

#

# PREFACE

This book is a revision of my earlier book "The Murmuring Man".

Being trained as an Environmental Plant Physiologist I realized that to deal with environmentally sound developmental issues I have to think beyond a rather limited area of specialization to a highly complex system of the Eco-physiology of Society. While consolidating my thoughts I found that physiology of the society is much more interesting and intricate than that of plants. The whole social system seems to be confused by commandments issued from time to time by those who continuously write and speak on behalf of the Society. The (common) people are lost and sometimes befouled in the hopes that the speakers and writers give them in big seminars and symposia, in national and international media through their hypnotizing statements. Therefore, there is little impact, if any, of the commandments issued. The reason for lack of impact is probably due to the fact that although they have been told the code of conduct for maintaining the balance between environment and development, the philosophy of the code is not clear even to those formulating the code. Also rarely do the framers of the code follow what they preach. Their lifestyles, general attitude towards development and environmental concerns are inconsistent with what they profess. This dishonesty, which is apparent to their audience, dilutes the urgency or degree of dedication to the codes, and hence robs the authenticity of the codes. Consequently, the general public perceives a duality in the conduct of the advocates of environmentally sound development, and hence, becomes infused, or remains unfazed /unimpressed by the "mighty codes of conduct".

This type of confusion is not a new phenomenon. Accounts of the past reveal the existence of such situations even in the pre-historic period. The earliest Indian literature, the great epic 'Mahabharat' describes the presence of similar confusion even during the pre-Mahabharat period, which resulted in the Great War. The attitudes of the society these days are not very different from what has been described during "Mahabharat" period. The only difference is that Lord "Krishna", of the "Mahabharat" is yet to born in this age and the worldly wisdom of individuals is yet to prevail.

Many thinkers on environment and development blame technology, industrialization and economic systems for the major environmental crisis. However, in my view, it is the individual, his behavior and framework of thinking, which needs to be blamed. There is no synchronization in his thoughts, talks and actions.

I am not a "certified" philosopher nor do I have settled thoughts on sociology, ethics and morality, but certainly I have known reality and ideals of environmental issues and developmental demands. I feel that although everyone knows that something is wrong somewhere and yet all are confused and caught in the dilemma of whether "to do this or that?" Therefore, each one is murmuring. Two dimensions, thinking and acting, are basic to human beings, but a third dimension, "talking", has emerged stronger in recent past which has diluted the thinking potential of the individuals and, therefore, caused a crisis. In this book, I will try to elaborate the nature of the man and sort out behavior that is appropriate to maintain a balance between environment and development in the present scenario.

This write-up is an attempt on my part to analyze the concepts relating to environment, development and role of individuals in maintaining a balance between these two. My analysis is basically from philosophical angle. This is based on many friendly exchanges, with eminent scientists, prominent bureaucrats, aristocrats, politocrats, autocrats, as well as with common villagers while working in the hills for the last 40 years. In addition, I could read some Indian religious epics, a book, "Society", by MacIver and Page, and some works of philosophers like, Tilak, Radhakrishnan, Spinoza, Spencer and Erich Fromm. Off late I have gone through some good through provoking publications on sustainability such as those published by Stockholm Environment Institute. All these induced me to write this booklet. It is but natural that at many places the thoughts projected in those works are incorporated in this write up in one form or other.

I make no claim of originality. In fact only the italics, given in the beginning of each chapter, are mine. Some of the material is reproduced as such from my previous articles and a few others. Part of my analysis is influenced by the reading of the "Bhagwad Gita", with different interpretations. However, I do not intend to claim that this work will be in any way another interpretation of "Bhagwad Gita", or a solution to bring the behavioral change in human beings. In fact, after reading only a part of the Indian Philosophy, I find nothing new in the thoughts projected by others in the recent past. All is nothing but a repetition of what already has been stated in the Upanisadic teachings. Those who claim originality in their thoughts should read the Upanishads.

### A.N. PUROHIT

1. INTRODUCTION

'Life is the struggle of opposites and, therefore, man will continue to murmur under all the circumstances. The day man gets satisfied and stops murmuring he will cease to exist. "

Probabilities of environmental catastrophe are now being heard more frequently in developed as well as developing countries and the former have become more conscious about it. The reasons assigned for such probabilities are the scarcity/degradation of resources all over the world. It is being felt that we have already harnessed the resources to the extent from where we are now feeling that the problem of production - which was once considered to be the problem of past - is emerging once again. Similarly, it is also being felt that the conquest of the Nature is not as easy as it was thought. One problem is solved and another emerges as if there is no end and no permanent solution to the problems. Therefore, we have started feeling uneasy and uncomfortable. It has become the normal syndrome of the society. Projections are being made that the future generation will be under greater stress than we are at present. All of a sudden, even the politicians have become conscious of next generation of the public and are attempting to redefine development, resources, their goals and approaches.

Why this sudden emergence of consciousness all over the world? Probably it is now being realized that there are forces beyond our perceptions and controls beyond our reach. We have yet to know what the world really is and what is the nature of the man? We have no grasp of totality of the world as a whole and man in particular. We are searching the unknowns and yet somehow, the more our curiosity and scientific progress reveals about the world, the deeper the mystery gets and the more questions are raised. Our attitudes are changing and so is our character. We do not know what we should look for and where - out side us or within ourselves.

Basically, the incompleteness of understanding of the world is a problem at every level, and more so at the level of individual human beings, who are the main actors in the world and also at national, regional, village or family level, which form the units of the society.

It is expected that as the number of human being grows ignorance and confusion will also increase. Everyone is aware of this and yet we are helpless. Why? Probably because the living world is a struggle of opposites, like happiness and unhappiness; satisfaction and dissatisfaction; desirable and undesirable, etc. We are caught in a web of similarities and dissimilarities. All these things are reflected in our perceptions and attitudes, and our actions are their mirror images.

We are more fascinated by the rapid changes than by gradual transformation. We are more fascinated by differences than by similarities. Under such circumstances the perceptions of environment and development and the possible alternatives which would help us feel at ease in the near future need to be reviewed time and again.

Thus, while biologists have developed a new ecological style of thinking, economists are talking of environmental economics rather than the pure numbers as a tool of planning, to reduce the danger of over exploitation. Even the lawyers have come forward with suggestions to modify and formulate laws for defending nature from the consequences of man's activities. The revival of religious philosophy for the protection of environment is the most recent development in this direction. All this thinking the world over indicates the complexity of the problem. When there are great uncertainties and serious risks, a process of learning and careful assessment is essential so that proper experiments could be designed to resolve the problems we face and manage the risks. This process includes an analysis of functional and philosophical aspects of the individual and the society in the changing environment. Although it is difficult to work out the real requirements of man and his functional capabilities, perhaps man can be made to realize that he cannot always push forward his way because there is at least an equal amount of pull working against him. The only way man can balance the pressure of these opposite forces is by making efforts to understand his own self better.

The topics selected here, therefore, are with a view to answer the questions about what we as individuals and the society want in the present environment, why we are failing to achieve our goal, and how can we achieve it? These are the questions generally asked in the environmental physiology before an experiment is begun.
2. ENVIRONMENT - A CONCEPT OF WHOLE

"Environment is not a resource but a framework of perceptions and ideas in relation to time and space. It is an inbuilt component of development':

Environment is a concept of whole (Nature), with the nonliving and living as measurable and non-measurable components, with intra and inter-dependency. The non-living component of the environment has five sub-components: energy, water, soil, air, and space, whereas the living component has numerous sub-components. These components can neither be created nor destroyed. However, these get converted from one to another. Therefore, there is no absolute distinction between the non-living and living. The creator for one can be conceived in another and, therefore, life as well as matter has to be worshipped. This is what is conveyed in the 7th and 15th chapters of the Bhagwad Gita.

The fundamental thought of the Upanisadic philosophy also mentions that "all in one: one without a second". The word "Nature" in Gita also conveys the idea that it does not belong to anyone but everyone belongs to it, like a family does not belong to anyone but everyone belongs to the family. Like a family, in the environment too interactions between its different components take place and these sometime might lead to hazardous situations. Sometimes such situations arise because of natural movement of non-living components. They are taken care through adjustments, an auto repair system in the environment. There are a few other hazardous situations, which are totally dependent on the interaction of the living components of the environment. Such hazards are the ones leading to speedy deterioration of the environment. These occur due to distinct behavioral differences in the living and non-living' components of the natural environment. While the former are selfish, social and competitive, the non-living components are free from these attributes. It is these attributes of the living components of the environment which are explained in the doctrines of "survival of the fittest" and the "natural selection' in the living beings. In this process, those who survive are considered superior. All those attributes which lead to the "survival of the fittest", like selfish nature, social dependence and competitive attitude, have reached the highest peak in humans out of all the living beings and, therefore, they are considered superior among all the living beings in a total environment. The difference between us and other living beings is one of degree, rather than of the kind. Each organism is selfish and makes choices and decisions according to its needs and wants. Thus, environment is basically interplay of non-living and living beings, and their choices and decisions.

In recent years 'environment' has come to encompass three elements: (a) the natural environment of air, water, soil, rocks and organisms that provide the setting in which a plant or an animal lives; (b) the built environment comprising houses, roads, factories, etc., and the changes they have caused; and (c) the social environment which includes our culture, behavior, economy, law, music, art, etc., and the environmental movement itself. In the experience of social beings, environment appears as a complex totality of many aspects. It does not separate the geographical environment as one order of things from the social environment as another. The fields which we designate as physical environment for us are our assets. Therefore, the social and physical aspects are blended in every concrete reality.

Changing Environment: A Concept of Resource.

Though it is realized that the process of adjustment between us and our environment is difficult to quantify, we are still looking for its mathematics. Therefore a concept of resource has emerged. It is fully realized that human societies would not exist without natural systems. Human beings constitute an integral part of nature. Dilemma is that the dualistic human mind likes to isolate "humanness" from "mere nature". This distinction becomes enforcement for us to defend "nature" because of its perceived value (usually economic value) to "humanity". If we can't see the immediate economic value of any thing, we feel we need not take care of it. This thinking from beginning to end is wrong because: (1) there is no sharp and clear cut dividing line between nature and human beings when we look closely, (2) the assumption that we know all about the role of all components of an ecosystem and that we can assess its utility to us, (3) economic value is the highest kind of value, and (4) even if there were no perceivable value, direct or indirect, economic or spiritual, of some part of nature, human responsibility, our role as stewards of the planet, does not allow us to declare it worthless.

The emergence of the resource concept is one of the factors, which has changed our understanding about the environment. Both environmentalists as well as economists seem to understand the meaning of resource (something to which one resorts for comfort or help or to gain an end - Webster's International Dictionary, 1986 ed.), but the substance of meaning perceived by the two groups is not the same. For economists resource is a means of improving the quality of life, whereas for the environmentalists it is required for the maintenance of life. Economists, therefore, use the word 'resource' in a materialistic sense where as the ecologists, to some extent; use it in a metaphysical sense. In the recent past another word, "natural resource" has come into common use. We all think that we know what we mean by "natural resource" and yet ambiguity and vagueness persists. Several questions have been raised in connection with prefixing the tag "natural" on resource, i.e. natural resource under which condition, for whom, based on which state of assumption, and so on. All these questions lead to the conclusion that "natural resource" has a dynamic time factor and is, therefore, selective. At one time or other, every resource is a natural resource and it always moves from higher to lower concentration, and is convertible from one form to another.

In an economic context resources normally relate to things which are/or could be potentially developed into end products that matter in generating or increasing man's monetary resources. In an ecological or environmental perspective, there is more emphasis on the non-monetary aspects of resources. According to ecologists, resource capacity is not user dependent nor does it change in the social context. Thus, a physical accounting of resources is incomplete and inappropriate to sustain the systems.

There are differing views on what constitutes a resource, and how to measure its availability. Geologists and others, for example, often use purely physical measures for the amount of a mineral commodity found in the earth's crust. For certain purposes such measures can be quite useful. However, if we are ultimately concerned about the effects of resource scarcity on living standards and human welfare, measures of availability usually reflect economic considerations, such as production costs, as well as physical characteristics. According to analysis given by Tilton and Skinner (1987), all resources are renewable on some time scale. Gold deposits, for example, are known to be forming beneath certain volcanoes and similarly zinc and other deposits at certain places on deep seafloor. Many other kinds of mineral deposits are also developing at various places in earth today. Others, while not actually developing today, will certainly do so again in the near future geological time frame. New petroleum is forming at many places as are new soils, new groundwater and new trees. It is misleading: therefore, to classify resources as nonrenewable and renewable. The resources differ from one another in respect of timescale of replenishment. The growth rates of some are similar to or greater than use rates. Such resources are sustainable. With wise management, they can be used in perpetuity and need not become more costly as time passes, even in the absence of cost-reducing technological change. Over or improper use can of course lead to depletion but the concept of a sustainable resource is that with effective management the rate of resource withdrawal can be balanced by the rate of resource replenishment, Water, soil, and air are examples. In contrast, non-sustainable resources are those for which withdrawal rate greatly exceeds the replenishment rate of the deposit types that have traditionally been exploited. Examples of non-sustainable resources are petroleum, coal, copper, lead and silver. For most metals and for petroleum, for example, rates of use exceed rates of replenishment by factors of several thousands.

For this reason it is argued that a more appropriate measure of resource availability is the cost of producing an additional or marginal unit. Over time this cost may rise or fall depending largely on whether the cost-increasing effect of depletion (the movement up the cumulative supply curve) is fully offset by the cost-reducing effects by new technology (the downward shift in the cumulative supply curve). A fall in marginal production-cost implies that non-sustainable resources are becoming more available and less of a constraint on economic welfare and development, while a rise implies just the opposite.

The view expressed by Tilton and Skinner on the availability of non-sustainable resources, in contrast to the traditional static view, has four main important implications. First, the world will never run out of resources in the sense that the human race will awake one morning to learn that the last pound of a required mineral is going to be mined or only the last barrel of the major fossil fuel is left to be pumped. Further extraction should it occur will manifest itself in higher costs.

Second, exhaustion is not likely to occur suddenly but will entail a prolonged upward movement in real resource costs. This, if it occurs, it will provide not only the time but also incentive for countermeasures. Higher costs and prices stimulate exploration, material and fuel substitution, resource-saving technology and other measures that tend to alleviate the declining availability of resources.

Third, exhaustion is not inevitable under the dynamic view of resource availability. While a trend towards lower-grade, more remote, and more difficult-to-process deposits tends to push costs upward and thereby reduce resource availability, mankind through ingenuity and new technology, may offset upward pressures on costs. This is specially because resources are defined by humans themselves, and the process of resource definition is one of continual change, as new uses of materials are identified, and previously used materials are translated into resources by the discovery of ways in which they can be made of use.

Finally, the difference between sustainable and non-sustainable resources largely disappears if resource availability is measured as costs of acquiring additional supplies rather than by quantities or stocks. However, resources such as water, soil and air, even if used wisely and not allowed to deteriorate can suffer from severe depletion in the sense that the costs of providing additional supplies can rise, constraining economic development and growth as pointed out nearly two centuries ago by the classical economists Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. This is further supported by the fact that if we search for instances where the paucity of resources has in recent times threatened the welfare of humanity, it is much easier to find examples associated with water and soil than energy and minerals, in part because the latter are more mobile. This raises the possibility that the prevailing emphasis on the exhaustion of minerals, energy and other non-sustainable resources may be misplaced and that shortages of sustainable resources, such as water and soil, may pose a more immediate a..'1d pressing challenge to the welfare of society, at least in many regions of the world.

As deemed, resource could be of two types; non-monetary or without current market value and monetary. When we look at development then these are the non-monetary resources, which have more chances of degradation than the monetary resources. The fact remains that since development has a complex and vast causal web, one resource type is dependent on another and therefore, it is difficult to know which is important and at what time. In addition to the above-mentioned resources, there are some non-visible components such as unhappiness and dissatisfaction which induce the desire to grow and develop and in the absence of which worldwide prosperity is not possible. Therefore, these components are non-measurable, non- monetary basic resources and need to be considered while dealing with environmental and developmental issues. Moreover, man himself is a resource. It is a matter of guessing who is using whom? We shall discuss this subsequently.

Changing Environment: A Problem of Adjustment and Adaptation.

An attribute common to life and environment pertains to their dynamism. Life becomes more and more complex with the progress of time. This directional change holds true both during the life cycle of an organism, a short-term perspective, and also during the process of organic evolution, a long-term perspective. Thus apparent complexity of physical environment and that of biological community at a given point of time or space are viewed in context of each other. However, responses of living beings to the physical environment are more dynamic than that of physical environment. These responses of living beings are adaptations. In simple terms, adaptations are adjustments to the attributes of physical environment

With aging or with increase in complexity of life capacity as well as need of physiological adjustment decreases with but the social adjustments follow a reverse trend. As a child, ignorant of social systems, we move our hands or legs in order to get the things we want. All behavioral responses of a child are nothing but physiological adjustment determined by organic conditioning. As we grow, we look for a great variety of tools to extend our range of operation and this dimension gradually suppresses the dimension of physiological adjustment adopted exclusively during childhood. With aging or increasing maturity, organically determined patterns, which are more rigid, get gradually replaced by more flexible patterns conditioned by social heritage. Adjustment or adaptations should therefore be viewed as human responses to both physical environment and human capacities/abilities. The process of adjustment is visible clearly but is difficult to quantify and still more difficult to predict.

Since human requirements are as complex as surrounding conditions or environment, a perfect harmony with environment and a perfect sense of equilibrium is hard or impossible to attain, except perhaps for those dulled by the combined influence of age and prosperity, and for those mystics who attain a sense of oneness with the entire universe. Our eternal discontent is a spur to our continual endeavor towards new achievements. The discontent is bound to increase with each generation. A typical civilized man would merely feel to be in harmony with nature or environment.

Our adjustments are not stable because we ourselves seek changes in how should we adjust ourselves. The more we alter the primary nature-given environment, the more we are impelled to modify it still further. Therefore, our environment is forever in a state of flux. Our habituations to it, even if they were perfect at some point of time, were merely unproductive transient events/coincidences. Such incidences are temporary and transient phases because the possibility of their continuity is disturbed by a change in the physical environment or through the insurgence of new demands within us. The citizen of the world today has yet to learn lessons and develop capacity to resist these changes if he wants to live in perfect harmony with the nature.

With the advancement of our civilization, we have developed highly variable yardsticks for the assessment of environment and have become highly selective in our adjustment mechanisms. Visualize a group of people including a hunter, a nature lover, an entomologist, a soil scientist, an artisan, and a forester, to travel through a forest. The forest would be conceived as a different environment by each of them because each group identified by profession has evolved a different understanding and adopted divergent priorities. Aborigines, where knowledge was not specialized, would on the other hand view the forest in only one way, their home giving shelter as well as life support needs. Therefore, there exists a myriad of different milieus about environment.

Finally, the adjustment, with all its complexity, permits a remarkable power of readjustments. We acquire a certain mental versatility in coping with the changing complexity of our situation, and this enables us to adjust more readily to other environments. We can, though with reluctance and complaints, live from the hot deserts to the polar snows, move from the conditions of poverty to riches, fame and fortune (or the reverse), and adjust to various administrative systems. Whatever else the developed complexity of modem civilization may bring to us, weal or woe, it gives us plasticity unrivalled in the organic world

We are usually capable of shifting from one environment to another, as well as of changing the conditions of a given environment to suit ourselves. Yet we are not independent of the kind of environment in which we live. The environment is not simply the outside world, or something that surrounds us. In fact, because we have deemed environment as our surroundings, we underestimate its role. In truth, the life and environment are inseparable; one looses its/ identity if not viewed in the context of the other. The whole present life structure is the product of past life and past environment. The capacities and attributes of life are related to the whole environment in which it manifests itself. The environment is more than a "conditioning" factor of life. Life and environment are so closely interwoven that every kind of life, every species, in fact, every single living thing, has its own particular environment, in some degree different from that of others.

Every change in a living creature involves some change in its relation with environment and conversely for every change in environment there is some change in the response of living beings. These changes may be so minute that they may not be picked up by the conventional science of measuring changes. Our environment is our habitat in the complete sense. Every difference in environment means a difference in our habits, our ways of living. On the other hand, our habits, our ways of living, in so far as they differ, create for us a different environment, a different selection within it, and a different accommodation to it. The equilibrium of life is maintained through a process of complex dynamic selection and adaptation. Adaptation could be physical, biological or social in nature.

Purely physical adaptation takes place by itself, whether we like it or not. It is independent of our preferences, strivings or aims. The sun will tan our skin if we expose ourselves to it, whether or not it helps us to live in a sunny climate. That is a form of physical adaptation. Similarly, fresh air will energize our lungs and poisonous gas will destroy them. Strength or weakness, health or sickness is equally an expression of adaptation. Nature everywhere makes its demands. Death is the final limit of physical adaptation. Living in villages or cities, poverty or prosperity, good or evil, this system of unconditional physical adaptation is an essential feature of mankind Physical adaptations mayor may not be favorable to man individually or in groups. There nature is so diverse that it is difficult to decide as to which physical adaptation is more or most important.

Biological adaptations have assumed more prominence in environmental sciences and mean that a particular form of life is fitted to survive or to prosper under a set of environmental conditions. We say that fish is adapted to an aquatic environment or tigers to a jungle. In this sense we speak also of mal-adaptation. When we say, for example, that a tiger is maladapted to the conditions of the desert or of the polar snows, we mean that the conditions are not such as to permit the adequate functioning of that organism. In other words, inevitable physical adaptation is detrimental to biological demands. In order that certain equilibrium, involving the survival or fulfillment of that, organism be attained, the environment, we say, must be such and such kind.

The concept of social adaptation reveals an extension of the biological adaptation. Social adaptation, however, always involves some value standards and it is a conditional adaptation. Various sociologists speak of the process of adjustment or of accommodation, though the latter term has sometimes been used to stress the adaptation of the society to the given conditions rather than the adaptation of the conditions to the society. But if we are to live in ways we desire, we must find or create an appropriate environment. We do what every living creature does in proportion to its intelligence: we select and modify our environment ill such a way that the inevitable adaptation shall admit a greater fulfillment of our wants. In this social sense adaptation definitely implies valuation, whereas in purely physical adaptation there is no implication of well-being, no virtue or merit.

The examples cited suggest that we are deeply concerned with many problems associated with physical adaptation; for example, with death, health, body changes induced by various conditions of diet and social life. But this concern and our attempts to prolong life or improve health, sometimes quite successful, should not be confused with the process of physical adaptation itself. Purely physical adjustments are inevitable and are always a proper adjustment to the environment in time and space. When we speak of mal-adaptation or maladjustment, we mean that it is not merely the universal principle of physical adaptation, which is being defeated, but also that the existing social adaptation involves a less complete satisfaction of our wants and of our ideals. These instincts give way to a feel of a change in the environment.

To conclude, we distinguish the various factors of the total environment for purposes of understanding, but they are merged together in our experience. When we turn an area of land into a farm or a plot of land into a home, we are fusing the physical and the social environment into one. Our own activities, such as clearing and cultivation of land, damming the rivers, building the roadways, and so on, in time make it impossible to tell where the geographical or nature-given environment ends and the man- made environment begins. 'Environment', therefore, changes with our memories, our traditions, and values. Much of it becomes the external aspect of our social life, but in reality, environment is a framework of perceptions and ideas in relation to time and space.
3. DEVELOPMENT - A PHASE IN THE SEQUENCE OF CHANGE

"Development is a phase in the sequence of change and is a necessary evil, the impact of which will be less if it is based on ethics."

Every living thing in the world has an inner urge to become something greater than what it is (Aristotle). This inner urge is not to become something different than what it is. It is this inner urge, which could be conceived as the consciousness for growing. This consciousness is inborn and begins from within and travels outward in search of the things to be used to fulfill this urge. This is how the endless phenomenon of growth and resource-search get associated with each other. It also seems to be true that, in practice, at no stage this urge is satisfied. This inner urge is identical with what we call desire. It neither ends nor is it ever satisfied. Satisfaction is always less than the desire at a given time. It is the difference between desire and satisfaction which controls the growth and since desire is always higher than the satisfaction, the rate of growth is not controlled by satisfaction but by dissatisfaction (desire- satisfaction). Therefore, it is the dissatisfaction at a given time, which drives the processes of growth.

The above exposition was aimed to convey that the desire for growth is the characteristic of all living beings and is a struggle of opposites like, happiness and unhappiness, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and desirable and undesirable. Such a system exists to keep control of one over another and that is how growth takes place and continues for a time till it ultimately culminates into something else. The sequence of growth somehow is associated with the change in the character of individuals as well as that of the society, e.g. in human beings at initial stages (childhood) receptive character is predominant, which with the aging is replaced by explorative, hoarding, and marketing characteristics. The positive and negative aspects of these are described in details by Fromm (1947). When an individual develops explorative character a spurt in the growth of that individual takes place and brings a qualitative change in life which ultimately puts a considerable pressure on the resources. It is at this stage, the inner urge of becoming "something greater than what one is" is changed to an urge of becoming "something different from what one is". This is called development. This is how growth culminates into development. Growth is a prerequisite for development but development is not a prerequisite for growth with respect to living beings. In other words, development is a sequential event in the process of growth. 1f we can delay the onset of development, growth would automatically continue for a longer time. Development, therefore, is the reflection of evolution demarcating the limit of growth. Even the phase of development in the process of change is not determinate. It culminates in an urge progress, a change which takes place at a slower rate than that during the development. It is mainly controlled by maturity-dependent ideals and ethics.

Normally, growth, development and progress are often described as synonymous. Although all the three processes change in a forward direction as well as modification in a positive sense, of improvement, they have certain inherent differences. Growth and progress are self-directed and move forward due to spontaneous forces which are compatible in nature, whereas in development the (onward movement is according to a prefixed plan and could be competitive at many a times. We usually impute a standard of valuation when we talk of development. In the process, the surroundings of a developing organism society become secondary because the process moves randomly to fulfill a plan, a pattern and a design. The processes of development start with "I" move to "WE" and finally to "THEY". The evolutionary sequence of development in terms of space is explained nicely by Galtung (1983). He explains- the sequence of human development in six steps namely; inner, micro, miso, macro, regional and world space. This characterization of human system is valid not only for development but also true in the context of growth and progress. It is also fully compatible with the evolutionary process. However, in case of growth and progress, evolution takes place step by step, moving from inner space ("I") to micro-miso-macro ("WE") and family to regional- world space ("THEY"). Whereas in case of development the evolution can jump from one to another, leaving out some of them depending on the competitive attitude and capability of the developing individuals/societies. It is this phase of change during which there is maximum demand and use of resources, the issue which has been the Centre of debate in the past and more so during the recent past.

Development - A Necessary Evil - Development is a process of change for better felt by human beings and unequivocally planned to suit their comforts. Development can be perceived by individuals but is difficult to measure in absolute quantitative terms. Perceptions to the meaning of 'comforts of man' differ depending upon which group of individuals and which part of the World is involved. There is no standard methodology to measure the level of development. Development as a process of change makes its impact both in space and time simultaneously. Spatio- temporal variability the 'index of development', whatever it may be, exists and it is this variability, which attracts the attention of all concerned about development. Further, variability in space makes a quick impact as it becomes easily and readily apparent. Temporal variability, on the other hand, is difficult to elucidate as unfolding the past or predicting the future development scenario requires careful interpretation of chrono-sequences which themselves are not much known. Priorities, patterns and processes of development are regulated more under the influence of' observed' spatial variability and less under the influence of 'likely' temporal variability. Spatial variability is commonly referred in terms of disparity. Overcoming this disparity is invariably advocated collectively without any objective analysis of the practical feasibility of achieving such an objective. Opposed to this collective advocacy in reality, individual actions are performed and always aim for creating distinct identity of being more developed. The desire of achieving development at a level higher than that of others operates all along the individual biosphere continuum, starting from the level of a family to a nation or group of nations. Thus it is the competition for achieving higher and higher level of development, a continuing progress, which becomes apparent as disparity. Regions or communities considered to be 'developed' today were certainly 'underdeveloped' in the past and one cannot rule out a possibility that the present 'developed' once may turn out to be 'underdeveloped' again in future. All are concerned about such uncertainties which could neither be predicted nor quantified for their likely adverse consequences but the magnitude of the concern varies. Those who have already established their development superiority are more concerned about such uncertainties than the others. Science and technology are expected to, apart from improving the knowledge directly or indirectly related to finding solutions for development related problems of human beings, provide contingencies towards these uncertainties. Effectiveness of science and technology itself is subject to continued refinement with the passage of time. While scientists and technologists are required to find alternative and feasible but not ideal options well before a problem emerges, political and social institutions must ensure that available knowledge is properly utilized and resources are harnessed economically as well as distributed equitably.

Depending on the perceptions, the index of development varies from one individual to another and also from one society to another. In the present-day context, the accepted perception of development is the increase in income and improved standards of living; associated with this is the increased demand for resources-a necessary evil. No one wants to destroy nature, yet it is being destroyed. No one wants the future generation to be under stress and yet it will be. Everybody knows that road construction in hills leads to erosion and yet gives it first priority. This is because one cannot gain something without affecting another. In search of a better lifestyle, the undesirable things that are taking place are nothing but necessary evils. The only way to avoid them is to curtail development requirements to a point at which the masses will remain satisfied, and at the same time the system will continue. This, however, is not being achieved.

In the recent past, specifically following the first United Nations Conference on Environment & Development in 1972, emphasis was placed on looking at 'development' not merely in terms of betterment in quality of life but in an added dimension of a better environment. Such a perception of development is not a de novo thinking. Instead, it could make a dent or recognition because of the realization that present trend of development is not likely to continue indefinitely. This realization is substantiated by arguments and evidences that material gains with aspirations of endless development are likely to threaten the 'precarious natural processes' on which the very survival of mankind depends. It is expected to happen when development takes up a sharp angle within a short period of time.

Growth, development as well as progress denote a march forward. What is important for us to note is that as we move forward something is lost or disposed off. Therefore, growth, development as well as progress are necessary evils. Between them it is better to choose a lesser evil.

In every era there are some words that seem to obtain a seal of approval because they designate some unquestionably positive, sacrosanct things. But such words become ambiguous, in two different ways. Some of them exclude implicitly all other as in the case of word "development", which in the present-day scenario one wants the future generation to be under stress and yet it will be. Everybody knows that road construction in hills leads to erosion and yet gives it first priority. This is because one cannot gain something without affecting another. In search of a better lifestyle, the undesirable things that are taking place are nothing but necessary evils. The only way to avoid them is to curtail development requirements to a point at which the masses will remain satisfied, and at the same time the system will continue. This, however, is not being achieved.

In the recent past, specifically following the first United Nations Conference on Environment & Development in 1972, emphasis was placed on looking at 'development' not merely in terms of betterment in quality of life but in an added dimension of a better environment. Such a perception of development is not de novo thinking. Instead, it could make a dent or recognition because of the realization that present trend of development is not likely to continue indefinitely. This realization is substantiated by arguments and evidences that material gains with aspirations of endless development are likely to threaten the 'precarious natural processes' on which the very survival of mankind depends. It is expected to happen when development takes up a sharp angle within a short period of time.

Growth, development as well as progress denote a march forward. What is important for us to note is that as we move forward something is lost or disposed off. Therefore, growth, development as well as progress are necessary evils. Between them it is better to choose a lesser evil.

In every era there are some words that seem to obtain a seal of approval because they designate some unquestionably positive, sacrosanct things. But such words become ambiguous, in two different ways. Some of them exclude implicitly all other as in the case of word "development", which in the present-day scenario means only economic development. There are other words, which convey a large number of different meanings, as found in the terms like, Eco-development and Sustainable development. Deliberations at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm lead to the rejection of word "development" in the interest of humanity, and subsequent conferences on conservation and development proposed a few more new words to denote different type of development.

Eco-development: It is a process, which holds promise for improving the economic well being of people without impairment to the ecosystem on which people depend Mahatma Gandhi had proposed a similar type of development for village-based communities in India. The term "Eco- development" was coined by Mourice Strong, Secretary General of the Stockholm Conference, and subsequently used widely to denote the interdependence between man and nature and the changes in the ecosystem in the direction of higher productivity and greater relevance to the human needs. According to Sachs (1979), eco-development is an approach to development aimed at harmonizing social and economic objectives with ecologically sound management, in a spirit of solidarity with the future generation. It is based on a new symbiosis of man and earth and focuses clearly on the satisfaction of basic needs. Among other things, it includes low-energy strategies, resource-recycling, land use and settlement planning based on ecological principles and appropriate technologies. This type of development focuses on basic needs, participatory planning and implementation. It, therefore, includes various elements of populist and neo- populist thinking and also those proposed by Gandhi for village-based community development. The goal of which is to pursue economic development that relies on indigenous human and natural resources and that strives to satisfy the needs of the people.

Therefore, the eco-developmental approach is a compromise between underdevelopment and over development. Riddell (1981) suggested "downward adjustment" in the level of material consumption in overdeveloped and "upgrading" in underdeveloped nations. He further suggests that for eco- development we must establish an ideological commitment, sharpen political and administrative integrity, attain international parity, alleviate poverty-hunger, eradicate disease-misery, reduce arms, move close to self-sufficiency, clean-up urban squalor, balance human numbers & resources, conserve resources and protect environment. These suggestions are idealistic enough but need a tightly controlled society as well as strongly authoritarian state. However, in recent past even systems somewhat identical to this, like in the USSR have collapsed. India, the largest democracy, has yet to fulfill the dreams of Gandhi because of lack of behavioral adjustments in human beings. Therefore, a search for a suitable model of development continues.

Sustainable-development: It is being realized by everyone everywhere that the physical as well as biological foundations of life are being heavily eroded and this phenomenon is taking many shapes, like the depletion of biodiversity, man-induced climatic changes, pollution, landslides and all the maladies one can think of. It is increasingly being felt that the future generation will be under greater stress than we are at present, if we continue to use the resources in the same way as is being done today. Our future goals need to be deemed. In the recent past, ideologies and "sustainable development" have been advocated as appropriate goals - goals with many hidden questions, like, what is to be sustained - consumer or consumable, how far, how long, and at what cost? (Dahlberg,1991). Evidently, sustainability is an abstract attribute emerging from multiple visions of development, ranging from the local to the global scale in terms of spatial dimension and from a period of a few years to several generations in timescale. This necessitates a radical change in the concern for development from 'one exclusively for ourselves and for the present generation' to 'that for all including over selves and for many future generations, including the present one'.

While sustainability as a philosophy and policy appeals to everyone, there are conflicting opinions on the feasibility or possibility of achieving the envisaged goals and on the specificities of actions required to achieve sustainability. A fact that hundreds of millions are still deprived of even of the basic essentials of life (physiological needs) and a majority remaining under developed, gives rise to pessimism about the difficulty and impossibility of hitting targets of sustainable development. On the other hand, scientific and technological innovations known to have solved or at least eased many a problems in the past, make one to take an optimistic view. Unsustainable trends of development have been well established in many regions and situations, but practical answers as to how they could be replaced by sustainable ones are not so easily available. Serious problems are encountered in reconciling the economic and ecological needs of development. Planning and management with a potential of avoiding adverse effects on ecological processes without putting a brake on human aspirations for economic and social improvements are elegantly conceptualized but not available in acceptable and applicable forms. An urgent need of the time is to identify new patterns and trends of development and specific actions to target the identified goals with a concomitant change in socio-political attitude favouring adoption of such actions for implementation.

It is a fact that economic considerations had and continue to exert a stronger say in developmental planning, in comparison with the ecological ones. Economics is a much older discipline than ecology. There are fundamental differences between these two disciplines. Conventional economics considers that all basic necessities of human development can be regulated through market forces, whereas conventional ecology gave a paramount importance to least interference with natural processes. While conventional economics emphasizes on finding out ways and means of controlling the market forces and pricing policies, conventional ecology places emphasis on in-depth understanding of natural processes and natural systems (ecosystems). Contextual meaning of resource also differs in the two disciplines-in economics a component of biogeosphere known to have utility value for human beings is considered as resource, whereas in ecology all components of biogeosphere, irrespective of their utility value, constitute resources, that too not in isolation but in conjunction with the natural processes. Sustainability has received recognition more as a subject of argument in ecological and economic approaches of development than as a common problem to work on for finding solutions because at present economic considerations prevail over environmental ones. With no exception, a primary step in the decision- making process is to calculate the rate of development in terms of specified targets of Gross National Product or Gross Domestic Product, and then to identify the policies and programmes for achieving the envisaged targets. It is the secondary stage where the potentiality of environmental externalities is assessed for their likely impacts. The current process involves environmental 'impact assessment of economic development programmes' and not 'economic impact assessment of environmental development programmes'. Thus conventional economics and ecology offer competing and not complementary approaches to development. Sustainability as a desirable attribute of development imparts a judicious compromise between the two extremes. Exclusive preservation of either natural environment or maximum possible utilization of material resources based on monetary cost- benefit analysis satisfy the present and future development needs of the people. Relative importance of economic and environmental concerns in the perception of and prescription for development depends upon economic and environmental resource capacity of the region or people under consideration. As economic and environmental resource capacities vary in time and space, the perceptions of and priorities for development also vary along the two dimensions. This gets expressed in the form of divergent prescriptions for development.

Sustainable development embraces equity in development both in space and time. Inter- generational equity is as important as the inter-spatial one. The relative concerns for development in perspective of time and space differ radically. The 'more developed ones' (people or region) highlight the importance of inter-generational equity as the problems and status of ' less developed ones' do not matter for their own well-being. On the other hand, the 'less developed' care more for inter-spatial equity as it is the existence of ' more developed', which apart from their own problems relegate them to a secondary status. Poor or less developed people and those who fail to achieve a fair standard of living by themselves should not be expected to curtail their aspirations of development for the present generation in favour of the future generations. Obviously, the more developed regions or societies are likely to be more concerned about uncertainties of the future than the less developed ones who are struggling with situations likely to occur after overexploitation of the resource-base in the future. Prescriptions of sustainable development conceived and imposed by the affluent sections are therefore bound to be biased actions considered desirable for 'security for the future' undermining the present needs of the developing or under-developed sections.

The differing priorities for development result in actions often not felt desirable in underdeveloped or developing areas. Interventions for development always follow a unidirectional flow - from the developed to the developing ones. On account of being monetarily poor and lacking advanced technology, the developing regions or societies follow the directions set by the developed ones. Even within a country, rural poor are mostly neglected in the formation of development policy and therefore in the programme execution process. Alien interventions do accompany opposing effects. They bring battement at a pace and in ways, which would have not been possible otherwise through indigenous mechanisms. At the same time, they aggravate dependence on such interventions and thereby block the indigenous boulevard of development. Development targeted interventions are often conceived as impositions on the people because these are to serve the interests of the people elsewhere, leading to social and regional conflicts. People's participation in the development process, both in setting the targets of development and the design of development interventions, must be ensured for achieving sustainability as an attribute of development. Brundtland (1987) has pointed out seven requirements namely, a political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making, an economic system that is able to generate surpluses and technical knowledge on a self-reliant and self-sustained basis, a social system that provides for solutions for the tensions arising from disharmonious development, a production 'System that respects the obligations to preserve the ecological basis for development, a technological system that can search continuously for new solutions, an international system that fosters sustainable patterns of trade and finance, and an administrative system that is flexible and has the capacity for self-correction.

Development for Sustainability

I do not intend to go into further analysis of sustainability as such, but there certainly exists the scope to look at it from a different angle-growth or development.

Growth is a quantitative change in physical as well as physiological scale in a system whereas development is a spurt in growth resulting into quantitative as well as qualitative change. In both the processes resources are expected to be used. However, the resource-utilization rate' would be very high during development as compared to that during growth. This difference is relevant in the context of sustainability of the society. The word growth in relation to the society or the individual is not synonymous with one used for wealth or population, as perceived by the majority of people. Growth is more a physiological dimension rather than merely a physical measure. It is, therefore, a marker of gradual change in the magnitude of desires and satisfaction. In such a situation multiplication is associated with development rather than with growth.

When we put development as a suffix to sustainability, it conveys a meaning of a qualitative change, such as poor to rich, weak to strong, underdeveloped to developed and so on. A change in the magnitude rather than multitude is the one required for sustainability of a society. If the change is in magnitude, the system will last longer. We have the analogue of trees. They grow slow and develop (qualitative change) late, therefore, they last longer. On the other hand, an annual plant grows faster and gets transformed into reproductive phase rapidly and, therefore, dies early. Nature has provided the examples to be followed for the longevity of a system. Therefore, it is for us to think which path to follow. I feel this is the time to change the goal (sustainable) from development to growth in terms of consumers while for consumables it could be a qualitative change (development). Sustainable growth of a society can continue provided we have an aptitude to accept the use of qualitatively different resources at any given time to meet the demand so that quantitative use of natural resources is curtailed and they are allowed to regenerate for sometimes to come.

In recent past possibilities of sustainability of various resources like, agriculture, forestry, etc. are being explored. However, it is necessary to realize that sustainability of individual resources would hardly lead to the sustainability of a civilization without change in the behavioral attitudes of the individuals and that of a society. Sustainable civilization is possible only when the individuals of the society look for what is necessary rather than what is possible, or in other words, when attempts are made to control the desire rather than the satisfaction. This type of development will be " Etho-development .. and in a real sense, progress.

Etho-development: Cultural and ethical connotations of development have not received any significant recognition. The basic object of development is to feel happy and realize satisfaction. Resources, economic or environmental, are limited whereas demand in the normal course of development is bound to follow an upward trend. Cultural and religious philosophies do provide insight for feeling satisfied with whatever is available and not with whatever is possible. One gets satisfaction when one attends more to those less developed, and dissatisfaction when one looks towards those who are more developed. Distinction' developed', 'underdeveloped' and 'developing' come into picture only when comparisons are made. In the absence of such comparisons, one would be content with what he possesses. Religion, culture and ethics emphasize on unraveling the realities in absolute and not in comparative perspective. These make us realize that although we may like to move faster than time but certainly we cannot act before time. Therefore, religion, culture and ethics put a brake on aspirations of development in individuals by striking a balance between the capability of man to manipulate environment to meet his needs and the necessity of restrictive application of this capability. The development based on these has only three requirements, namely: self-reverence, self-knowledge, and self-control. This type of development is discussed in details in the last chapter.

We may give any name to the vital forces for human evolution: growth, progress or development, but it should have all the following eight dimensions, namely: ethical, cultural, educational, social, scientific, aesthetic, political and economic as described by Banathy (1988).

A purposeful and integrated design and implementation of the above dimensions will provide for the self-directed evolution of all our human systems through growth a balanced development and a satisfactory progress.

The above account of development brings out the fact that while strategy of eco-development and sustainable development have 11 and 7 requirements respectively, the concept of etho-development has only three requirements, as summarized in the table in prepage.

I have a feeling that any strategy which has higher number of requirements for being successful will be expected to take a longer time to show results. Therefore, like eco- development the concept of sustainable-development might also lose its charm in due course without contributing substantially to the society. However, the chances of the etho- development, with only three requirements, as shown in the table earlier, to make an everlasting impact are considerable.

## DEVELOPMENAL APPROACHES

SN | ECO-DEVELOPMENT (Riddell. 1981) | SUSTAINABLE

(BnmdtIaud, 1987) | ETHO-DEVELOPMENT

---|---|---|---

  1. 
|

Establish an ideological commitment

|  |

A political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making.

---

Self-reverence

  2. 
|

Sharpen political and administrative integrity | An economic system that is able to generate surpluses and technical knowledge on a self-reliant and self-sustained basis.

 | Self-knowledge

  3. 
|

Attain International parity | A social system that provides solutions for the tensions arising from disharmonious development. | Self-control

  4. 
|

Alleviate poverty hunger | A production system that respects the obligations to preserve the ecological basis for development. |

  5. 
|

Eradicate disease misery | A technological system that can search continuously for new solutions. |

  6. 
|

Reduce arms | An international system that fosters sustainable patterns of trade and finance. |

  7. 
|

Move closer to self sufficiency | An administrative system that is flexible and has the capacity for self correction.

 |

  8. 
|

Clean up urban squalor |

 |

  9. 
|

Balance human resource with number |

 |

  10. 
|

Conserve resources |

 |

  11. 
|

Protect the environment |

 |

* (Source: Green Development, W.M. Adams, 1990).

4. LINKAGE BETWEEN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT - REASONING AND ACTION

"There are strong linkages between environment and development but these are realized when one becomes mature and starts realizing that his own end is approaching fast."

The linkage between environment and development are strong and complex. Development is a phase in the evolutionary process, while; the environment is a concept of totality. However, since under the influence of the Western culture, the perception of environment has now been narrowed down to the concept of "resource" and development to the concept of the "quality of life", the linkages between environment and development should be analyzed from these angles first. To do this, let us keep in mind that mere existence of things does not make the world perfect and orderly. It would be wrong to think that the world is merely a collection of resources and would collapse if these resources are over used. Resources have to be causally integrated in an appropriate way so that it looks as a structured collection of resources, a unitary object, in which if we interfere in certain way with one part it affects the others. While integrating resources, it becomes necessary to rearrange them, connect them in a proper order and if required modify them to give a proper shape. We do make new things around us in doing so. The process of integration can be synonymous with development, which depends on the reasoning and power (energy) for action of living beings. Therefore, the links between environment and development are reasoning and power, power that is present in all living beings, and certainly more developed in the human kind. It is due to this that the human beings have reached the highest level of supremacy among all living organism's, in evolution. Therefore, the development is treated as a monopoly of human beings. However, the capability to integrate things is present in all living beings. All of them know their requirements for integration. Some of these requirements are compulsory (needs), in the absence of which integration is impossible, while others are induced and are competitive (wants), which are required only to modify the integrated structures.

Needs and Wants - The concepts of 'needs' and 'wants' are complex enough to be discussed in details here. However, some account is essential to work out the linkages between environment and development. Needs relate to physiological requirements whereas wants to psychological requirements. Beon and Peters (1959), have also argued similarly that wants are state of mind whereas needs imply a failure to measure up to an understood standard Some people consider 'wants' as 'felt needs' induced by the surroundings. In other words for something to be a need there has to be some kind of internal urge and restriction whereas for a thing to be a want it has to meet some kind of accepted external criterion. Therefore, "the intelligibility of a want is essentially a matter of its relationship to public, supra- individual standards and norms", as stated by Norman (1971). To specify more clearly, one of the obvious thing which can be called as "unqualified" need is survival and any resource required for it is obviously a "basic need". To go further, since survival is a "unqualified need" of everyone, to allow all others to survive, by way of providing basic needs or by preventing killing becomes a type of a "felt need". Under such a situation, a moral intension of evaluation is spontaneously generated in the needy individual and it is precisely this link which induces many forms of want-based utilization in individuals. For example, since there are circumstances under which one can save a life only at the expense of another, such as in self-defense, it because impossible to fulfill the "felt need" of always preventing killing and even the moral code recognizes such an exception. This proves that it is not possible to preserve every life, if life has its value, partly because there are particular circumstances where protection of life (highest value) can be brought about only if some lives are sacrificed. Therefore, although survival is a "unqualified need" but this depends on circumstances and value of one life over others. It becomes more complicated when we compare the value of one life over other, which means survival does not mean merely staying alive, it must be staying alive fearlessly, freely and purposefully. This means autonomy or freedom to act morally, which otherwise means a want, becoming a basic need. Therefore, needs and wants form a web according to the circumstance.

In an evolutionary perspective, the differentiation between need and the want is only a theoretical exercise. It is based on the value of a thing or an action with respect to time and space and is self-realization dependent, an issue to be discussed in details subsequently. From a metaphysical angle, the value correlates with all that is there in oneself and around oneself and in fact this makes one to appreciate what the value is, so do one comes to know and appreciate the natural things around him with which he is in close association. Therefore, the concept of value is the basic link between environment and development. The realization that the self is not only within but is extended to embrace things around Not all our parts are under our skin but if we are valuable, then so too is the system within which we exist. Therefore, we and the system within which we exist form the environment in some mysterious way. It is this type of thinking which induces in one the capability to find value outside. This makes one to feel that for one to be valuable one is expected to know the value of things outside oneself. In this context, the question whether a particular activity is environmentally proper or not should be considered in two ways: (1) by considering merely its external results, that is to say, its visible impacts; and (2) by considering the reasons of the doer. Let us take the example of land use in the Himalaya. It is said as well as is witnessed that farmers cultivate steep hill slopes as a result of which there is extensive soil erosion, which in turn leads to many environmental problems. Agreed that the visible impact and the external result of this activity is bad but at the same time the reasons of 'the farmer' are sound because very often he has neither the freedom to move elsewhere in search of land nor the means to stop degradation. Therefore, however disturbing the issue of soil erosion might be for an environmentalist it is irrelevant to the farmer.

The value assigned to a particular activity by its doer is much more important than that by an observer. There are several such examples where perceptions look nothing more than slogans as far as practical life is concerned.

Quality of Life - When we talk or think in terms of needs and wants and value, it is universally perceived that more of this better life becomes. If the quality of life is considered better it is called development. In other words, development is discussed usually in terms of direct and indirect processes leading to a better quality of life. But what is a better quality of life and what are the parameters for measuring are questions yet to be answered satisfactorily. According to common perception, quality of life depends on adequate food, education, health care, shelter, work, access to activities, which add to comforts of life, and freedom to make personal choice. However, all these are unlikely to be similar with respect to time and space. Therefore, the quality of life can neither be uniform nor i_ can have the same parameters to measure it. It reflects a type of dialectical relationship between man and the world around.

A modified form of the model of deprivation trap proposed by Chambers (1983) can be used to explain the quality of life, if the five parameters relating to disadvantages of deprivation identified by him are used as advantages of development. Stock of assets, social status, power, protection, good health and their interactions make the trap of development. Quality of life depends on the degree of control human beings have over living and non-living environmental components. Therefore, development is expected to lead to competition for the use of environmental components. In other words, environmental components are positively and functionally related to the developmental status of the individuals as well as the community. The development of an individual mainly depends on his efforts. Its rate is controlled by the life style of elites in the society. Therefore, an element of competition is but natural in the process of development of individuals. So is the case in the development of the society, where the limits of development of a less developed society are regulated by those of a developed one. In both types of development, individuals are involved. While at personal level each individual is a customer of development, at community level the individual works like a contractor and therefore, the developmental concept is expected to differ at individual and community levels. However, the links between environment and development are deeply rooted in the realization of the parameters of measurement of the quality of life by individual, who is ultimately looking for happiness. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze in some details the real concept of happiness, which makes strong link between environment and development.

Three qualities (self-awareness, reasoning and imagination) and three ideals (worldly morality, wealth and desire) differentiate human beings from all others. These qualities are also the curse for us as it is only with these that we are able to visualize a universal truth: the end of life - death. We know that it is certain, why not live happily as long as we can. Our highest worldly goal is, therefore, not only to live butto live happily. It is stated in Shantiparva of Mahabharat (190.9) that, "In this world or elsewhere, all human desire for materials is to obtain happiness". Our three ideals, namely: worldly morality, wealth and desire are the basic means available to obtain happiness. These three ideals put together form environment, and any act or acts which lead to happiness are perceived as development. In other words, development is a journey starting from environment to happiness. However, it should be kept in mind that all our acts are controlled by the three ideals and if anyone of these is inconsistent with the remaining two, it leads to unhappiness. Therefore, a balance between worldly morality, wealth and desires is the key to enduring happiness. Every human being is continuously struggling to obtain happiness, a feeling, which neither can be measured nor kept constant. We feel happy when we obtain the desired thing or able to fulfill an urge. However, once a desired thing has become available the happiness perceived in gaining of it gradually disappears. Therefore, the happiness today depends on the availability of means today disregarding those that we had yesterday. It is a dynamic experience which changes from time to time and the desire for happiness is a non-ending process. Because infinite happiness cannot fit into the finite word" it is always associated with unhappiness. Both happiness and unhappiness can be categorized as mental or material. During the course of changes in the attitude of human beings, we have metamorphosed from "human beings" to "working beings". We fail to derive happiness from our past and have started considering happiness synonymous with development, an experience which can be measured and monitored in terms of economic advancement. However, we have failed to recognize that development cannot be identical with happiness because the former is related more to material gain whereas the latter is mainly to mental ones. Development mainly aims at creating a new society that would free people from the previous form of social order, whereas happiness is directionless which can be perceived even in our past achievements as well as in future expectations. Although in both of them full satisfaction is never obtained, however, happiness is more individually based in which the role of outside in its realisation is minimum. In contrast, in development an individual compares himself with his next door neighbor. Materialism is dominant over mental attitude in development. Materialism is associated with possessive attitude, which lead to competition between two possessors and that is the reason for the socio-economic imbalances in the society. This issue will be discussed in more detail subsequently. Here we are mainly concerned with enduring happiness, an achievement brought about by our inner productivity, is not a satisfaction of our physiological and the psychological requirements.

Out of the three ideals, worldly morality (customs) and desires are individual-based and exist only in ideas. These can be perceived but cannot be measured. One cannot describe a single custom or desire, which is beneficial to everyone, everywhere and for all times. Therefore, both of them are dynamic perceptions and fluctuate. The third ideal, wealth, is the only ideal, which can be measured. This ideal also fluctuates but since its fluctuations can be measured, we try to build it up more and more. It is in this process that we have lost the track of our ultimate goal, happiness. The desire to accumulate wealth, prestige and power has become our incentives as well as the final goal. The moment we face difficulty we become unhappy and start looking for the means to gain happiness. In between we face satisfaction, joy and perceive advantages and the benefits. All these are perceptions and differ from person to person in time and space. Therefore, unhappiness is the beginning and happiness is the end The means to achieve the end are our ideals, like desire, wealth and morality. If happiness is the aim of life then one should try to understand the type of happiness required to survive.

Bhagwad Gita describes three types of happiness: (1) happiness which is like poison at first and like nectar at the end, which springs from a clear understanding of the self, (2) happiness which arises from the contact of senses with their objects and which is like nectar at first but poison at the end, happiness of passion, and (3) happiness which deludes the soul both at beginning and at the end and which arises from sleep, sloth and negligence. A majority of the people in the present-day scenario are going for a happiness of passion, without understanding its end effect. It is the first type which leads to a better life till the end. However, we are lost in the journey itself and are confused as to what is the proper path to be followed to obtain an enduring happiness. It is not a new curiosity to find the answer to this question. Even in earlier times such confusion existed and that is why there was the Mahabharat, a war for proper attitudes and right actions. Even in that period it was said that" what is right action and what is wrong is the question which puzzles even sages". Finally, however, the answer was found in the form of realisation and the "climax of confusion" was resolved by wisdom. This point will be discussed further in the last chapter.

In conclusion, the link between environment and development is a matter of realisation of values, quality of life and the maturity of thoughts. Self-love and sympathy are two original instincts it} man. Both of them are good but very often clash. Man tries to satisfy both but which of these instincts is to be given more weightage and at what time depends on his consciences and this is what makes the strongest link between environment and development.
5. NATURE OF PROBLEMS: A CONFUSION BETWEEN SELFISHNESS AND SELF-LOVE

"Race for the identity is the basic issue which has formed such a strong web that man himself has become a problem"

In the introduction, I stated that "Life is struggle of opposites and, therefore, man will continue to murmur under all circumstances...". As evolution is a universal truth so is devolution and, therefore, there is always a struggle of opposites. The components of environment (nature), living or non-living, cannot continue as such forever. In fact, the process of change resembles a mountain with a rise (progressive phase - evolution), a peak (ultimate limit) and then a fall (retrogressive phase - devolution). These phases might vary in time and space with respect to individual components. As such, as proposed by Hsu (1983), anything that can happen, will happen - it is only a matter of time. Extermination of one form of the living environmental components and its replacement by another form is an evolutionary process. Then, why is there a worldwide debate on environment? What are we afraid of Probably we are afraid of the things which can happen: unlimited proliferation, extinction or a catastrophe in the near future. In practical life, every human being is like a mountaineer who tries to climb a mountain _ of development) but after reaching the peak he finds the limit and retreats because if he tries to move beyond, he falls and that is what he is afraid of. Today, we are talking of environment at every platform because we are afraid of the retrogressive phase of evolution. As per natural law, this fall is expected and so it is a question of how one can avoid the retrogression. In this connection, it is necessary to review briefly the various aspects of man-nature inter- relationships. It has four possible angles, namely conceptual, environmental, scientific and social. These are discussed briefly below.

(1) The conceptual aspect is linked with the sequence of changes taking place in man/environment relation. In the initial stages of social progress man and nature were close to each other but in recent times man has come forward as the dominating force. Thus, the exponential form of development has come into obvious contradiction with natural physical systems. Now, with the development of an ecological approach, other demands are being made on the character and structure of society's production activity and the orientation of scientific knowledge and thought in general. The concept of development is being given a new, extended interpretation that takes account of the course of transformation of environment in man's interest, and of the striving to maintain traditional natural systems to some extent, while a balanced environmental strategy of the relationship of society and man's habitat is being substantiated.

Scholars all over are trying to overcome the dogmas of the traditional understanding of development, treating it not only on the level of economic indicators like gross national product, but also allowing for 'extraeconomic criteria' that were not in fact included in earlier theoretical schemes. Since the beginning of the 70s these criteria have been more decisively linked with clarification of principles of development that have made it possible to count on overcoming the critical character of the environmental situation building up in the developed countries. And whereas a socially neutral interpretation of world processes was given in the initial conceptions of, say, 'dynamic equilibrium', alternatives to this traditional approach have been proposed in later ideas, in particular in the concept of eco-development, which already allow for the special features of the world socio-economic process, e.g., the 'goal of mankind', or the inter relationship of social, natural, and cultural factors.

(2) The environmental aspects of the problem arise due to the expanding impact of society's production activity on natural, physical links and relations and their consequences on man. Climatologists, for example, are greatly apprehensive of global changes of an anthropogenic character. These changes may have both adverse consequences (the melting of polar ice) and positive ones (increase in the productivity of the biosphere through, say, a rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). The scale of the degradational changes in the environment in modern urban conditions is especially noticeable and it is having a substantial adverse impact on the whole living system.

(3) The scientific aspects of the environmental problem is linked with clarifying the prospects of scientific and technical advance in overcoming the contradictions between the relative limitedness of a further rise in the 'productivity' of the biosphere and the increase in the needs of social production. At the technical and technological level, rationalization of the Society/habitat relation is conditional on the transformation of human activity from traditional productive to compensating, controlling, forecasting activity. In other words, the way out of the paradoxes of scientific and technical adva.1ce by no means lies in rejection but in overcoming the adverse consequences of development and allowing for the envjronmental aspects of human activity. The perfecting of traditional technological processes along the line of increasing their' degree of closure' will not only help lessen exploitation of natural resources but also reduce waste and rubbish in man's habitat, and improve the 'quality' of the biosphere.

Realization of these ideas depends on the development of new directions in the structure of modern scientific knowledge, which is now faced with a need to analyze problems that go beyond the bounds of anyone science. Modern knowledge is at crossroads, as it, were, in scientific interpretation of relations between man and nature. On the one hand the traditional differentiation of science is revealing its limited possibilities of analysing problems of a global orientation; on the other, integration is coming up against many theoretical and methodological difficulties. With an environmental approach, as perhaps with no other approach of natural sciences, we shall get a 'differentiated integration' of science and be able to demonstrate the unity of world natural process.

(4) The societal aspects of the environmental problem arise due to the fact that the relationship between man and his habitat takes place in the background of a whole set of phenomena and processes of socio-economic and politico- ideological character inherent in modem times. The efficiency of the socialist mode of production and its principles of rational use of nature are demonstrated by the constructive solution of the environmental problem.

The problem of environmental crisis was primarily associated until recently with industrially developed countries, which is not swprising, since it is in them that the negative environmental consequences of scientific and technical development have become most apparent. There is no lack of scientific and popular publications that argue that modem 'technical civilisation' is taking us to the brink of serious environmental upheavals.

In developing countries analysis of the environmental situation is often pushed into the background. But the thesis that the adverse environmental consequences of scientific and technical development in its traditional forms are acquiring quite a dangerous character in those countries is slowly being confirmed in the present-day notations of 'West- centrism'. At the U.N. conference on environment (Stockholm, 1972) delegates from many developing countries indicated openly that the ecological situation was much more favourable in them than in developed countries.

The developing countries do not want to be by-passed by scientific and technical advance, and are striving to increase their scientific, technical and economic potential, to come up to the level of developed countries if not more. Recognition of the existence of environmental problems could therefore retard technical and economic development in them, which is why the leaders of some of them were stubbornly refusing until recently to recognise the acute nature of the present-day ecological situation not only in the developed industrial countries but also in developing countries. On the other hand, while it is now generally recognised that the 'man/environment' problem has become very acute in developed countries, an unjustified optimistic view is often taken of it as regards developing countries.

The real process taking place in developing countries, however, is gradually dissipating illusions of that kind. The scale of industrial and agricultural production, and the degree to which environment is exploited, and correspondingly the character of changes in the biosphere, differ in developed, industrial countries and developing countries; nevertheless a substantial modification of the historically established structure of man's habitat is also becoming a real factor in situations in developing countries. There are more and more reports from which it follows that the environmental situation in cities is becoming menacing rather than in rural areas. The great increase in the number of motor cars, as well as the growth of industry, is factors in degradation of environment in a number of developing countries.

Over and above all the factors mentioned above, adverse changes in environment have an underlying common cause, in a certain sense, characteristic both developed and developing ones, for they are all connected with the socio- economic contradictions of capitalism, extension of the scale of society's production activity, and the imperfection of traditional technological processes, and other factors. This does not rule out the existence of certain specific features go into shaping and development of the present environmental situation in developing countries. Let us consider some.

(I) Exploitation of the natural resources of developing countries by developed countries. In spite of the fact that most developing countries have acquired political independence, unequal economic relations have been imposed on the former colonies by the metropolitan powers to make the former economically dependent. The developed countries are treating the developing ones for effective application of capital, extraction of super profits and as a source of raw materials. In this fight to establish a new world economic order, there is a strong component of environment.

(2) The extensive exchange of matter and energy between man and his habitat. In farm production, in particular, this is expressed in a systematic expansion of sown areas, and grazing for cattle, etc., and in industrial production, in export of a considerable part of raw material resources and in setting up of small plants and undertakings.

(3) A low level of scientific and technical development. This makes it difficult to analyze the negative environmental consequences of any technical solution, a circumstance that is also delaying the creation of qualitative technological processes to meet today's environmental requirements.

(4) Intensive population growth. This is tending to increase man's 'pressure' on the environment, and is making it difficult, to some extent, to tackle both the socio-economic and the environmental problems arising in developing countries. The 'secondary character' of the demographic problems is obvious; but the structure of the 'population/resources' relationship is nevertheless having a marked effect on the character of the environmental situation in developing countries.

(5) Geographical conditions. Most of the underdeveloped! developing countries are in the mountainous regions or in the tropical zone which is in itself an example of a very unstable ecological system. and that is a circumstance deepening degradational changes in the environment in developing countries.

(6) Low educational level. The low educational level of the population and the influence of national prejudices of various kind greatly complicates solution of practical problems and makes it difficult to propagate awareness about problems of environment among the people.

(7) Corruption. Finally. I would point to the high corruption level in the political leadership in developing countries, which influences the whole national character especially that of the educated unemployed youth. This puts impediments in the spread of environmental awareness among the masses.

It should be stressed once more that the global character of the problem of inter-relation of man and nature explains the existence both of general factors and differences in principles in its solution in given opposing socio-economic formations. The 'limits of growth' are caused not so much by the possibilities of the biosphere as by constraints of existing social structures which have emerged as a result of sequence of change brought about by our search for modernization. as discussed below in brief.

The utilization of natural products by man ready for use predominated in early times. But, after satisfaction of his elementary biological needs man widened his exchange with the environment which ultimately led to the beginning of contradictions. The idea of growth belongs to the pre- historic period of Indian history. The Vedic period proclaimed that mankind, by reason and knowledge, could make progress. But, in the West the process of rationalisation led to a new idea of expansionism to other parts of the world, which led to a fast structural transformation and a new form of economy, which it identified as progress. The unity of the medieval culture split, leading to autonomy of emotions, religion, art, economics, politics, and military. This fragmentation of the cultural network led to an ever-increasing gap between technical and value rationality. The pr()('._ss of rationalisation got more and more empty and the capacity of emotional identification with a community, necessary for happiness, decreased. The unhappiness resulting from this process was more clearly apparent in the colonies of the West. This led to the emergence of the idea of nations, resulting in a plurality of completely independent states competing for economic and political freedom.

The concept of freedom and development was conceived by many people after the Western countries had completed their first phase of freedom and development. Unfortunately, the new independent countries fell in the trap again in the immediate post-waryears when they were made to perceive that from the standpoint of the freedom and development, their culture and values were inadequate. That historically developed indigenous cultures and values were obstacles and symbols of backwardness.

Intellectual circles in the West established their own developmental models and guidelines for the newly independent countries, which they considered as under developed countries. With a stream of publications, a development theory, called the 'mainstream version' evolved.

The focal points of this theory were: modernization of society through: (a) the devaluation of the past, i.e. of historical traditions; (b) adoption of modem (Western) behaviour patterns (education would have to play the role of the lever in the transmission of values from the West to the newly independent nations; (c) urbanization as the global path towards modernization;( d) adoption of 'cosmopolitan attitudes' supported by the culture-industry-the press, television and other mass-media systems; (e) economic growth by promoting industrialization, and by a relative neglect of agriculture, being too traditional a sector. At the political level, this model was opted for nation-building and the state was designated as the prime mover of development. Priority for the urban elites, with a relative skimming off of the surplus produced by the rural masses. This knowledge started selling in the developing and under- developed countries. These countries could not recollect the statement made by Plato long ago that "... If, therefore, you have understanding of what is good and evil you may safely buy knowledge of Protagoras or anyone; but if not, then, 0 my friend, pause, and do not hazard your dearest interests at a game of choice, for there is far greater peril in buying knowledge than in buying meat and drink...".

The mainstream version of development was basically to replace the constitutional colonization into an economic colonization, by projecting that the Western Societies are the elites and need to be followed if the other societies want progress. It resulted only in elite-absorption and left the masses out in the cold in the countries who followed this new version of development. The final result is a tension among the masses in these countries, more apparent to-day than ever before.

Another influential development theory called 'the stages of economic growth' was postulated by growth for the developing countries. According to growth all countries would have to go through the same stages. After a fl1'St 'traditional' stage these have to follow a second one, in which the 'preconditions of modernization' were established. The third stage called 'take-off'. is followed by the 'drive to maturity'. After this the last stage of 'high mass consumption' arrives. This theory made nations to aim for too much in too short a time. They started to work for alienation and this led to change in their priorities and those of their people. This model of economic growth shows an almost exclusive interest in capital accumulation as a central agent of development. It influenced the developing countries to orient their planning for rapid development rather than gradual transformation without changing from colonial administrative approach to management approach. This was the case with all these countries, but the effects were different in different countries depending on their old traditions and pace of transformation.

The above mentioned approaches of development are now being considered as traditional economic approaches, which is increasing the gap between developed and the developing/underdeveloped countries. Globalization and equity is being talked about. To achieve this, "trickle down theory" is being proposed by some development planners. According to which the rich must increase their demand and buy even more resources from the poor so that the money flows from them to the poor. Another view is that the rich must stabilise their rate of resource consumption so that the resources are available to the poor, which they should transform into their own necessities. To me both the approaches and the very idea of globalization is an utopian approach. Unfortunately, we are opting for solutions without analyzing the fundamental nature of problems. The problem is not of equity in economic growth but of man/nature inter- relation, which has been discussed earlier.

Thus the nature of the problem of development has been analyzed in brief on the basis of some of the changes which have taken place in societies in the recent past. No one can deny the fact that societies are created by man. So if something goes wrong in the sequence of change in the society, man has to be blamed for it. It is his behavior which is the cause of all the problems and, therefore, needs some analysis to understand the nature of the problems relating to environment and development.

Tensions have arisen in mankind's relationship with nature during evolution. We are acquainted with crises caused by nature's forces or due to disturbances in them, like, earthquakes, floods, drought, famine, epidemics, etc. All these have the local character and are limited in time. They are generated by outside causes, by the forces of nature and man is only their victim and not the cause. In the present crises we are concerned more about the result of our own deeds, which have a clearly expressed social character and are accordingly manifested differently under different social systems. We all know about the population crisis, energy crisis, food crisis, raw material crisis, and so on. These are the crises of material kind, for which alternatives can be found or worked out with the help of science. But in addition to these we have a crisis due to the excessive and fast flow of information in the recent past. It has quantitatively exceeded our capacity to apprehend it. As a result, it is affecting our nature and the behaviour qualitatively and is leading to confusion regarding our place in the constantly changing society. We fail to recognise our own self-esteem, our intrinsic value, and our own personality and individuality. We are running in search of our identity in society, which will be discussed in detail subsequently. To a great extent, the flood of information, about the elites and the elite societies, has made us to use more and more of the nature.

Every time, with excessive use of nature, the nature of the man bas changed whenever man lost contact with man and aimed only the material gain, there was a crisis. Therefore, man himself is the problem. In the words of Fromm (1947) "He works and strives, but he is dimly aware of a sense of futility with regard to his activities. While his power over matter grows, he feels powerless in his individual life and in society. While creating new and better means for mastering nature, he has become enmeshed in a network of those means and has lost the vision of the end While becoming the master of nature, he has become the slave of the machine which his own hands built. With all his knowledge about matter, he is ignorant with regard to the most important and fundamental questions of human existence: what man is, how he ought to live, and how the tremendous energies within man can be released and used productively".

Changes in human beings, their character and their social relationship, are the causes of all problems perceived at various levels. These changes involve uncertainty and risks. These also involve conflicts between different interests and ideologies. They are local, national as well as global in nature. Some of the problems are probabilistic in character and, therefore, are not taken seriously due to more pressing problems of immediate concern to individuals and societies, like global warming is a problem but it is probabilistic and is of global nature. It is obvious that compared to food and fodder problem at the local level. global warming is far removed and therefore of little concern to individuals, and so is not taken seriously. Some problems have immediate impact while others have long-term societal impact. All these disparities in the nature of problems lead to different perceptions with respect to resource bases, such as the state of soil, water, forest in one region as compared to other regions or countries.

It has to be kept in mind that development is a never-ending process, until some environmental components become a limiting factor or the .superiors (elites) in society have a fixed target. As stated earlier, it is like a mountain with progressive and retrogressive slopes. Since environment, on which development is based, is a dynamic system the rate of development is expected to be different on either side of this mountain. The trap of development, therefore, becomes more and more complicated with the process itself. It is worth mentioning here that a competition among the human beings is going on for supremacy. At present, we have as many as five "crates", namely, politico; bureau; techno; aristo; and auto in the society. These "crates", the elites of our society, are distinguishable on the basis of their approach to identifying "rights and wrongs" in environment and development. Although the thought of correctness is characterized by acts which provide happiness for the "majority", but the basic attributes of selfishness, social dependence and competitiveness even among these "crates" lead to disparities in identifying the "majority" that they are talking about and the kind of environment they are discussing. A feeling of antagonism between environment and one of its evolutionary phases (development) has, therefore, arisen. This antagonism has grown to such an extent that the persons involved in the execution of a plan are facing utter confusion, which one can see from the differences in the advocacy made by the two types mentioned below:

DEVELOPMENT PLANNERS | ENVIRONMENT PLANNERS

---|---

Natural diversity is valuable as a resource for us. | Natural diversity bas its own (intrinsic) value

It is nonsense to talk of value except value for mankind. | Equating value with value for human beings reveals a racial prejudice.

"Resources" means resources for people. | Resources means resources for living beings.

Although some statements made by environment planners are reflections of a well-established metaphysical doctrine and concern everyone, but on the individual level no one really follows them in his own life. There is an obvious weakness in the environmentalist's planning. It does not take into account the potential of man. It does not recognize that an infinite possibility lies hidden in man which makes him a mystery. As pointed out by Sastri (1929) - nobody can tell how he (man) will express himself at a time of crisis. It is this possibility which directs and brings man, step by step to the ultimate realization of the differences between his needs and wants and the quality of life as well as the meaning of it. Man's current life could be regarded as his potential so far realized. But his potential is limitless. He is, or some thing in him is the ultimate reality. He is not a passing entity who is here today and will not be there tomorrow. The web of values around him makes him a mystery. He has succeeded in finding a solution to the problem of nature's value only by opting for an anthropocentric perspective in the past and he will continue in that path.

Another criticism which can be leveled at environmental planners is their core value assumption, based on the claim of biospheric impartiality. This view is motivated by the claim that all living things have an equal right to live and flourish. But how many of us will allow the multiplication of the AIDS virus or a hazardous bacteria or any organism that threatens our own existence?

One needs to ask who is planning and for whom? Who will say how much is too much? Who will realise what is going to collapse and how? In my perception, it is man, a visible supreme on this earth, behind all that has happened and will happen. Everything is for him, no matter what the environmental planners may say. In this context, let us touch upon the psychology and the behaviour of man, which has been described in great detail by Fromm (1947).

There is a multiplicity in the behaviour of man and it will continue forever. No two persons can be identical in their behaviour. Probably in future, when the "test tube babies", with identical genome, start coming out of the HighTech factories, we might have a population of uniform nature, similar behaviour, and identical perceptions. Till such time, there has to be conflicts in perceptions. Some people will crave for peace others for aggression; some will preserve nature others overuse it, some will care for ecology others for economy and many other things. Although from the physical point of view we are inter-dependent, but psychologically we are far apart even from our nearest neighbour and our own parents. There is much talk of think globally and act locally. But in reality the concept of globalization appears Utopian. However, the tensions can be reduced if everyone tries to mould himself. Let us analyse the nature of problems from this angle.

At individual level, no one has time to think globally and act locally in the present day situation. Everyone thinks locally and acts individually because the basic nature of human beings is selfIsh. The poor perception of environmental indicators of specific problems in one region as compared to another is probably due to differences in cognitive habits, languages, knowledge, values, ideologies, organization, power and control over resources, behavioral styles, professional styles and many others (Saderbaum, 1991). We are not able to reduce the magnitude of development induced necessary evils mainly because of the diversities in our motives. In practical life, different sections of a society or, for that matter even different individuals of the same society have different motives, for example, bureaucrats want mainly to maximize budget control by minimizing the expenditure. Costly alternatives to reduce the magnitude of adverse effect of development, therefore, will not be accepted easily by them, if it needs their financial approval. Politicians seek to maximise their votes and, therefore, they will go all out to press their demand, even if it adversely affects the environment, to strengthen their vote bank. Similarly, farmers have the motive to maximise their income and will not hesitate to use any inputs within their reach, even if these affect other parameters adversely. Therefore, man is basically ruled by his motives which vary from person to person. Such diversities in motives are realities in economics and have recently been advocated as Public Choice Theory. Above all the biggest problem is that in practice all thinking habits relate to economics and management of resources at an individual level rather than at national or international level. The monetary concept of resource allocation predominates at all levels. Insufficient and fragmentary knowledge and information, which most of the time is contradictory, complicates the problem further. It can be concluded that the problems are more due to behavioral changes than due to anything else. The slow progress in environmental awareness has certain basic reasons which need to be looked into before remedial measures can be thought about. Unless a man, by experience, finds where his difficulty lies he does not realise the importance (or utility) of the knowledge to be applied for surmounting the difficulty. Therefore, perception of problems in time and cultural context is a pre-requisite for requisite solutions to problems. The importance of environment and development are realised by everyone individually as well as in groups. However, whether the former two are equally important or one of them is more important than the other depends on personal perceptions in practical life. There is a dichotomy in perceptions at the individual and societal levels. In practical life, every individual wants rapid change and rapid improvement which when compounded leads to rapid use of resources. However, for society a gradual change is proposed. This leads to disparities between perceptions and situations at the societal level. The truth is that environment is being given more importance by those who have used it to reach a level of development and then perceive stagnation ahead so far as their further development is concerned and have realised that the inability of others to recognize mistakes committed by them will threaten further advancement, or might even worsen the situation perceived so far. Their life style, commonly known as Western life- style, has strongly penetrated other societies because it is required as a mark of superiority. This perception continues to persist in underdeveloped or developing societies, which still feel that development is more important than environmental concerns. Therefore, while some societies argue that western civilisation is not the answer for sustainability, others stiII feel that there is a need for following it to achieve rapid progress and improve the quality of life. The basic problem however, is not the classification of civilisation but how to choose a criterion of a better civilisation and a better quality of life. It is in this context one has to seek the shelter of philosophy.

Man experiences pleasure in owning rather than using things. He wants to possess things only because it adds to his standard of living. But the more he owns, the less satisfied he feels. As a result the level of life is getting poorer with the rise in the standard of living. The needs of the needy are being ignored and therefore the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. Selfishness is increasing. Although man behaves as if he is motivated by himself but actually his life is being driven by aims which are not his own. The "self' in the interest of which man acts is not within him but outside in the society. His greed is rooted in the frustration to obtain what others have. While he seems to be moved by his own will, his will has been weakened and reduced to small part of his total strength and will-power, separated from his total personality.

The outcome of the passion for possession is the passion for prestige and power. Regardless of whether one is a big or small holder, his life is devoted to the fulfillment of his economic function, the increase in the holding. But what about those who have no capital and who have to earn a living by selling their labour? The psychological effect of their economic position is not much different from that of the capitalist system. In the first place, being employed means that they are dependent on the laws of the market, on prosperity and depression, on the effect of technical improvements in the hands of their employer. They are manipulated directly by him, and to them he becomes the representative of a superior power to which they have to submit. In his passion for prestige and power, his actions are controlled by his desires and not by his knowledge. He fails to realise that all his desires can not be fulfilled. His desires are determined by those who are most powerful in the society and carry so much prestige that the lower classes are more than ready to accept and imitate their values at all costs, and to identify themselves psychologically as powerful beings in the society.

Lack of faith is another characteristic, which has grown in man. To overcome the social disorders, Indian philosophy advocated faith in the infinite power within man (Om-Tat- Sat ). It is a dynamic concept to realise the importance of an unknown and unseen energy within man, a truth and the mode of life which must be adopted in order to differentiate the desirable and non desirable actions. The concept of faith was introduced as a binding force (religion) between individuals, societies, regions and nations. Unfortunately, under the influence of western pseudo Scientific notions, a feeling has developed that there is nothing within man all is out side. Therefore, man has lost faith in himself and due to which normal restrains have lost their meaning leading to the crisis in character and morality. The freedom of the will has fallen victim to a determinism. A feeling that the past is illusion, present is tense and future is going to be perfect has developed, especially in youth. I wish it was correct but I am sure it is the illusion. Cohesion of past, present and future is essential. For none could really live in the present feeling that every thing in the past was an illusion. When we learn to look upon our past as perfect, when we place savagery as a bye-product of degenerating human beings, we shall be better able to educate our next generation about the sustainable development. Through our faith in the past we can face the challenges of future constructively.

Identity Crisis: The problem of identity has assumed global dimensions in recent years. Evidence of this is clear when we use the words western and eastern, developed and under- developed, north and south blocks, rich and poor and so on. What is meant by 'identity'? Quite schematically one can say that it is a matter of man's understanding of his own place in relations with others. A proper understanding of identity will resolve the root problem of interaction of man with society. In other words it is man's understanding of his place in the midst of human beings around him that are like him and yet different. It is his understanding of his own importance and value.

The modern dominant trend in industrial countries, urbanization, is one of the principal causes of the development of the crisis of identity. Contemporary writers see positive as well as negative trends in the problem of identity, and it is the negative trend that is leading to the 'crisis of identity'. It is now taking on a special significance. While the other forms of crisis (energy, raw material, etc.) affect man indirectly, through economy, social system, industry, etc., identity crisis affects his inner world and system of values. It is therefore clear that in spite of its seemingly ephemeral nature, it is especially cruel and brutal and its significance should in no way be underestimated. It deserves special attention.

One of the main causes of identity crisis is seen in the present day dominant trend toward urbanization. The destitute villager, for example, lacking the most elementary comforts, sees in urbanization the way to get the blessings of modem civilization. The city with its glitter and wealth attracts the man from the countryside. But in most cases bitter disappointment awaits him. After having been caught up by the octopus like town he finds himself doomed to vegetate in slums and gets depersonalized, and becomes a small vanishing particle of the surrounding mass. Life in slums is not much better than life in a village hut. But it is fierce and exhausting. The struggle for survival is intense and the threat of unemployment is ever present.

No one denies the achievements and advantages of urbanisation. But taken to the extreme these become opposite. One becomes victim of material goods leading to a terrible spiritual impoverishment, losing one's self-esteem in the midst of vast faceless crowds. Instead of finding access to goods of civilisation, progress, and comfort, he meets apathy, distrust, fear and cruelty. Depersonalization, the first component of urbanisation, is also a direct cause of loss of identity.

Finally, the identity crisis is the result of sociological factors. The strongest influence is that of the continuously mounting unemployment. It evokes a feeling of not being wanted, a feeling of being 'surplus'. It alienates, makes him confused over the goal of life and creates spiritual emptiness. In contrast to that there are the aspirations underlying the structure of the society. These are sound self development based on a positive content, the existence of a clear goal; first of all, the upbringing, education, and moulding of the young. This consciousness of responsibility leaves no room for a spiritual vacuum, fills life with content, serves as the basis of a positive personality of real worth, identity, and is the opposition to crisis.

Leisure, the available free time with the man, is becoming one of the biggest problem of man. During the last century, the average hours of daily work of most of the people have been halved and man is trying to reduce them still further. But he has not learnt to use the leisure and, therefore, he kills the time. Most of his work is being done by machines. As time passes and technology progresses, most of his work will be taken over by more sophisticated machines. Even thinking for him may be done by robots. At this stage he will find himself in a complete vacuum and then he will feel alienated and get frightened of himself.

The main difference between man and animal is the development of intellect and emotion in man. Thus man can to some extent control the direction of evolution. But he has developed a desire to become "perfect". It has forced him to stray from the path of social benefit into a morass of personal wants. This has hampered his power of realization that he can never be "perfect" because the day he reaches that stage he will have nothing to do and, therefore, he will vanish. The boomerang of his ambitions for "perfection" and the wrong direction of social development is now threatening to return on him. Therefore, he will continue to murmur and continue on that path till he realizes that it is the beginning of an end for him. He may revert back but it may then be too late.
6. AN APPROACH FOR PROPER ACTION - ETHO-DEVELOPMENT

"See globally, think locally and act accordingly - probably is an approach for proper action and excess, which is an in-born sense of fear in doing or gaining any thing beyond a limit, of any action is bad for everything."

Let us return back to the evolutionary sequence of change in terms of space and time. It is nicely defined in great epic "Mahabharat" and more recently explained in present day common language by Galtung (1983). Human evolution starts with the inner space, where the individual's identity goes beyond the body and focuses on the inner space, which is the key for self-realisation. The last limit in progressive evolution is world space, where development is seen in terms of identity with the entire humanity and each and every human being thinks and acts globally and develops global consciousness. Probably, beyond this there can be no evolution. However, once this stage is reached man will not stop there. He will continue to search and act to find what could be after that, probably devolution, where man will have to take the backward journey into inner space in search of appropriate action. In this context, let us analyse the system we are living in, the Universe, and the laws governing it.

This Universe consists of two subsystems, namely, spirit (energy) and matter. We can never know the full relationships of these two subsystems. The Universe in itself is infinite and an open system having no end, in both space and time. However, while one subsystem (spirit) is open another subsystem (matter) is a closed one, which will come to an end in time, where-upon these subsystems may cease or repeat themselves. Although empirical, the first law of thermodynamics explains the first subsystem relating to spirit: that it cannot be created or destroyed. Second law explains the behaviour of the second subsystem and the third law covers the interactions between the two. All the three laws are mentioned in Indian philosophy (Bhagwad Gita, chapter 2) and are only redeemed by the present day scientific community. In this infinite Universe, fusion and fission are taking place simultaneously and, therefore, depletion of one leads to the synthesis of the other. The real problems, of course, is that our perceived biological time span, and in some cases even our personal lifespan, is different than the lifespan of some of the substances that we at present regard essential to our civilisation and, therefore, we feel constrained. Under such a situation, there cannot be any other proper action but to try to understand more than what we know or to redefine what we have defined earlier. That is what science and technology do. Therefore, those who feel that our present scientific and technological advancements have added to the environmental problems are not correct. In fact, science and technology as a system are identical with the Universe. These are the open systems with no end and, therefore, there is nothing like "excess" which could be bad for the Universe. Science and technology constantly and persistently take a step forward. These are in their infancy and will probably continue like this. On the other hand, our actions form a web of closed systems which, once stretched beyond a limit, come to an end in time one after another and we might be forced to repeat them, as and when required in fact in chapter 4 of Gita it has been said that the effects of action (karma) are unfathomable. I am not going deep into the philosophy of action but the fact remains that it is our action which makes a strong link between our environment (body) and development (perception of spirit). To keep a proper balance, one must learn to distinguish what one can do from what one wants to do before embarking on a course of action. Let us review briefly the philosophies in this connection.

There are two distinct philosophies of life. According to one, man can freely manipulate his environment for his own purposes.

Man sets his objectives, develops a plan to achieve them and then acts to change the environment accordingly in order to execute the plan. The opposing philosophy is that although man has the power to manipulate the environment, it is in his interest that 4e should avoid this; he should try, however, to adjust himself to the changing environment. Since environment itself consists of a constantly changing continuum of the gradients which are not perceived very quickly, man should be able to apprehend and adopt to these changes. Once man refrains from manipulating the environment, he will be able to watch the interfaces between environment and development and will also be able to sense the ripples of possible changes, their potential affects and the changes required for his survival.

Out of these two philosophies, the first leads to short- term gains and the second, to long-term societal solutions. The former results in abrupt changes while the latter brings about gradual ones. I would venture to point out here that inherent in the second philosophy is sustainability. However, in the recent past those who have followed the fIrst philosophy of life have demonstrated that their quality of life is superior than those following the second. Therefore, in the present day context there is, not surprisingly, a tilt towards the first philosophy, which is basically because of our perceptions of development. But what is the time span of a perception? .

Like the sequence of change in development, the perception in relation to changes are also basically sigmoidal in nature, starting slowly then accelerating in the middle and settling family at saturation on the top level. The historical events indicate that all developmental activities show this type of pattern Even in the cognitive habits, knowledge and information, the sigmoidal pattern is apparent. Changes in perception are age dependent and so is environmental awareness; and since aging is time dependent, environmental awareness is expected to take sometime. Societies which are considered to be well developed at present have already aged to the extent that they are finally settling at the saturation top level in the sigmoidal curve and, therefore, have become more environment conscious than their counterparts which are still at the starting level or near the middle of this curve. Perceptions lead to change in behaviour resulting in cultural evolution in due course of time.

Rannel has nicely explained that man is the only species, which has succeeded in bypassing the genetic evolution by an entirely different kind of evolution, i.e. cultural evolution, where acquired experience is transmitted orally or in writing from one generation to another (Rannel,1992). Although a certain amount of cultural evolution can be traced even in other species, the development of this kind of evolution is of an entirely different dimension in man and it provides the explanation of the success of man as a biological species. The cultural evolution in man adds to the genetic development of his brain and his ability to exploit and to transmit acquired experiences. In man, the faster rate of cultural evolution has accelerated the ability to transmit and store information. From the beginning man was favoured with oral transmission of information. The introduction of written symbols and their development into written language, constitutes a revolutionary invention in this context. Other spectacular progress in information transmission occurred with the art of printing, which permitted a systematic spread and storage of information. The consequences of the new computer techniques, which entail almost unlimited possibilities to store and to sort out information are yet to be realised. In the past, geographicar isolation of groups of individuals gave rise to various dialects and evolved various cultural subspecies which underwent several stages of selection, adoption, convergent and divergent developments, leading to diversity in human beings. However, with the modem information systems besides the development of vertical transmission and storage of information from generation to generation there has been a spectacular development of horizontal transfer of information via newspapers, radio and TV. This global spread of information has reduced the geographical boundaries and impoverished the cultural' diversity and has created as well as accelerated global culture by breaking cultural and behavioral barriers between human populations to a great extent. Technologies and the value systems of leading industrial countries are spreading with a consequent loss of cultural diversity similar to the loss of biological diversity. We are proceeding towards a monoculture of human beings. Presumably, a uniform acquisition of living and evaluation patterns will have negative environmental consequences and be counter-productive in the long run. As emphasized by Adiwoso and Falkenmark (1992), local behaviour and cultural patterns in developing countries rest on a long-term adaptation to local environmental conditions and a sustainable use of natural resources. The value system and behaviour of high-technology societies cannot suit all uniformly and will cause environmental destruction and non- sustainable use of resources. On the one hand we are advocating conservation of biodiversity but on the other trying to reduce our own diversity. Since the major problems of today are due to conflicts of interest over-resources, the reduction in the cultural diversity in human beings is expected to have serious consequences as a result of conflicts for the identical resources. By giving above exposition, I do not advocate that cultural evolution in human beings should stop. In fact, it should speed up, but the diversity should also be maintained. Genetic development of the human species occurred long before cultural evolution started. This means that man was genetically adapted to an entirely different way of living than what he experiences today. This in turn points to an adaptive flexibility of almost unparalleled capacity in man, as compared to other organisms. Let his genetic instinct developed under different living conditions remain there and let the people maintain a large variety of cultural and ethnological groups. Probably, such diversity, to some extent, will help sustain long lasting human welfare.

This tantamounts to an acknowledgement that all cultures have "an essential contribution to make in preserving the diversity required for sustainability. This may be achieved in two ways. First, each of them may help to bring out certain values and views bearing on man and society, man's relationship with nature and the importance of spiritual dimension in values and views specific to tradition. This may convince people that each culture is advanced in some respects and an awareness of plurality will result in working out of several development models, each one tailored to the community to which it is intended. In recent past Western intellectuals have projected that values and outlook on life rooted in classical paradigms have lost their force and ability to provide guidance, but I strongly feel that it is a wrong perception. Let the guidance be researched by those who need to be guided.

The modem, fast information transmission technologies and all media should be used to project the drawbacks and miseries of most "developed countries" like, the problems of single parents induced by fragmentation of the families, fear of death all the time due to isolation, free sex and its impact and many other things. Similarly, good points of the developing societies should be projected in the so called developed countries. Once it is done people will themselves select possible alternatives or models. The people should have the choice and they will then look for positive, constructive, and strong alternatives if they are to enter into a meaningful relationship with the world.

As mentioned earlier, development is linked with growth, which is an outcome of evolution. We have achieved our present level of development by tapping the immense natural environment components and in doing so we have modified our habitats to a considerable extent and this process will continue even if we do not want it to happen. It was with the intention that change should take place at a slow pace, ethics of worship and conservation, being talked about loudly these days, were evolved and remained with us. During evolution these ethics had become a primitive culture. For example. the polytheistic attitudes still prevail in society, in which one worships everything before using it. The fear of depletion of nature's components are expressed in the ethics of worship even today in our culture. It is, therefore, sound enough to conclude that polytheism was a tool to maintain a balance in nature. With declining religious conviction in this approach, ethics of conservation has become a matter of lesser importance in the course of cultural evolution. It is this change in our attitude which is the enemy threatening the extermination of one or another environmental component at a rate faster than what we had presumed If this goes on, it will be due to changes in our religious, cultural traditions and not due to natural events. Therefore, there is a need to control the changes in our cultural traditions. Realizing the possible impact of the course of development, radical humanists have always advocated in the past that economic gains should always be made subordinate to the needs of the people. Even in recent past economists like, Schumacher (1973) have stated that "Economy as a content of life is a deadly illness...". The Club of Rome in its publication "The limit of Growth" has also proposed that a radical inner human change is the only alternative to environmental catastrophe. The report proposed that a new world consciousness, a new ethic in the use of material resources, a new attitude towards nature based on harmony rather than on conquest, a sense of identification with the future generation and an attempt to refrain from doing what man can do in terms of economic and technical advancement, are essential. However, this report remains silent on how these changes can be made. Fromm (1981) has suggested that human character can change provided: (i) there is a suffering of a magnitude which affects all humanity, (ii) the cause of this suffering become apparent to the majority. The origin and remedies of sufferings are known and it is accepted by the majority that in order to overcome them we must follow certain norms for living (religion) and change our present approach of life. In this connection it is necessary to mention how "religion" should be interpreted the word religion has its roots in Latin word "religio", meaning bond In other words, the rules by which all beings are held together by customs or precepts or interests is religion. Therefore, directly or indirectly, religion is worldly morality or the systems laid down for the maintenance of the society. Similarly, faith is another component of religion. In fact, absence of this component is the root cause of all sorrows. In this context, it is necessary to point out that as time changes laws relating the worldly life also change. If one has to consider the propriety or otherwise of anything pertaining to a particular time one has necessarily to consider the requirements of the society prevailing at that time. One cannot find a religion which is beneficial to everybody at all time. However, the basic fact remains that the principle of religion is always the same, that is worldly morality in relation to time and space. Unfortunately in the course of time some pseudo-religious people gave a bad name to religion by advocating religious fanaticism which created an antipathy towards it.

For a religion to be useful, the representation and management systems of a society need to be modified on the lines which exist in families even today, and are summarized below:

## REPRESENTATION SYSTEMS

Existing | Required

---|---

Marketing attitude | Productive attitude

Slogan loving | Silence loving

Spectator loving | Participator loving

Dignity driving | Dignity providing

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Existing | Required

---|---

Loyalty of rules | Loyalty to humanity

Afraid of personal responsibilities | Take personal responsibility

Treat human being as material | Treat human beings as living things

Administration in quantitative terms | Manage things in qualitative terms

Derive power from position | Provide power to position

With these changes production will serve the real needs of the people rather than the demands of an economic system; exploitation will be replaced by cooperation; mutual antagonism will be replaced by solidarity; the aim of all social arrangements will be human well-being and the prevention of ill-being; sane consumption and not maximum consumption. Further well-being will be striven for, and all individuals will become active, not passive participants in social life, as visualized by Fromm (1981) for a sustainable society. Can we bring these changes? Many people advocate that there is a need for an evolutionary movement in the society to bring about the changes mentioned above, but I strongly believe that true change is possible only when it begins in persons who advocate the change. Society as such does not act, it only gives directions and if the individuals fail to act then the directions have no meaning. Here it is pertinentto mention Sri Aurobindo's concept of individual and the society. He attaches primary importance to the individual and not to the society, when it comes to the question of reforms. Sri Aurobindo points out:

" The community exists by the individual, or its mind and life and body are constituted by the mind and life and body of its comprising individuals; if that were abolished or disaggregated its own existence would be abolished or disaggregated, though some spirit or power of it might form again in other individuals; but the individual is not a mere well of the collective existence; he would not cease to exist if separated or expelled from the collective mass the individual can exist and find himself elsewhere in humanity or by himself in the world ".

Man is a planner for himself, a perfect one. Self-realization is the core of his success. Therefore, our highest wisdom is the self-realization, which is based on a moral standard within us to know what is right, what we should do and what to refrain from. For all practical purposes, there is a standard within every one and it is immaterial how this was created, whether, according to old creeds, by direct inspiration or, as the science told us, by the slow evolution of primitive faculties, and accumulation through countless generations of hereditary influences tending towards the survival of the fittest, both of individuals and of societies, in the struggle for life. In either case the standard is there, but the difficulty is in following it.

To a great extent, the standard within us is the product of education and depends on the environment in which we are brought up. These outward influences, combined with inward capacities, should give us a conscience, which tells us in clear enough accents whether we are doing right or wrong. And it is equally certain that by acting in accordance with this conscience we shall, on the whole, be doing better for ourselves first of all and subsequently for others. It is not easy to make our life even a tolerable approximation of doing right for the sake of right, and it would be folly to allow any theoretical considerations as to the origin of the idea of right to be an excuse for relaxing any of the constant and strenuous effort which is required to keep our feet from straying from the straight path. It is much wiser to cast around for influences and persuasions to strengthen the inward law, and to endeavour by clear insight to bring reason to the aid of faith, and enable us to see intelligently the main causes both of our weakness and of our strength.

The basic requirement to bring about the required changes is the change in the behaviour of the individual. Only then societies or even governments would change, because these two are mere extensions of the individual. What we need today is self-respect, self-knowledge, and self-control. These are the three pillars of wisdom which support wise and well ordered practical life. Combination of these three leads to the etho-development as mentioned in chapter 3. These aspects will be dealt with in some details in the following few paragraphs.

Self-reverence, in its widest meaning, includes the faculty of forming some ideal standard superior to what exists in us and recognizing in ourselves some power of approximating to it. The higher the standard the nobler will be the man. It is by no means a rare gift confined to a few selected individuals. It is the commonest and most universal incentive present in all human beings. However, not all can attain a high standard within them.

From "self-reverence" we rise, step by step, to higher ideals. It is the advantage of the present age that education and the press present instances of devoted heroism vividly before millions who would never otherwise have heard of them. The influence of the press, both in the way of books and news papers helps people to rise to higher ideals and induce sense of self-respect.

Among the many advantages of self-reverence is that it teaches respect for others. Petty jealousies and suspicions, senseless quarrels, slandering and backbiting, which so often turn sour the quality of life, disappear by themselves when a proper standard of self-reverence has been firmly established, and a high ideal of human life has become part of our nature. This is how one develops self-respect.

In all aspects of practical life the one essential requisite of success is to see things as they really are, and not as we wish them to be; and for this purpose "self-knowledge" is the foundation of a clear insight. If the focus of the glass is wrongly adjusted it will show only distorted it pages, but if one looks through a clear glass, objects will be truly represented. There is nothing for which "self knowledge" is more indispensable in practical life than to enable a man to steer a straight course between extremes, and to discern clearly the boundary line between right and wrong. The law of polarity is that the things good in themselves when pushed to extreme become bad, and every truth develops a corresponding error. "Self-knowledge" enables a man to see clearly how much he can earn and at what cost. Most of the mankind has neither the opportunity nor the faculty for playing for very high stakes, and it must content itself with the safe game of moderate and attainable ends. The man who fails in this is a failure; while the man who by his industry and energy supports a family in comfort and respect according to his station, and who, at the same time, by control of his temper, kindness, unselfishness, and sweet reasonableness makes his household a happy one, may feel, even if fortune may not have placed him in a position of higher responsibility, that he has not lived in vain, that he has performed the first duties and tasted the truest pleasures of motal existence, and that, whatever there may be behind the impenetrable veil he can face it with head held high, as a "Natural Man".

Self-control is vitally important for a happy and successful life. Self- reverence and self-knowledge may point out ever so clearly the path of duty, unless self-control is constantly present we shall surely stray from it. At every moment of our life natural instinct tells us to do one thing, while reason and conscience tell us to do another. It is by an effort that we refrain from indulgences and forego pleasures, control our passions, restrain our tempers. The uncultured man is violent, selfish, and childish. It is only by inherited or acquired practice of self-control that he is transformed into a civilized man -courteous, considerate, sensible, and reliable. Education really resolves itself very much in teaching the young to acquire this indispensable faculty of self-control. The best school to learn self-control is the behaviour of a mother, who suffers silently to rear a child. The necessity of self-control is all the more important in those minor acts which make up the greater part of our life, and determine the happiness or misery of oneself and others.

Take, for instance, the question of the pursuit of money. The desire, or rather the necessity of making money, is by far the most powerful and all- pervading influence. And, within due bounds and under proper conditions, it is a healthy and beneficial influence. At the lowest stage it obliges men to work instead of remaining idle, and this is an immense advantage both to the community and to the individual. An idle man is generally worthless and often a bad one while an honest working man whether his work be of the head or hand, is far more likely to be happy and respectable. Again, the necessity of earning money is a wonderful test of the real value of a man in world market. The desire to earn money has inspired even artists, scientists and writers of great repute. Shakespeare's ambition was to retire to his native town with a moderate competency and so is the case with all other great people. But on the other hand, there is no doubt that, when carried to excess, it is a fertile source of crime; and even in a lesser degree, it leads to meanness and dishonesty, and has a degrading influence on the individual or the nation which devote itself exclusively to the worship of the "Laxmi i.e. Wealth".

As has been mentioned earlier, development is the expression of environmental evolution. However, its rate is controlled by the life style of elites in the society. This idea has not emerged recently but probably is another universal truth as is apparent from Sloka 21 of the 3rd chapter of the Bhagwad Gita, which says that "whatsoever a great man does, the same is done by others as well; whatever standard he sets, the world follows". In the present day context. Radhakrishnan (1970) has interpreted this sloka as: "common people imitate the standards set by the elect. Democracy has become confused with disbelief in great men. The Gita points out that the great men are the path makers who blaze the trial that other men follow. That light generally shines through individuals who are advanced elements of the society. They are the light shining on the mountain top while their companions sleep in the valley below.' Probably it is our present day path makers who have led the common man to neglect the importance of our traditional culture.

A few Slokas have been quoted from Gita with a view to say that there are ways to delay the undesirable events that may cause a catastrophe. Such concepts are well described in the epics of all religions. Today the cry about environment and development is being raised by those who are on way to the peak of a mountain of development or those who have already reached the peak, whether it is a society or an individual. Those who are developed are the ones who are talking of the danger of an environmental catastrophe. Because they are afraid of the fall they apprehend, they are trying to convince others to either move slow or not to climb up the mountain. However, they themselves are still trying to go up. Is it possible that these people will be able to convince those who have yet to start climbing up? The masses will be convinced only if those who are at the peak start retreating and those who are on way, stop where they are. They unite and give one and only one definition of "right and wrong" with respect to the use of each environmental component. In other words, preachers of today become teachers by demonstrating that they mean what they say. If such a precedence is set then only we will be able to delay the "thing which can happen" which may exterminate us.

In case the philosophy of self-control does not penetrate the heads of elites in the society or the elite societies, the rate of retrogressive development will be faster and extermination will be quicker, specially for those who are near the peak of the mountain of development. Therefore, the elites need to develop self-reverence, self-knowledge and self-control, if we want to have environmentally-sound development for the future. As stated by Gore (1992) in his book Earth in the Balance, "the more deeply I search for the roots of the global environmental crisis, the more I am convinced that it is an outer manifestation of an inner crisis that is, for lack of better word, spiritual". The sooner the other politicians also realise it the better it will be for all.

According to Indian philosophy, individuals of different age groups should have different duties and standards of conduct. Only then the principles of "self- control", "self-knowledge" and "self-reverence" will operate properly. Probably what we need to revive now is the concept of Asrama (stages of life. Education up to the age of 25 years should be compulsory for all. No one should be allowed to become a householder before this age. No one should be allowed to enter in the politics before the age of fifty and no one should be given any managerial responsibility after the age of seventy-five. In fact persons after this age should be requested to teach their experiences to those who are in the first Asrama. One would laugh at these suggestions but this thought will certainly be considered seriously soon.

There is much more that can be said, but my object is not to preach or moralize, but simply to record a few practical rules and reflections which have impressed me in the course of a life of varied fortunes and experiences. I do so in the hope that perchance they may awaken useful thoughts in some, especially among young readers, who may happen to go through these pages.

The conclusion, it is rightly described by someone as "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity". Life with all its drawbacks is worth living. To be born in an educated family and prosperous country in the twentifirst century is a boon for which a man can never be sufficiently thankful. Some may find it otherwise. The majority of men and women may lead useful, honorable, and on the whole fairly happy lives. I am sure, all can act on the maxim - "Fear nothing; make the best of everything", provided one knows oneself. The world has an auto repair system, a cyclic one. It will never go wrong if man keeps normal speed. Only God can save those who are moving too fast or those who are left far behind. I know, it is the individual who is at fault. It is he who needs to look into himself for reality, as it is he, who forms the society and serves it. Let us start self-study, self-appraisal and the experiment of our own sustainable development, which is the only way, which will lead to the sustainability of the society. Many people consider that such an attempt by all will lead to perfection. However, I know perfection is not possible and in fact should be avoided, because anything which becomes perfect becomes invisible.
REFERENCES

ADAMS, W.M. (1990). Green Development. Routledge, London.

ADIWOSO, S.R. and F ALKENMARK, M. (1992). PopuIationlandscape interaction in development. A better perspective to environmental sustainability. Ambio, 21 :31.

AUROBINDO (1972). The Life Divine, Vol. II. Pondicherry.

BANA my, B. (1988). A systems view of development. In: Goals of Development, UNESCO, Paris.

BENN, S.I. and PETERS, R.S. (1959). Social Principles and the Democratic State, Allen & Unwin, London.

BLOC, E. (1970). Philosophy of Future. Harder & Hardert, New York.

BRUNDTLAND, H. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

CHAMBERS, R. (19.83). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman, Harlow.

DAHLBERG, K.A. (1991). Sustainable agriculture - fad or harbinger ? Bioscience 41:337-340.

FROMM, E. (1947). Man for himself. Ballantine Books, Random House, Inc. New York.

FROMM, E.(1981). To Have or To Be. (Bantam Ed.), Bantam Books, New York.

GALTUNG, J. (1983). Development of society and development of person. In: Meeting of Experts on Philosophical Investigations of the Fundamental Problems of Endogenous Development, Gabon. Paris, UNESCO.

GORE, A. (1992). Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Houghton Mifflin, New York.

HSU, K.J. (1983). Ac_listic catastrophism, Sedimentology 30: 3-9.

MacIVER, RM. and C.H.P AGE (1950). Society - An Introductory Analysis. MacMillan & Co., Ltd, London.

NORMAN, R. (1971). Reasons for Action, Blackwell, Oxford.

RADHAKRISHNAN, S. (1970). The Bhagwad Gita (2nd ed). Blackie & Sons Pub. Pvt. Ltd. Bombay.

RANNEL, C. (1992). Man as a biological species. Ambio, 21(1): 75.

RIDDELL, R (1981). Ecodevelopment. Gover, Aldershot.

SACHS, I. (1979). Ecodevelopment: A Defmition. Ambio 8 (2/3): 113

SADERBAUM, P. (1991). Actors, roles and networks; An institutional perspective to environmental problems. In: Linking the Natural Environment and the Economy. C. Folke and T. Kaberge (eds.), Kluwer Academic Pub. Sweden.

SASTRI, K. (1924). An Introduction to Advaita Philosophy, Calcutta.

TILAK, B.O. (1937). Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya. (English Translation by Sukthankar, A.S., Sixth Ed.1986)Oeeta Printers,568 Narayan Peth, Pune, India.

TILTON, J.E. and SKINNER, B.J. (1987). The meaning of resou.rces. In: Resources and World Development (eds. D.J. McLaren and BJ. Skinner), John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp. 13-27.

96

