Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poverty today is truly miraculous
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 1 Sept 2002 | Leon Louw

Posted on 09/02/2002 7:02:30 PM PDT by Kermit

Poverty today is truly miraculous
By Leon Louw
(Filed: 01/09/2002)

Mud oozed between the village woman's toes, as she made her way between the shanty houses. Not plain mud, but mud containing rotting garbage, human and animal faeces, urine, and years of decaying vegetation. She milked an emaciated cow.

The stench in this small village in north India was appalling. A gaunt man vomited from the window of a dilapidated bus. Children sat in wet dung and urine making dung pats to dry for fuel; a man rummaged in a garbage heap, like the pig and goat nearby, for whatever might be edible.

This sort of poverty is miraculous. Ghastly, but miraculous, and perhaps the most extraordinary accomplishment of modern governments. Poor countries are the world's true "economic miracles", not post-war Germany, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Botswana or Mauritius.

Prosperity in such countries is no "miracle". It is the natural outcome of relative economic freedom. If there are "economic miracles", they are backward countries, where governments have succeeded in preventing prosperity. India is a nation of manifestly energetic and enterprising people. If left alone, they would prosper. This was clearly demonstrated when India implemented modest pro-market reforms and the country was rewarded with one of the world's highest growth rates.

However, India's flirtation with prosperity may be short-lived. It has formidable enemies, including most first-world governments, leading academics and scientists, wealthy foundations, thousands of non-governmental officers, influential journalists, passionate activists, and countless other powerful interests.

These forces constitute a new kind of colonialism, which we might call eco-imperialism. As a delegate at the World Summit in Johannesburg, I have seen that it has been vigourously represented here. It is more insidious, pervasive and potentially more devastating than traditional imperialism.

As I was driven through the squalor of urban and rural poverty on my visit to India, the newspapers of the day carried reports of esoteric and costly new environmental, health and safety laws, promoted by vocal opponents of spontaneous development because it is supposedly "unsustainable".

These people are seductive protagonists of the "precautionary principle" in response to exaggerated or imaginary environmental risks. They are enemies of globalisation, which would enable poor countries to attract foreign investment, import cheap goods, and export competitively to rich countries.

These latter-day imperialists are neo-Luddites who place elitist environmental whims and nebulous fears of "resource depletion" above the needs of the world's destitute billions.

They seek to impose first-world conceptions of environmentalism and human development on developing countries. They do not want poor countries to follow the path that made the prosperity of their own countries possible. Advanced countries became advanced by mining minerals, harvesting timber, converting jungles (rain-forests) and swamps (wetlands) into cities and farms and domesticating and commercialising their wildlife.

People in developing countries should no longer be influenced by neo-imperial agendas but agree on one simple principle: that the most urgent priority is to achieve maximal growth and development. The unknowable needs of future generations and the virtues of a low-risk environment must, by any caring calculus, be secondary.

For all the strident prophecies of doom by the anti-development anti-trade brigade, not much is known with certainty about most global and environmental concerns. Almost all pessimistic predictions about the environment, scarcity of resources and over-population have been 180 degrees wrong for more than a generation.

They can no longer be taken seriously. Exaggerations and lies in the litany of scare stories about the state of the planet have been exposed repeatedly by a growing number of realists. Most importantly, whether or not things are as bad as we are told, the simple fact is that superior conditions, however measured, arise in countries with freer economies.

These are countries where governments do more for their people by doing less. Their poorest communities are wealthy by global standards. Their poorest citizens enjoy the world's highest living standards, literacy, life expectancy and incomes; they have more housing, safe water, food, leisure, welfare, security, democracy and human rights than most people in the world.

These countries also have the least unemployment, pollution, corruption, disease and resource scarcity; and the best services, technology, health care, education, telecommunications and transport. No matter how one measures welfare, there's more of it where governments refrain from causing poverty by curtailing markets.

"It's not that simple," developing country leaders are warned. Rapid growth and development for suffering people is in some mysterious sense "unsustainable", as if the word has coherent meaning in this context. It has none. "Sustainable development" theory is voodoo science at its worst; pure gobbledygook.

Sustainable for how long: 10, 100, 1000, a million or a billion years? For whom? Advanced people with unknowable future technology and resources? What must be sustainable? Utilisation of "non-renewables"? Why not consume them? They are resources only if used. For how long must we conserve them? Must our decendants, by the same twisted logic, do likewise? Forever?

The best we can do for future generations is generate maximal wealth to let them live better lives. Even radical greens now admit that basic resources are so plentiful as to be essentially limitless. If anything is unsustainable it is the alternatives to development: stagnation and regression.

World leaders have to be bold and wise if the developing countries are to enjoy liberation from poverty. They need Third World policies for Third World countries. This means they must resist unsustainable neo-colonial babble and do what rich countries did to become rich, not what they do now. They will then find that people will improve the quality of their lives rapidly. They will exchange the "miracle of poverty" for the non-miracle of spontaneous prosperity, and the scenes I witnessed will disappear from the world.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: development; ecowackos; prohumanity; sustainable
We just need to keep pointing out how profoundly anti-human the eco-wackos are.
1 posted on 09/02/2002 7:02:30 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kermit
However, India's flirtation with prosperity may be short-lived. It has formidable enemies, including most first-world governments, leading academics and scientists, wealthy foundations, thousands of non-governmental officers, influential journalists, passionate activists, and countless other powerful interests.

Bear in mind that this article doesn't single out the environazis. It also points the finger at "first-world governments".

2 posted on 09/02/2002 7:05:17 PM PDT by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Brilliant piece.
3 posted on 09/02/2002 7:05:28 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Mud oozed between the village woman's toes, as she made her way between the shanty houses. Not plain mud, but mud containing rotting garbage, human and animal faeces, urine, and years of decaying vegetation. She milked an emaciated cow.

The stench in this small village in north India was appalling. A gaunt man vomited from the window of a dilapidated bus. Children sat in wet dung and urine making dung pats to dry for fuel; a man rummaged in a garbage heap, like the pig and goat nearby, for whatever might be edible.

This would have been an accurate description of London or New York less than 200 years ago. Read Charles Dickens.

4 posted on 09/02/2002 7:06:02 PM PDT by Alouette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
"Sustainable for how long: 10, 100, 1000, a million or a billion years? For whom? Advanced people with unknowable future technology and resources? What must be sustainable? Utilisation of "non-renewables"? Why not consume them? They are resources only if used. For how long must we conserve them? Must our decendants, by the same twisted logic, do likewise? Forever?"

Consider the "Natural Resources Defense Council". They "defend" natural resources. However, a resource that cannot be exploited is not a resource at all. So why are these folks "defending" resources? So that they can be exploited in the future?...Or never exploited at all?

--Boris

5 posted on 09/02/2002 7:08:46 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
bttt
6 posted on 09/02/2002 7:13:33 PM PDT by Cruising Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
"This would have been an accurate description of London or
New York less than 200 years ago. Read Charles Dickens."

couldnt have said it better myself... i promise you all these eco-libby-freaks dont study history or economy. they study poetry and how to feel good, then pass that as a viable Phd. i had one teacher in my life that was a history teacher and a liberal. and he STILL was against half the crap the clintons did and (when presented the eveidenc) argued FOR Bush's Alaska drilling plan. man, if these third world thinhkers ever want to get out of the third world, they should try just once to figure out how the rest of the world did so well....
7 posted on 09/02/2002 7:19:01 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
in my last post, i mispelled "evidence", i was just typing to fast
8 posted on 09/02/2002 7:20:44 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
and thinkers.. plz, dont tell me if i missed more.... i know ::sigh::
9 posted on 09/02/2002 7:21:29 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
The "first world environmentalists" want the rest of the world to serve as their own private human zoo : The two-legs (they don't see them as fully human) living 'out there' are to be kept in colorful, traditional squalor so the first worlders wealthy enough to travel around the world can go marvel at a way of life so different from Duluth. Ever hear one of those people talking about how sad it is that the whole world "looks like one giant Des Moines"?
10 posted on 09/02/2002 7:22:25 PM PDT by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
in my last post, i mispelled "evidence", i was just typing to fast

I know you asked not to be corrected but that's exactly why I must now correct you.. it's misspelled instead of mispelled.. and 'too' instead of 'to'.. ok you can shoot me now

11 posted on 09/02/2002 7:26:28 PM PDT by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Some Freeper criticized me the other day for posting an article from the Telegraph. He said it was a left wing newspaper. Just goes to show you not all monkeys are in the zoo.
12 posted on 09/02/2002 7:29:09 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
passionate activists

This could be intrepreted as including the envirowhackos.

13 posted on 09/02/2002 7:44:14 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Its Macleod of the clan Macleod. So Highlander what was it really like in London and New York 200 years ago LOL( you should know)?
14 posted on 09/02/2002 7:45:08 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kaylar
The "first world environmentalists" want the rest of the world to serve as their own private human zoo : The two-legs (they don't see them as fully human) living 'out there' are to be kept in colorful, traditional squalor

Exaclty. They are the true heirs to the bigotted colonialists of old, with their idea of the "white man's burden". They have such contempt for their own society that they find the sqalid, electricity-less conditions of the Third World quaint, and think that they are acting in the best interests of the poor, dumb natives by trying to keep them in conditions they would find anacceptable for themselves.
15 posted on 09/02/2002 7:45:59 PM PDT by Welsh Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Yeap. I was only pointing out that the author doesn't pin all the blame on the environazis..
16 posted on 09/02/2002 7:46:25 PM PDT by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Welsh Rabbit
anacceptable = unacceptable
17 posted on 09/02/2002 7:57:16 PM PDT by Welsh Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
No, no, no. The Telegraph is center/right, more for free markets and against regulation. The Telegraph is the home of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who broke a lot of stories about the out-and-out criminality of our impeached former President.
18 posted on 09/02/2002 8:54:30 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
I know. He was Washington correspondent. I have the book he wrote about Whitewater, and it is one of the best. He's a great guy!
19 posted on 09/02/2002 9:06:15 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: weikel
i wasn't in new york 200 years ago. london however... sucked. i much prefered my time spent on the isle of Skye or in France(at the time, they didnt suck) :)
20 posted on 09/02/2002 10:19:16 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
.... ::BLAM::
21 posted on 09/02/2002 10:19:51 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
So do you have to post on Holy Ground?
22 posted on 09/02/2002 10:20:47 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: weikel
i respect it, but damnit if Kell didnt piss me off on it once or twice... Man im a geek...
23 posted on 09/02/2002 10:23:16 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
and noone knows of what i speak..... (crickets chirping)
24 posted on 09/02/2002 10:25:51 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
did i single handedly kill this post? man.....
25 posted on 09/02/2002 10:27:29 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
Bear in mind that this article doesn't single out the environazis. It also points the finger at "first-world governments".

Some first-world governments are under the thrall of the "Greens" within. The thought of their own superiority is also appealing.

26 posted on 09/02/2002 10:27:54 PM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
France, 200 years ago, even 150 years ago, wasn't any better. Much of Paris was a virtual pig stye. Read French authors, of those times. :-)
27 posted on 09/02/2002 10:28:04 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
oh, the land sucked, it was a viral place... but the culture of the rich was awesome... it WAS a patriarch you know? even tribal kings in Africa have perks to being king
28 posted on 09/02/2002 10:31:09 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
i was just talking about Napolianic era)
29 posted on 09/02/2002 10:31:54 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
Bear in mind that this article doesn't single out the environazis. It also points the finger at "first-world governments".

That is because "first-world" governments are behind this idea that the eco-nuts spew. How would you look at it if the rich nations who have citizens with full bellies telling you that you cannot be rich like them.
30 posted on 09/02/2002 10:32:29 PM PDT by Brush_Your_Teeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Well, London, 200 years ago, was even better, for the rich. That isn't what we're talking about ... is it ?

India, 200 years ago, as well as tofay, is just marvelous, for those with money too. :-)

31 posted on 09/02/2002 10:33:26 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Paris is fast becoming that way again, a royal pigsty. I have no wanting to go there, NOT ever. The stories that I have heard just curl my hair!!
32 posted on 09/02/2002 10:41:43 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Yes, I know. :-)
33 posted on 09/02/2002 10:44:37 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Well obviously the author has not consulted with notorious ecos and various leftist academics who could inform him about how much better it is for the poor people of the world to live in stinking mud rather than have those awful capitalists and globalists change their "spiritual" way of living. How can he be so ignorant and hard-hearted as to disregard the admonitions of the "anointed"? (Har, har)
34 posted on 09/03/2002 1:18:51 AM PDT by driftless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
london 200 years ago, even the royalty got TB and bacterias that only one would get by not bathing. sanitation was unheard of. asia at the tie had it right, then we got industrial.
35 posted on 09/03/2002 3:42:19 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson