I won’t deny that Indian journalist Swaraaj Chauhan’s posts over at The Moderate Voice frequently rankle me. His most recent, a commentary on an article on global warming in The Economist, is a good example. Here’s his opening:
The blame game has already been going on, and is likely to become ugly and fierce as to who is causing maximum pollution and contributing towards visible changes in environment.
On the one side we have “developed” countries refusing to have a critical look at their reckless consumerism. While on the other are the “developing” countries wanting to mindlessly ape the Western lifestyle and thus putting an unbearable burden on the scarce resources on our planet earth.
The highlighting is mine.
This strikes me as a false dichotomy although it’s pretty hard to tell without an operative definition of “reckless consumerism”. Perhaps that’s one of those Humpty-Dumpty phrases, meaning exactly what the author wants it to mean, no more, no less. Does “mindlessly ape the Western lifestyle” mean “want the same things as people in Western countries do”? Why is that a bad thing?
Do I practice “reckless consumerism”? I drive a 20 year old automobile less than 200 miles a month. The appliances I own are, on the average, 10 years old. I buy just enough food to keep my miserable carcass moving around and buy clothes when the ones I have wear out (sometime after, I think my wife would say). Is it the Internet connection that I’m using to write this post on that Chauhan objects to? Or my calling my mother in St. Louis on the telephone a couple of times a week? The handful of books I buy each year?
Were Indians “mindlessly aping” Western lifestyles more or less when India had its idiotic policy of autarky? Were they better or worse off? Are the 214 million people in India who are undernourished while the country like China has on average entered the middle class of national economies due to reckless consumerism? Were a larger or smaller proportion of Indians in need when Indians mindlessly aped the West less?
I note in passing that China and, I believe, India both subsidize the price of gasoline, i.e. sell it to their citizens at prices below world prices. Is this an example of mindlessly aping Western lifestyles? I’m not aware of any Western countries that subsidize the price of gasoline.
I, poor, ignorant, benighted soul that I am continue to believe that the problems in China and India are not that they have too much reckless consumerism but not nearly enough and certainly not being practiced by enough of their people. This reckless consumerism which Swaraaj Chauhan blames for the world’s ills has, in my uninformed opinion, helped more people in China and India out of poverty than all of the development programs ever conceived.
A couple of additional questions for Swaraaj Chauhan: are poverty and starvation sustainable? Do the poor and starving think of them that way?
译文:
"不计后果的消费至上主义"：好还是不好？
我不会否认印度新闻记着Swaraaj Chauhan在中等之声上的报导频频激怒我。他最近在经济学人上发表的有关全球变暖的评论是个不错的例子。下面是他的开头：
谴责已经在进行，导致最大污染和可见的环境改变的人会变得丑陋令人讨厌。
一方是发达国家拒绝批评他们“不计后果的消费至上主义”。另一方是发展中国家盲目模仿西方生活方式，从而对我们星球上的稀有资源施加了无法承受的负担。
煤矿是一大聚焦。
虽然没有“不计后果的消费至上主意”的有效定义，很难说这个二分式激怒了我。可能是那些粗短的短语之一，确切表示作者想要表示的不多，不少的意思。“盲目模仿西方的生活方式”就是“想要和西方国家一样的东西”么？为什么这是不好的？
我实行了“不计后果的消费至上主义”么？我开一辆20年的旧车，每月不超过200英里。我拥有的器具平均都用了10年。我只买足够我可怜的躯体活动的食物，只有当我的衣服穿坏是才会买衣服（我妻子会说，有时是穿坏以后）。是我写的这片有关Chauhan的报导用的是网络链接？还是我每周好几次打电话给我在圣路易斯的妈妈？还是我每年都会买几本书？
印度自给自足的的白痴政策是多少在“盲目模仿”西方的生活方式么？他们的情况是更好还是更坏？印度2亿1400万半饱的人口是因为不计后果的消费至上主义？即使是像中国这样的大人口国家的人均水平都已经进入了世界经济的中等阶层。当印度减少盲目模仿西方，印度的危难人口是变多还是变少了？
我顺便提一下中国，我相信中国和印度都补贴了油价，也就是以世界油价之下的价格卖汽油给它们的公民。这是一个盲目模仿西方生活方式的例子么？我到没有意识到哪个西方国家会补贴油价。
我的灵魂贫穷，无知，愚昧，这让我继续相信中国和印度的问题不是因为它们太过不计后果的消费至上主义，而是不够，且完全不够在实行于它们的人民。这种被Swaraaj Chauhan责备的西方社会的弊病，不计后果的消费至上主义，以我来看，帮助了中国和印度比所有人们以为的发展计划更多的人，脱离贫穷。
对Swaraaj Chauhan提出的一些额外的问题：贫穷和挨饿是可以忍受的吗？那些贫穷的和挨饿的人也会以这种方式想自己吗？