Over the last few days a terrible scam has come to light in Chennai. During a public hearing about 2 weeks ago on housing and land rights for the tsunami affected communities, a person suddenly got up and mentioned how deep they were in poverty and how the women in the community were being forced to sell their kidneys. It subsequently came to light in the press that upto 100 women have resorted to selling their kidneys for an average of Rs.40,000 . with poverty and the fact that there were 12kms from the seashore and thus could hardly continue their traditional fishing....
While there are many groups of people in distress - what has driven these people to sell their kidneys? Why are all the 'donors' women? What are the rights of donors after they have donated their kidneys?
These are some of the questions that strike you as the shock and numbness of the initial phase recede....
How does one respond.... i am tired of reacting....
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
From Western Science to Liberation Technology - A book review
From Western Science to Liberation Technology by Winin Pereira
Winin Pereira was a nuclear scientist in the 60's till he abandoned his career. He has put together a remarkable body of documentation and analysis on social and developmental issues, now accessible at the Centre for Holistic Studies, Mumbai.
While the themes in this book are reflected in the writing of other authors like Ivan Illich, Claude Alvares, Vandana Shiva, Ashis Nandy, Shiv Vishvanathan and Manu Kothari and Lopa Mehta, this little booklet presented these themes in a comprehensive and simple way. It is a very accessible and readable presentation of the main arguments about the limits of western science and technology. The other interesting feature of this book is an attempt at presenting at least the framework of a possible alternative – Liberation Technology – this is done using examples from the Warli Tribals in Maharashtra.
Periera proposes that Traditional Science may offer insights into a possible alternative to Western Science, however he hastens to add that the traditional science is talking about is the 'people's science' rather than more institutionalized forms of ancient science. For example in the field of health he is talking about the lay and folk healing systems, rather than Ayurveda. This is an important point as I am beginning to realise. Traditional systems are neither homogenous nor necessarily representative of all sections of ancient society. Like today world, ancient communities too were hierarchical and patriarchal (as reflected in the various mythologies and religious beliefs and traditions), thus the more institutionalised systems, which are more recognized nowadays are probably those more dominant systems which marginalized other 'people's systems'. I met a person recently who is infact researching this very theme of the marginalization of lay systems by institutionalized systems.
He discusses the intimate links between science and its development and the war. This is a common theme but it presented very logically, with lots of examples and references. His question is, “Where does one draw the line of moral responsibility separating those who were culpable for the production and consequences of nuclear weapons and those who are not? At Oppenhiemer, at Sakharov, at Fermi, Rutherford, Becquerel, at Lise Mietner? Western science gives unconditional absolution to all. But is it morally right for a scientist to carry on such work knowing that her / his results would surely be appropriated for the production of greater violence?” I would even add, is it morally right to allow the use of toxic chemicals and other materials that have been incompletely studied (and that possibly can't be studied give the complex system reality of the real world). This is an essential question especially as there is a gap between the production, the use, the ill effects and the profit and reward. Obviously the profits go to the scientists and capitalists cocooned in their air-conditioned offices, while the people who die and are maimed are the poor and marginalized landless labourers.....
He concludes the section on western science with the following, “The search for Western Scientific knowledge looks like a pure and noble striving but it has become a total, obsessive desire for domination that supplants all external ethical consideration. We can carry out western scientific research and develop or use western technology only if we make, unconsciously perhaps, a Mephistophelean pact to exchange a little bit of our souls for each little bit of western science and technology.”
In the next section he builds up a framework of liberation science and technology. Here he very lucidly explores the differences between peoples science and research and formal research. This is one of the highlights of the book. In another very thought provoking passage he says, “ Even if one does not believe in the existence of a cosmic order, an admission that, because of the immense complexity of natural systems, human understanding is necessarily limited constrains interventions in the environment to be made with outmost caution. Interventions need to be minimised simply because the natural system is too complex to meddle with. Such an admission of the limitations of human knowing is itself alternative knowledge. The absence of particular theorising is not a deficiency of method, but an acknowledgement of the complexity of reality and the limitations of the human mind.” It is indeed an interesting question as to which is better science – a simple technology / innovation in agriculture which is widely used and accessible and provides huge benefits to all or an expensively developed chemical molecule that is costly and out of reach to 2/3rd of the worlds population and pollutes the environment irreversibly during the process of production??
He makes the interesting point / argument: that as the context is changing so rapidly – it has been argued that traditional systems cannot keep up and that that is the reason for their decline. He shows that in fact traditional systems are continuing to innovate and create, that the reason for the extremely rapid and negative change in the context is western science itself, and that probably our ignorance of the innovations in peoples systems is a problem of the paradigmatic definition of 'innovation'. He sees western science (the people sensitive practitioners at least) as possibly helping with shortening the 'time to innovate' by working somethings out 'scientifically'. This point was made more recently by Darshan Shankar of the Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions at the South Asian Regional Conference on Traditional Systems of Medicine and Right to Health, he described the possibility that western science can help in explaining things (with its reductionist approach) and these can set of alternative paths of innovation... again a short cut!
Periera concludes with the following call, “Revitalizing peoples' science can restore to millions the creativity and the power that has been appropriated from them. Their urgent preservation and restoration appears to be the only way to rebuild a sustainable society.”
All in all a fascinating, comprehensive and accessible booklet. A must read.
Distributed by Earthcare Books, 2 Anand, 17 Carmichael Road, Mumbai 400026, India.
Winin Pereira was a nuclear scientist in the 60's till he abandoned his career. He has put together a remarkable body of documentation and analysis on social and developmental issues, now accessible at the Centre for Holistic Studies, Mumbai.
While the themes in this book are reflected in the writing of other authors like Ivan Illich, Claude Alvares, Vandana Shiva, Ashis Nandy, Shiv Vishvanathan and Manu Kothari and Lopa Mehta, this little booklet presented these themes in a comprehensive and simple way. It is a very accessible and readable presentation of the main arguments about the limits of western science and technology. The other interesting feature of this book is an attempt at presenting at least the framework of a possible alternative – Liberation Technology – this is done using examples from the Warli Tribals in Maharashtra.
Periera proposes that Traditional Science may offer insights into a possible alternative to Western Science, however he hastens to add that the traditional science is talking about is the 'people's science' rather than more institutionalized forms of ancient science. For example in the field of health he is talking about the lay and folk healing systems, rather than Ayurveda. This is an important point as I am beginning to realise. Traditional systems are neither homogenous nor necessarily representative of all sections of ancient society. Like today world, ancient communities too were hierarchical and patriarchal (as reflected in the various mythologies and religious beliefs and traditions), thus the more institutionalised systems, which are more recognized nowadays are probably those more dominant systems which marginalized other 'people's systems'. I met a person recently who is infact researching this very theme of the marginalization of lay systems by institutionalized systems.
He discusses the intimate links between science and its development and the war. This is a common theme but it presented very logically, with lots of examples and references. His question is, “Where does one draw the line of moral responsibility separating those who were culpable for the production and consequences of nuclear weapons and those who are not? At Oppenhiemer, at Sakharov, at Fermi, Rutherford, Becquerel, at Lise Mietner? Western science gives unconditional absolution to all. But is it morally right for a scientist to carry on such work knowing that her / his results would surely be appropriated for the production of greater violence?” I would even add, is it morally right to allow the use of toxic chemicals and other materials that have been incompletely studied (and that possibly can't be studied give the complex system reality of the real world). This is an essential question especially as there is a gap between the production, the use, the ill effects and the profit and reward. Obviously the profits go to the scientists and capitalists cocooned in their air-conditioned offices, while the people who die and are maimed are the poor and marginalized landless labourers.....
He concludes the section on western science with the following, “The search for Western Scientific knowledge looks like a pure and noble striving but it has become a total, obsessive desire for domination that supplants all external ethical consideration. We can carry out western scientific research and develop or use western technology only if we make, unconsciously perhaps, a Mephistophelean pact to exchange a little bit of our souls for each little bit of western science and technology.”
In the next section he builds up a framework of liberation science and technology. Here he very lucidly explores the differences between peoples science and research and formal research. This is one of the highlights of the book. In another very thought provoking passage he says, “ Even if one does not believe in the existence of a cosmic order, an admission that, because of the immense complexity of natural systems, human understanding is necessarily limited constrains interventions in the environment to be made with outmost caution. Interventions need to be minimised simply because the natural system is too complex to meddle with. Such an admission of the limitations of human knowing is itself alternative knowledge. The absence of particular theorising is not a deficiency of method, but an acknowledgement of the complexity of reality and the limitations of the human mind.” It is indeed an interesting question as to which is better science – a simple technology / innovation in agriculture which is widely used and accessible and provides huge benefits to all or an expensively developed chemical molecule that is costly and out of reach to 2/3rd of the worlds population and pollutes the environment irreversibly during the process of production??
He makes the interesting point / argument: that as the context is changing so rapidly – it has been argued that traditional systems cannot keep up and that that is the reason for their decline. He shows that in fact traditional systems are continuing to innovate and create, that the reason for the extremely rapid and negative change in the context is western science itself, and that probably our ignorance of the innovations in peoples systems is a problem of the paradigmatic definition of 'innovation'. He sees western science (the people sensitive practitioners at least) as possibly helping with shortening the 'time to innovate' by working somethings out 'scientifically'. This point was made more recently by Darshan Shankar of the Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions at the South Asian Regional Conference on Traditional Systems of Medicine and Right to Health, he described the possibility that western science can help in explaining things (with its reductionist approach) and these can set of alternative paths of innovation... again a short cut!
Periera concludes with the following call, “Revitalizing peoples' science can restore to millions the creativity and the power that has been appropriated from them. Their urgent preservation and restoration appears to be the only way to rebuild a sustainable society.”
All in all a fascinating, comprehensive and accessible booklet. A must read.
Distributed by Earthcare Books, 2 Anand, 17 Carmichael Road, Mumbai 400026, India.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
A poem by Faiz
If poetry is looking at the truth from a different angle, then epidemiology is very much the same! maybe that is why i find poetry so inspiring... here is an example about a theme that is central to epidemiology.
Bol ke lab aazaad hain tere....
Speak, for your lips are still free
Speak, for your tongue is still yours
Your body, though frail, is still yours
Speak, for your life is still yours
Look, in the blacksmith's workshop
The flames are hot, the steel is red
The mouths of the locks are beginning to open
The links of the chains are coming undone
Speak, for the little time you have is enough
Before your body and tongue die
Speak, for truth still lives
Speak up, say that which you must!
Faiz
Faiz has written what is certainly a manifesto for epidemiologists!
Bol ke lab aazaad hain tere....
Speak, for your lips are still free
Speak, for your tongue is still yours
Your body, though frail, is still yours
Speak, for your life is still yours
Look, in the blacksmith's workshop
The flames are hot, the steel is red
The mouths of the locks are beginning to open
The links of the chains are coming undone
Speak, for the little time you have is enough
Before your body and tongue die
Speak, for truth still lives
Speak up, say that which you must!
Faiz
Faiz has written what is certainly a manifesto for epidemiologists!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)