On Development

We are all part of a global society that is obsessed with development. On all media, in all forums and frequently in private conversations, this is an underlying theme. However, development is an abstract concept and people are usually not very good with abstractions. We prefer to deal with more concrete ideas. So the problem is how to visualize development. The route normally taken is to equate development with growth but this only pushes the problem down another level. Growth itself is an abstract concept and so how do we visualize growth?

Development and growth, being abstract concepts, have many dimensions. The solution to the problem of visualizing development and growth is to focus on one or a few of the dimensions. The primary dimension along which development and growth are visualized is material well-being and this is itself visualized by our ease of access to the material things we need to exist. Some of these material things are necessary for us to live. So one measure of development is do we have access to water, food and shelter. These are then refined further. In the case of water, do we draw water from a well? A community tap? Water piped directly into our homes? In the case of food, in what quantity, then quality and then variety? Other material things are not necessary for survival but we deem them to be necessary in order to function effectively in a modern economy. Cases in point: cell phones and electricity in our homes and businesses. Still others are adornments that we decorate our houses and bodies with.

In a sense, this emphasis on materialism is not very surprising. In order to merely survive, we need access to a minimum quantity of resources - material things. In order to function effectively in our economy, we need access to a variety of material resources. The exact composition of the things changes over time. These changes are considered development. So development has essentially boiled down to a numbers game. How many things of different variety do we own irrespective of whether we actually have a use for them or not. There is a heavy, almost exclusive emphasis on materialism. All the measures that we use to monitor development and growth are based on material aspects. Whether we are measuring GDP or productivity or something else, we are seeing how much and hoe quickly can we produce things. Of course what is produced also needs to be consumed and so development is also increasing consumption of these things. Humans are thus reduced to producing and consuming automatons fascinated with shiny baubles and trinkets. In many respects, materialism makes us behave like the proverbial native Americans who gave up Manhattan island for a few cheap, shiny baubles.

Is there any harm in this? This emphasis on materialism has produced wonders for us. A large number of people today live in a style and comfort that even kings of bygone eras could not have dreamed of. Even the poorest of us have access to a level of goods and services that at one time would have been considered luxurious. By these measures, materialism has been good. So there's no problem there right? Not quite. To a considerable extent, we are what we measure. In other words, we become the dimensions of our existence that we emphasize. Materialism is merely one aspect of development. There are many other dimensions. How are we developing as individuals? How are we developing as a community? What kind of a culture or legacy are we bequeathing to later generations? Will we be remembered for our strange fascination with baubles and trinkets or will we be remembered for our music, our words that we leave behind, the social structures that we evolve? What about our spiritual side? What about our emotional side? Many of us are mental and emotional wrecks. These are symptoms brought about by the stresses of modern life. How do these stresses arise? Through an emphasis on materialism. Has material development made us happier, more mature, more fulfilled? Is our global culture producing enduring cultural and literary works? Or are we producing works that will barely be remembered a generation hence. What measures are truly important to focus on when we say development?