[lbo-talk] Narmada Dam (was Arundhati Roy etc.)

[Miles Jackson]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:
>
>   
>> First, there is far more extreme and brutal inequality in our
>> industrialized society than in a hunting and gathering society.
>>     
>
> That's very nice, but what's the point of bringing it up? As you've  
> conceded, there's no going back, so aside from showing us that things  
> were once very different, I don't really know what conclusion we're  
> meant to draw from this.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>   
Yes, I did not really make any policy statements in my earlier posts.  
Rather, I'm trying to point out that moral standards are a social 
product of life in a specific society; they are not universal edicts 
shared by everyone in all societies.  For my part, sure, I believe that 
life in industrial societies is better than life in a hunting and 
gathering society, because my worldview has been shaped by life in an 
industrial society.  So, in practical terms, I agree with James and Woj: 
according to our industrialized society definition of "standard of 
living", it is crucial to industrialize the world's poor nations to 
improve their populations' standard of living.  However, I will continue 
to ridicule the assumption that the moral standards that have emerged in 
industrial societies are the universal standards that should be used to 
judge all societies, because this type of moral certitude is the basis 
for significant human misery throughout history (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, 
Bush).  (Ironically, I'm making a blatant moral appeal here ("human 
misery is bad"), but I consider even this banal moral position a product 
of the social relations in which I'm embedded; it's not a universal 
standard by which to judge all societies.)

--Test case: a society that rejects industrialization (e.g., the 
Amish).  If we say, "their way of life is backward, we need to force 
them to industrialize for their own good", that is crass ethnocentrism.  
If we say, "according to the standards of industrial life, that way of 
life looks weird, but it's their call", then we are aware that our own 
social standards are not universal.  The benefit of this pluralism (as 
Ian puts it) is analogous to the benefit of biodiversity in an 
ecosystem.  Just as the existence of various species of plants and 
animals allows an ecosystem to survive when conditions change that kill 
off a particular species, the existence of various types of societies 
will allow humans to survive if conditions change that kill off a 
particular way of life.  In short, monoculture = death.

Miles