losses. Much of our, NYC, hydro power is coming from Canada, for example. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission for more on transmission and line loss.
Perhaps the electric from the 3 gorges will be a benefit to those displaced, and perhaps you and your family are ok with being moved out of your apartment, but many now throughout the world are living close to 'resources' that people elsewhere want. Many of these resources will end up going to those who want them, and often it is not those who live there who benefit. Oil is clearly the worst offender, as Nigerians, Iraqis and many others experience displacement, political corruption, and environmental degradation to bring the resource to somewhere else. China’s choices are certainly difficult to make and the 3 Gorges is providing much renewable, low pollution power. They are taking action.
On Caroline's comment about governments not compensating those displaced, I feel we're forgetting a major part of American History. The United States has repeatedly removed people from desired areas without giving them a new place to stay. Examples of this are the Native Americans, any country ever imperialized by the United States and more recently victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Often, we over look displaced people for the sake of progress. As does everyone else in this class, I love to find or harness a clean eco - friendly fuel to virtually replace oil (in the simplest terms), but at what cost? Even when you were "displaced" Caroline, didn't you feel neglected? Didn't you feel that your needs and your attachment to your home were disregarded? Imagine these same feelings for those in China, minus the spacious house in Queens.
I don't think that progress should ever eclipse the well being of a population, unless there's a fair deal on both sides of the table, which unfortunately is not the case everywhere.
Having a fair deal on both sides of the table is not going to happen, it never has happened. Governments and the world will not be able to get a lot done if everyone is trying to please everyone. In the case of the Three Gorges, progress does not eclipse the well being of the population. As I said before, the individuals displaced may not have a tangible payback. However, the progress of projects like the Three Gorges is for the well being of the entire population. Even if you do not literally get the energy from the dam, the expansion of other energy sources will help everyone.
It's not always about instant gratification. This is something most people in the world don't understand because we are all about the "now" rather than our future and the future of the human population.
I agree that sacrifices have to be made at this point; we wasted too much time and it is now too late to deal with this situation peacefully. But I don't think that means that we should just abandon our morals and sacrifice potentially innocent people for a resource that wont even solve the problem. The dam in China has not solved the energy crisis; it merely made a small dent in the problem. I don't necessarily think this dent was a great idea, and I don't think it sets a good model for the rest of the world. While it may be beneficial to us in that it will certainly provide lots of sustainable and clean energy, the message it sends to the rest of the world, in my mind, counteracts the benefits substantially. Building this dam is a symbol to the rest of the world that the energy crisis isn't such a major concern; it shows the U.S. that we wont have to make sacrifices at home to get the energy we need--we can just sacrifice other people. This thinking is detrimental on two accounts: first, it only encourages the U.S. to continue on its imperialistic rampage around the world, causing destruction wherever necessary so we can obtain the resources we need to lead luxurious lives. Secondly, it gives us a false sense of hope that there is an easy fix to the problem--we may be tricked into thinking that we can simply avoid the impending crisis by seeking resources abroad that we have not yet consumed. However, no matter how much we take from other countries, and no matter how much destruction we cause around the world, we will ultimately have to make changes at home to solve the problem. We can't just get what we need from other people; we have to do it ourselves.
So while the dam will definately be a great source of energy, and the sacrifice made is more than explainable, I don't think it was necessarily the correct or best choice that could have been made. There are other ways to get energy, and taking the easy way out always has its consequences.
Post a Comment