Measuring progress

Looking back on the previous post, there is that one thing that I had written which got me thinking. Thinking in the usual abstract manner that my incomprehensible mind works.

Previously I had written '....setting the barrier that separates the developed and the developing.' There is nothing wrong with the phrase itself but I realise that in writing that comment I've made an assumption - that developed are neat and tidy while the developing are dirty and messy. Me being the usual bull-headed me, I asked, 'why does being developed have to be chained to the orderly structure that cities often take?'

Personally, I've always had an inclination towards leaving things in their natural state. Thus, it is not surprising that I view development with disdain.

Why do we have to judge development by the turning of fertile soil into an arid land? Or by the metamorphosis of greeny foliage into the dull lifeless colour of concrete and steel making up the skyscrapers? Or, the most confounding and fundamental question of all, why do we associate development with money?

Perhaps, just perhaps greed made us forget that humans are sentient creatures. I thought that the world would be much better off if we measure development in terms of happiness. Sure, feelings are relative to occasions and to people themselves, but this is the one thing that definitely makes more sense as a development-meter than the destruction of our surroundings for money.

I have a vision(chose to neglect dream because it sounds too cliche. =) *bow down in respect to Martin Luther King Jr.*). I have a vision of a world where people are free by their own choices to lead lives as farmers, fishermen or lawyers or white collared professionals, whatever it is that they want. Sounds pretty much like what we have now? Continue reading. But I also envision countries that are unique in their own characteristics without having to bow down to the threats of development. How about imagining one country say America, which is filled by tall skyscrapers living beside another country, Venezuela which is covered by trees without a hint, trace or touch of technology on it? They need not be neighbours, neither must they take the appearance of the 2 extremes of development and under-development, but the point is they do not need to follow the current standards for development.

Alternatively, how about setting aside a section of the land in every country to be labelled as a 'haven' or 'sanctuary' for people who wish to be free of the mess and stress of living in a developed world. Given such a choice, I honestly prefer living in a jungle with tigers and snakes as companions than living in the skull-cracking chaos of the city.

I envision a developed world. A world dotted with different shades and hues of soothing green and dull gray on it. This world is developed not because the gray overshadows the green, but because the 2 colours hang in balance and the progress marker for development is happiness not avarice.

Identity vs Nationality

What is the difference betweeen a Japanese and a Chinese? An American and an Iranian or an Indonesian and a Singaporean?

We are people, we look different, we behave differently, we live differently but despite all that, we are still human beings. Identity has always played a central part in the lives of every being. A label that determines our self worth. An expression that makes one unique from the other. Is that why its important to set aside nationalities among different people?

An American is not a Briton and a Dick is no Moby even if the 2 are of the same nationality. It is important to identify individuals, but to differentiate people based on geographical boundaries sounds irrelevant. As individuals, we need to have names because we don't want to call each other human A, human B, etc. That is the simplest reason among a list of others. Identification is important and that includes acknowledging where we come from (nationality?), but if nationalitites only result in conflicts is it still useful?

In its best, the labelling can be called euphemism. At its worst, its called stereotyping. The phrase 'every Iranian is a terrorist' reeks of such twisted bigotry that it makes one wonder how the person can even come up with such a conclusion in the first place. Ignorance? Perhaps.

Another problem can be found easily enough when countries fight over territories. Especially when its just over a few square kilometres worth of land in the middle of the ocean. 'Infringement on national sovereignty and pride' are the 2 favourite reasons, but I can't stop wondering why governments would trouble themselves with such petty arguments. Are they not busy enough with the trouble of having to take care of their respective countries? The islands are not even inhabited and there are no resources to be exploited. If its about 'pride', just how proud can the government get over some useless piece of island? Pride in politics apparently means 'astounding foolishness'.

People pride themselves with their status of sovereignty, but are we not all citizens of the earth? Why not realise that we owe a living to the soil that we are standing on and not the letters that form the name of the country depicting 'identity'. Why waste efforts upholding identities that serve no purpose but foster bickerings and feelings of animosity? Wake up earthlings!