A Critical View On Global Crisis by Dr. Dilip Ghosh

A Critical View On Global Crisis*

Dr. Dilip Ghosh

1. INTRODUCTION

There is a general consensus of opinion that the world is going through a crisis unprecedented in history. It may be argued that in historical context, crises have always existed in one form or another - whether be they ï¿½ famine, pestilence, war, natural or man-made disasters or whatever it is. But the difference that confronts us today is the nature and its global extent. The present crisis is not one of national, regional or sub-regional dimension, but one that stands in the cross-road of the very core of our civilization, of its self-preservation and prosperity and of its self-destruction on a global scale that has never been experienced before. It is this and its complex link with politics, economy, ecology, sociology and technology, and above all, the human attitude towards it that makes it so unique, and thus, a monumental challenge to human capacity. The question is - shall we be able to overcome it? And how? This paper is precisely a modest attempt to answer such questions, propose some ideas and provoke further thoughts. One may look upon a ï¿½crisisï¿½ as a ï¿½threatï¿½ or a ï¿½disasterï¿½ causing loss of human lives, material resources, damage to moral strength - in short, a traumatic experience ï¿½ which in the past, had been generally limited to local regions or community. The gravity of the present situation lies in the fact that the likelihood of a global threat ï¿½ disaster or crisis has never been so high.

The critical point the writer wishes to convey is the helplessness in forming wise decisions to act in a way to avoid or minimise the effect of negative disastrous results that the present global crisis presents. This is, in fact, an ï¿½intellectualï¿½ crisis or what may be termed a ï¿½crisis of conscienceï¿½ challenging the ï¿½integrityï¿½ and ï¿½honestyï¿½ of our thought process and actions in a way we have never been confronted in the past. At no juncture in history have we faced this crisis which reduces us to a hopeless, helpless, and impotent creature lost in the wilderness of conflicting thoughts and ideas enmeshed in the immensity of our extremely powerful knowledge and available potent technology - thus unable to make a clear choice and decide our way in a wise manner. So, what will prompt this decision? Our wisdom ï¿½ a truly honest analysis of our attitude - our inherent goodness (if we assume its existence) and our desire to protect and preserve our civilization. By ï¿½ourï¿½ civilization, the writer implies not that of one specific group or country or race, but this ï¿½universalï¿½ civilization.

2. APPRAISAL AND ASSESSMENT

Assuming a crisis to be an impending threat often resulting from insecurity, we may

broadly divide the nature of insecurity in two distinct areas. Firstly, it is one of physical nature - such as, if our existence is threatened, our life is in danger, our health in peril our environment is hostile, etc, and secondly, it is of psychological nature, such as, if our future is bleak, our hope ceases to exist, our trust in our neighbours or so-called friends is broken ï¿½ living in a constant state of vulnerability.

The latter is of much serious form - more than when a child fears to go to school or

outside home for the horror of being bullied, or an old woman is afraid to walk alone in a street, or our constant fear of being physically violated. The single reason is that the physical form of insecurity can be remedied or reduced by physical means, whilst the latter is more complex.. Now, if we make an assessment of what has been accomplished in the past few decades, the record, in general, is a dismal one in the scale of humanitarian progress, barring indeed some outstanding and spectacular achievements. (In the score sheet it will not even get a grade ï¿½Cï¿½ in school!).

Although advancement of our knowledge of the external world inherited from the previous centuries accelerated to an unprecedented degree, wisdom of mankind

has hardly kept up with the accumulation of knowledge, and indeed, has failed to guide human actions through a just and humane manner. Why? That is the question. How to reconcile with such large incongruity between the moral standards guided by all our wisdom from the past and the injustice of the present realities too often caused by indiscriminate exploitation of our knowledge? Where do we stand today? What is the lesson to learn? Perhaps a more honest introspective analysis may provide some clue. Let us ask a few basic questions. Is there sufficient food for every individual on earth so that no one goes hungry? The answer is categorically ï¿½ yes. Is there sufficient material and technology to provide simple shelter for every individual on earth? The answer is categorically - yes. Is there sufficient medical supplies and materials for education? The answer is conditionally - yes. Yet there had been spectacular advances in all domains of science, technology, medicine, agriculture and communications. Unfortunately the ethics of each scientific discovery demands a resolution of the dilemma it prompts.

But then, if we ask ourselves ï¿½ have we provided the minimal education for all? ï¿½ fresh water supply? - vaccination and basic medicine? The answer every time comes negative. The list is endless. Why donï¿½t we act? Over the decades poverty has increased to an alarming proportion ï¿½ the number of LDC (Least developed amongst Developing Countries) has gone up. What did we do? Why couldnï¿½t we stop it? Material poverty may be a shameful visible curse of our society and excessive discrepancy in the distribution of wealth may be the root cause of manifestation of violent conflict and disruption of society, often escalating into war, but it is the poverty of mind that is the basis of what we referred to as intellectual crisis or a crisis of conscience and is a dismal failure of human potential faculty.

It must be emphasized that the above critical remarks are not in any way meant to underestimate the remarkable and prolific efforts of the United Nations system and its various Agencies, of Non-Governmental Organizations and several other Foundations, and above all, not to belittle the efforts , energy and time devoted by a truly dedicated group of individuals and unsung heroes. Since the activities of these organizations are somewhat complementary in nature, the key concepts to be respected are co-existence, cooperation and tolerance. No single model or pattern of society can proclaim its supremacy and exist on its own ï¿½ this is contradictory to co-existence. In the absence of it, there is a real danger of self-destruction or self-extinction - through either internal or external violence or both - from nature itself and from other alien societies. The choice lies in a wise application of universality and in rising above the interest of an individual or a group.

3. PROPOSALS AND SUGGESTIONS

Over the last few decades, issues such as sustainable development, poverty, pollution, balance between economic growth and preservation of eco-systems, basic human rights (including womenï¿½s place and rights in society, rights for food, education, health care and security in general), have been so extensively discussed, problems identified, resolutions adopted, targets expressed and declarations solemnly made, that it is futile to re-state the same once again, except to refer to the obvious close links that exist between those and that concern the rights and security of children ï¿½ perhaps the most important and vulnerable component of future society. So far as the rights of children are concerned regarding the basic ones like food, education, health care, protection and security, they are as important, if not more, than those of the society as a whole. What we need now is to show concrete and verifiable results, if possible, in quantifiable form. As for co-existence, it seems that a mutual economic dependence might promote a reason for co-existence even in the face of ideological differences. Of this, there is ample historical evidence. Thus, we suggest that ï¿½encouragement be given to establish mechanisms of mutually dependent economic systems. As for cooperation, since inter-governmental, non-governmental and other world bodies have a complementary but not mutually exclusive role, we suggest that ï¿½such roles be strengthened and areas be identified where complementarities are likely to be more effective . As for tolerance, apart from the obvious concept of the term implying respect for others and acceptance of differences, it may be useful to admit that a system of total perfection is utopian and that a zero-corruption level does not exist, such being the human nature. Within this context, we then suggest that ï¿½ a deliberate and conscientious attempt be made to cultivate tolerance and acceptance in its wide sense, to be particularly inculcated amongst the children from an early age.

Clearly, it may be true to affirm and accept that an integral requirement of co-existence is tolerance, which necessarily implies respect for and acceptance of alien cultures and systems. Bearing in mind the historical prejudices and ideological divergences that have so far existed, at this stage, disregarding any value judgement, it seems that any fruitful action will demand a kind of sacrifice that has not been hitherto claimed from our society. This then is an action at a level higher than that which can be justified by reasonably sound logic but more likely to be achieved by a process of intuitive inspiration. The underlying strength or force may come from our desire to protect our progeny and preserve our humanity. However, as the primal motive forces of our present-day society are power, pleasure and profit, it is unlikely that such altruistic state of elevated moral uplift can be mobilized as long as there exist predominance of power, preoccupation for pleasure, and proliferation of profit.

It may be equally argued that peaceful co-existence is perhaps not the goal of a certain section of our society. On the face value, it seems Peace and Prosperity to enjoy life in sharing and in making the best use of our knowledge, natural gifts, talents and creative energy along with what nature has bestowed on us as natural resources should be desirable.. On the other hand, war ï¿½ mutual destruction for dominance and subjugation ï¿½ opposed to co-existence may equally serve the purpose of a certain section of our society that actually thrive on the precincts and preservation of the above mentioned principles. How to resolve this dilemma? No matter whether we discuss human rights, child care and protection, education, health , environment, sustainable development or related matters, and no matter what kinds of Plan of Action we may devise, the above questions must be clearly answered and the dilemma resolved. If no concrete actions follow, all such deliberations will be hollow.

Finally, in acknowledging that human attitude is fundamental to the solution of many problems, it will be our duty to redeem our attitude in the light of a re-examination of the basic hypotheses and axioms so as to prevent our subsequent analyses going astray in irrevocable divergent paths. There is then a real and serious risk of our society disintegrating into fragments of mutually conflicting elements and that certainly we do not wish to happen.

(The end)

About the author: Dr. Dilip Ghosh is a former lecturer at Imperial College, London. He has worked on UNESCO Science project for a period of more of than 30 years. Although originally an academician in Science, Dr. Ghoshï¿½s interests include Philosophy, Music, Sports and Politics. He writes extensively on many socio-political issues. Dilip Ghosh hails from an aristocratic Bengali family of Calcutta, India. Currently, heï¿½s settled in France. He can be reached at: [email protected]

*The above essay was presented in the Introductory Session of the Euro-Mediterranean Conference on ï¿½Childrens Rights and Human Security" held in Marrakech, Morocco, October 2002 under the auspices of Moroccoan Princess Laila Meryem.

ï¿½ Mukto-Mona