Economic progress or environmental conservation

Economic progress on the cost of Nature destruction and polluting the environment might prove lucrative for few people who are in the business. But it costs the livelihood of next generation and health of unborn child. If that is okay for us, then lets do the business and destroy all. Let's concentrate on making money and your own profit only. Forget about the world; forget about the people or livestock or wild animals or birds or river and springs. Money is the biggest thing. Isn’t it ?!

But if we care about everything around us, and we want our next generation live happily ever after, and then we should work on environment friendly economic progress. Economic progress is important and we need that with time and space of civilizations. But if we keep balanced 'Economic progress in harmony with Nature'; that would be the best option we should follow.

Firstly, I don't think, bigness never earns a profit alone and don't think about other. In a free competition bigness always try to serve the consumers, because they want to be the best among consumer.
And I don't know why people now a days are so much worrying about future,- I would say those people " worrier"- , future more than 100 years letter. Why don't you have faith in your future generation, I think our future generation will be more capable then us to solve their problems.
If you look at the history, its all the same-- Before people use to burn wood, there were some" worrier" who would say- stopping cutting trees, but there was a new invention of coal. Same thing happen with coal, and same thing is happening with the oil. One guy told me, now we have to control the use of nuclear energy because the uranium is limited. So, even people got this issue a serious one, I would take it as a "good joke- lol".

its not worrying. its simply being alert and doing the better thing than being "I'm always right" . if u think a bit philoshophically there is a 'kill' in every business. without killing there is no business. there is every part everywhere in small to large scale.

if u dont 'kill the end user' by price hike or cartel or things like that then u dont have profit. the business is not lucrative.

ultimately it boils down to nature of human. there are brilliant people in less number and not so brilliant. (its not about smartness !) and most of time 2nd catagory people are doing business and making money or ruling this world. but the first catagory are always right cause they always speak truth. Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Buddha, Mahavir, guru Nanak etc were among them. they all spoke truth. but they were prosecuted one way or the other.

can you talk to the people of "Mohanjoddaro" or "Harappa" now? can you ask them how their lives were? what were ther importance? the answer would be a big "NO".

they took every sensible things as a "good joke" !
coz they were the people who believed saving Nature, over deforestation, polluting water were their birth right !!

Now they are gone to dirt. not a single Anthropologist has came close to dechipher thier civilization. Not even close.

but in contrary "Kashi" (Banaras) India is a living archeology. its older than 6000 years.

why ?
Because there came few sages who thought "we need to give something back to our future generation."

and this was the asia's intellectual mecca. and still it is. even today many foriegner's visit Varanasi to understand another concept of life death and living. Even Gautam buddha had his his preaching root in Saarnath, Varanasi.

the question is- what is worth of being a Human? if its is centered to profit and personal benefit; then we are not thinking better than any animal.

we can do business and make profit. there is no harm about it. but in what cost? that is important.

if we follow western philoshophy then they teach nothing than consume consume consume. kill them all and consume. evalute the all wars of this world. from stone age to today's "war against Terrotism" what were the reasons ? the final answer - kill, loot and consume. and make new generation your slaves. physical, economical, political etc.

the whole idea is leaving something of this world behind intact.

every one would be happy to recieve some heritage from thier father or mother after their death. your smile / grinn would be cheek to cheek for recieving it.
what about some one's father, who left a huge debt behind and you have to pay back ? you never consumed, bvut you are forced to pay. would you be still smiling?

the question is what kind of father or mother you want to be for future generation?

Take economic development as development, not only as bigness but also, supporting bigness and free market means strongly supporting "rule of law". And If you have a rule of law, there is no chance of cartel, because any one can do there work. If you think any bigness will hike a price, then there will be his competitor who sells in the lower price. Infact, bigness men will hike a price in those system where the government will decide the amount and price of the goods, for instance- sugar, oil etc, in case of Nepal. Have you ever heard, a price hike in Motor bikes or computers... Its all because government let market to do all the treading activities.

I am not telling that I am in favor of polluting any things, but when it come to economic issues it should be the choice of the people. For instance, I use C.F.L in my house and I have 5 trees in my house which exceeds the number of my family members. But whenever I go to Baht-bhattini, I prefer to take a plastic bag rather than jute bag,cause I don't want to compromise Rs15 every time with the jute bag. but I don't criticize selling of jute bag, because they are in a novel cause of protecting environment and never force me to buy that bag, If the things would have been compulsory I may not support that cause and left the store.

Western countries are rich enough to compromise few economic drawback for the shake of environment, I have a respect for them... but I don't think so Nepal is economically strong enough to compromise development with environment. So, Nepali should not be forced either to stop developing or to protect environment. So, I think it's a personal choice.

Now economic development doesn't mean that supporting- wars, kill, loot and I have not mentioned anywhere that I am following any western philosophy. and I always liked Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Buddha, Mahavir, guru Nanak etc, because they are able to change themselves according to time. And I want me to change according to time and I am trying it even there are so many obstacles.

I am not talking about making new generation making slaves, Infact, I have a strong believe in them that they can come across any problems, finally I want a competitive son who can come across any problems and challenges, and I don't want them dependent upon us.

Economic development and environmental conservation can go hand in hand. Both can be achieved at the same time, especially if we consider Nepal and its potentials. The best way to do this is by using the environment as a platform for economic development. We have seen that Nepal prospered by the influx of tourists. Tourism in Nepal can be attributed to the environmental beauty of the country. Nepal can be a global example in the field of environmental tourism, the next generation of tourism is going to come from this group, of environment friendly and "tree hugging" people.
Nepal has been able to reap the benefits for years of tourism. The whole industry is a driving factor to the overall growth and development of the country. Frankly speaking Nepal does not have a future in the manufacturing and production sector. We do not have the resources nor the market for manufacturing. The manufacturing or the secondary sector of the economy in Nepal in the long run cannot sustain due to aggressive influx of products manufactured abroad. This is not economically viable to the nation, to spend millions and to get very less in return. In fact Nepal has seen huge success in the service sector. This sector is going to be the backbone and foundation for growth and development for the country.
Therefore it is important to understand that economic growth and development is not going to destroy or damage the environment but rather help protect the environment as a necessity for livelihood. It is not the question about how economic development is going to damage the environment but how economic development can be achieved by understanding and using the environmental resources that we have. Our biggest wealth is our environment, our nature, our unique wildlife, flora and fauna. To exploit these in a way that does not damage the environment should be our target. We should not and do not have to choose between the two. We can achieve both.
Nepal has such vast and diverse resources that we can use them and not damage them at the same time. Take an example of the medicinal herbs that are found in the country. Can we not learn to cultivate them and then make them into medicines? Can we not just invest in pharmacy production or medicine production. This can be a huge development, both for the environment and the economy. Medicines are always in demand and producing them require millions for research and development, however these very medicines fetch thousands when sold. The only thing we need to learn is how to cultivate and make sure that we have a constant supply of the required ingredients. This way we will be compelled to protect the environment, because it will be a part of our economy. Similarly, we have huge potential in the hydropower sector. Producing hydro power is a huge income generator. However to protect the environment making huge reservoirs will damage the environment, but making canals and adopting the concept of 'running water' hydro power production. Which will only divert the required amount of water to the production center and the rest will continue flowing in its regular path.
There are hundreds of thousands of option for both economy and environmental growth and development. We just have to choose the best model for Nepal. So that we do not have to compromise on either one.

Rushil wrote:Economic development and environmental conservation can go hand in hand. Both can be achieved at the same time, especially if we consider Nepal and its potentials. The best way to do this is by using the environment as a platform for economic development. We have seen that Nepal prospered by the influx of tourists. Tourism in Nepal can be attributed to the environmental beauty of the country. Nepal can be a global example in the field of environmental tourism, the next generation of tourism is going to come from this group, of environment friendly and "tree hugging" people.
Nepal has been able to reap the benefits for years of tourism. The whole industry is a driving factor to the overall growth and development of the country. Frankly speaking Nepal does not have a future in the manufacturing and production sector. We do not have the resources nor the market for manufacturing. The manufacturing or the secondary sector of the economy in Nepal in the long run cannot sustain due to aggressive influx of products manufactured abroad. This is not economically viable to the nation, to spend millions and to get very less in return. In fact Nepal has seen huge success in the service sector. This sector is going to be the backbone and foundation for growth and development for the country.
Therefore it is important to understand that economic growth and development is not going to destroy or damage the environment but rather help protect the environment as a necessity for livelihood. It is not the question about how economic development is going to damage the environment but how economic development can be achieved by understanding and using the environmental resources that we have. Our biggest wealth is our environment, our nature, our unique wildlife, flora and fauna. To exploit these in a way that does not damage the environment should be our target. We should not and do not have to choose between the two. We can achieve both.
Nepal has such vast and diverse resources that we can use them and not damage them at the same time. Take an example of the medicinal herbs that are found in the country. Can we not learn to cultivate them and then make them into medicines? Can we not just invest in pharmacy production or medicine production. This can be a huge development, both for the environment and the economy. Medicines are always in demand and producing them require millions for research and development, however these very medicines fetch thousands when sold. The only thing we need to learn is how to cultivate and make sure that we have a constant supply of the required ingredients. This way we will be compelled to protect the environment, because it will be a part of our economy. Similarly, we have huge potential in the hydropower sector. Producing hydro power is a huge income generator. However to protect the environment making huge reservoirs will damage the environment, but making canals and adopting the concept of 'running water' hydro power production. Which will only divert the required amount of water to the production center and the rest will continue flowing in its regular path.
There are hundreds of thousands of option for both economy and environmental growth and development. We just have to choose the best model for Nepal. So that we do not have to compromise on either one.

I totally agree to your point, But I have a few examples like- "Crusher industries", it helps very much in the economy of Nepal and provide approximately 100000 jobs directly, investment in the sector stands at about Rs 120 billion whereas there is a total business of about Rs 50 billion by export to India annually, Export of crushed stones and sand to India only through Bhairahawa customs alone was generating Rs 800,000 in revenue everyday. The Rupandehi District Development Committee too generates annual revenue of Rs 150 million from the export of crushed stones, gravel and sand. But the crusher industries are doing bad to environment a bit. So, What do you think of it? Should the crusher industries is to be closed or do their work???

george wrote:Economic progress on the cost of Nature destruction and polluting the environment might prove lucrative for few people who are in the business. But it costs the livelihood of next generation and health of unborn child. If that is okay for us, then lets do the business and destroy all. Let's concentrate on making money and your own profit only. Forget about the world; forget about the people or livestock or wild animals or birds or river and springs. Money is the biggest thing. Isn’t it ?!

But if we care about everything around us, and we want our next generation live happily ever after, and then we should work on environment friendly economic progress. Economic progress is important and we need that with time and space of civilizations. But if we keep balanced 'Economic progress in harmony with Nature'; that would be the best option we should follow.

Economic progress doesn't mean at the cost of environment or nature i believe. In fact, I think business is the only way of conserving environment. And i don;t think making profit is such a bad thing...everyone makes profit..whatever you do you do for something...everyone has an incentive to do something...if it's okay to take salary or take fees or take donations why is it bad to make profit?? Businesses related to tourism are also conserving the environment and making profit....One great example is National Geographic ...they are making profit but yet helping conserving the environment...

i strongly agree with what polestar has just said...well the human interest needs to have a break...needs to know the limit...the limit the nature can withstand...u can do the business without deteriorating the lifestyle of human of other leaving beings...the fact about crusher industry is that they were only supposed to pull out stones which are blocking the path of the rivers or simply are deposited at the banks...but the reality is seen other wise...they go for more than needed...and hence people suffer with the consequence...economic up-liftment without considering natural status is a sin and has to be stopped...

I agree to evening polestar and Razor blade, but what do you guys think, if we need to compromise environment a bit for the sake of economy what should we do???

Saurav wrote:

Rushil wrote:Economic development and environmental conservation can go hand in hand. Both can be achieved at the same time, especially if we consider Nepal and its potentials. The best way to do this is by using the environment as a platform for economic development. We have seen that Nepal prospered by the influx of tourists. Tourism in Nepal can be attributed to the environmental beauty of the country. Nepal can be a global example in the field of environmental tourism, the next generation of tourism is going to come from this group, of environment friendly and "tree hugging" people.
Nepal has been able to reap the benefits for years of tourism. The whole industry is a driving factor to the overall growth and development of the country. Frankly speaking Nepal does not have a future in the manufacturing and production sector. We do not have the resources nor the market for manufacturing. The manufacturing or the secondary sector of the economy in Nepal in the long run cannot sustain due to aggressive influx of products manufactured abroad. This is not economically viable to the nation, to spend millions and to get very less in return. In fact Nepal has seen huge success in the service sector. This sector is going to be the backbone and foundation for growth and development for the country.
Therefore it is important to understand that economic growth and development is not going to destroy or damage the environment but rather help protect the environment as a necessity for livelihood. It is not the question about how economic development is going to damage the environment but how economic development can be achieved by understanding and using the environmental resources that we have. Our biggest wealth is our environment, our nature, our unique wildlife, flora and fauna. To exploit these in a way that does not damage the environment should be our target. We should not and do not have to choose between the two. We can achieve both.
Nepal has such vast and diverse resources that we can use them and not damage them at the same time. Take an example of the medicinal herbs that are found in the country. Can we not learn to cultivate them and then make them into medicines? Can we not just invest in pharmacy production or medicine production. This can be a huge development, both for the environment and the economy. Medicines are always in demand and producing them require millions for research and development, however these very medicines fetch thousands when sold. The only thing we need to learn is how to cultivate and make sure that we have a constant supply of the required ingredients. This way we will be compelled to protect the environment, because it will be a part of our economy. Similarly, we have huge potential in the hydropower sector. Producing hydro power is a huge income generator. However to protect the environment making huge reservoirs will damage the environment, but making canals and adopting the concept of 'running water' hydro power production. Which will only divert the required amount of water to the production center and the rest will continue flowing in its regular path.
There are hundreds of thousands of option for both economy and environmental growth and development. We just have to choose the best model for Nepal. So that we do not have to compromise on either one.

I totally agree to your point, But I have a few examples like- "Crusher industries", it helps very much in the economy of Nepal and provide approximately 100000 jobs directly, investment in the sector stands at about Rs 120 billion whereas there is a total business of about Rs 50 billion by export to India annually, Export of crushed stones and sand to India only through Bhairahawa customs alone was generating Rs 800,000 in revenue everyday. The Rupandehi District Development Committee too generates annual revenue of Rs 150 million from the export of crushed stones, gravel and sand. But the crusher industries are doing bad to environment a bit. So, What do you think of it? Should the crusher industries is to be closed or do their work???

If I had a say I would shut some of the crusher and such industries as you mentioned it is bad for the environment. It is not only bad for the environment but it is a high risk industry as it will finish one day and very soon. But we also have to understand that these industries are the livelihood of many of our people, so i think it is best to have a balance of it as in to open a few and close most of it. Both the economic growth and the environment will have to compromise to come to an understanding and continue protecting the environment and develop and grow the economy.

The more we hammer the environment and take the nature for granted the more we will suffer from depreciating effects of our resources. The more we consume today the less we will have tomorrow. And it is not going to finish in our children's or our grand children's time but in our lives. The tourism industry we boast about will end and burn into ashes if we do not protect our environment. The stones that you say are blocking the rivers and laying in the banks of these rivers are a major attraction and importance for white water rafting which is a huge industry in Nepal and these are also important for the ecosystem, this will have a huge effect on the fishing industry. So go ahead take out as much stones as you want to and all you have to do is wait for a few years, and then we will see the consequences of our actions today.

There is always cost-benefit analysis to every thing, Why don't we go for that? Have we forgot, the reason behind the great dams being not constructed in Nepal? Its just because, few birds and animals will die, if we could have compromise those birds and animal before, we could have using more electric stuffs now can could have controlled over the diesel for using generators to very large extent. Why do we think the reason behind google using all the solar power i think its because they are economically sound. European countries would not have been using wind energy if they are poor like we are. Why do we have to always follow the populist ideas and forgot the unindented consequences. So, I think cost-benefit analysis should be done before doing any activities, I think environment or economy is the individual choice and every body go for clean environment if they are economically sound.