open Democracy News Analysis - ecology & place - Comments

Not logged in on "The felling of bungalows, the building of Dhaka"

Not logged in — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:18:38 +0000

Prof Salauddin,

What is irony with your comment is that you are criticizing Bangladeshis for being rootless and "western". However, it is ridiculous that you yourself has quit Bangladesh to be western and became rootless.
That is the problem of our diaspora. They know how to advise very well. But not how to contribute to their homeland.

Litadavidson on "The felling of bungalows, the building of Dhaka"

Litadavidson — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:17:01 +0000

One of the best articles I have read here. It makes me think of Burma next door and of their future developments, if ever that country becomes a democracy. Their politicians should take notice and start drawing up a housing policy along with their democratic constitution or it too will succumb to greedy developers. Asian countries are investing billions into Burma's resources and I imagine that one day in the future this kind of thing, if it isn't already, will destroy probably the last city in Asia, which I assume still has some old buildings left from the colonial days.

faizul khan tanim on "The felling of bungalows, the building of Dhaka"

faizul khan tanim — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:19:35 +0000

i thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece...was basking in ur descriptions and the reading almost became a strange relationship with recollections of memories of my childhood

wonderful! cheers

Salahuddin Choudhury on "The felling of bungalows, the building of Dhaka"

Salahuddin Choudhury — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:54:44 +0000

Shaheen, Nizam and all,

I devoured every word of the article. Thanks!

I am an expatriate since 1969 except for a few short forays until 1979. I am in no position to assess whether the poor of today are worse off than when I was part of the place. Granted, the poor suffer at all times and at all places. I am not questioning that.

I am questioning the degenerated ethical fiber of a Bengali with means. The nouveau-riche and the burgeoning middle class from Dacca often try to impress me with the progress they have made. These amount to the first escalator in Dacca and that they now have paper cups in their houses.

What bothers me is the moral cowardice. Bangladesh has nothing! …no natural resource, no industry, nothing! Fourteen year old boys working in sweatshops for twelve hours a day to sew cheap shirts for Americans isn’t an act of pride for a nation. Two hundred years ago Charles Dickens warned us about that.

Why the Bengali pride? No other country in the world has even comes close to the United States in per capita contribution to charity…charity not limited to money.

We did have something even though we were as poor then. We had a sense of life and living informed by our contact with the good earth and our indigenous cultural heritage. It was informed by our sense of literature and poetry and spiritual quest …and most of all a sense of duty given to us by great Bengali and other Indian intellectuals. We learned from them. Now we are trying to be Americanized in the worst sense. We lost contact with the earth and with who we are.

The enlightened Bengal still lives in their wisdom, in their books. It lives in me through them.

I was saddened by the two women…it’s all too common. The oppressed women of Bangladesh have nowhere to go. This society basking in a false pride abandoned them. That’s not Bengal!

When the collective conscience of a culture abdicates its duty…it becomes the words of Robert Oppenheimer…”I have become death.” The Bengalis cannot go home again even when they live in Dacca.

The value of a democracy is measured by how it protects the minority voice, the powerless and the weak.

Salahuddin Choudhury

Professor of Architecture, Virginia Tech

ianniscarras on "The felling of bungalows, the building of Dhaka"

ianniscarras — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:57:45 +0000

When I visited Dhaka over ten years ago I was struck above all by the
poverty in contrast to the astonishingly beautiful architecture of the old
town, crumbling houses with elegant facades that combined floral patterns that
bordered on the baroque with a largely neo-classical base structure. Even then
the houses were vanishing at an astonishing rate. A structure I
visited built around a small courtyard in a Mughal style was (I was proudly
told by the family living there) about to be torn down and transformed into a
car park.

I am in no position to
criticise Bangladeshis for destroying their cultural heritage: my country did
its very successful best to destroy almost every old building in Athens and other Greek
towns between the 60s and the 80s. My grandfather tore down his old house in
the Piraeus to
build a block of flats. Mayor Luzkov of Moscow
is doing his very successful best to destroy his city's exquisite architectural
heritage today, lining his wife's pockets in the process. My frequent visits to
Moscow are
melancholy ones, as favourite art-deco or modernist buildings that had graced
their neighbourhoods vanish, replaced with mounds of mud and then concrete. On
other occasions a kitsch replica is constructed, a parody of what had been
before.

Bangladesh, Greece and Russia
are all countries with considerable history, and much to be proud of. All
however find themselves at different levels of economic development. I am not
sure what exactly is lost through this process of wanton destruction. Why, I
ask myself, does this have to be? And why does it leave me so sad?

Iannis Carras, Athens, Greece.

LLQ on "Saving baby seals: one woman’s crusade"

LLQ — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:30:01 +0000

Hurray for Maria Vorontsova, International Fund for Animal Welfare's and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin!! Job well done!! We need to put a stop of killing seals in Canada too!! It is a senseless inhumane massacre of innocent animals. Thank you again Maria Vorontsova, IFAW & Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

srheywood on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

srheywood — Mon, 25 May 2009 09:39:11 +0000

Reconmarie

"I am still waiting for an honest dialogue among the relevant sectors of the scientific community that fairly and non-politically addresses the competing views about climate change."

I'm not a specialist, but it seems to me that this is what's already happening: you may not like the results, but that's no reason to shoot the messenger. What you seem to be doing is asking for proof on a 2+2=4 level of certainty. There won't be any such proof because the climate is too complex a system for 100% certainty, until whatever is going to happen actually happens. The future is uncharted territory but the scientific community as a whole (despite the odd bit of political influence on both sides, possibly) is going on the balance of probabilities and the precautionary principle.

reconmarine on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

reconmarine — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:05:41 +0000

I found Dr. Bina's comments interesting. He does his argument (and himself in my view) a disservice by his assertion "conservatives on the issue of climate and climate change are obviously
wrong because they don't give a hoot about the long-term health of this
planet and humanity." This statement (if not tongue in cheek) is so outlandish as to risk overshawoing the remainder of his post. If he is seriious, I challenge him to prove (by the same empriical approach he uses in the remainder of his post and presumably that he uses in his vaunted capactiy as a Distinguished researcher) its accuracy. Indeed, since I am by most measures a "conservative," but also one who is actually concerned about the health (indeed not only the long term but the short term as well) of this planet and humanity, his assertion is thus false. I also am personally familiar with numerous others who are also "conservatives" (of varying stripes) and yet, unblieiveable as it may seem, they also share a profound concern about the health of the planet and humanity.

sandman79 on "A politics of crisis: low-energy cosmopolitanism"

sandman79 — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:45:08 +0000

Stephen is right. Without building appropriate institutions for managing global crises - be they economic, environmental or security related - we will always be arguing over who to blame, when it's all too late.

The mooted Bretton Woods II meeting is more of the same: a desire to overhaul the globe's financial structure might sound like a good idea, but if you're not going to put the oversight of the institution in the hands of the people you're wasting your time. We will still get stronger states prioritising their short term interests because of their election cycles.

The call for a world parliament, for globalised democracy of some form, is getting stronger.

If you're interested, come join others at globaldemo.org. The site will be launched in December, but we're interested in those keen to get involved at this stage.

Cyrus Bina on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

Cyrus Bina — Thu, 07 May 2009 05:18:25 +0000

I am an energy and environmental economist, a student of climate change. I like what essentially Mr. Davey had to say in review of "The Politics of Climate Change" by Anthony Giddens. However, I am afraid, there's much to be said about Giddens's knowledge and vision on the question of climate change and where it's going and whether it's pure politics that needs triangulating, to be it in Bill Clinton's connotation, an admirer of Giddens' political propaganda.

First, those of us who are familiar with chaos theory and its implication for risk assessment know that calculable risk relies on a probability distribution and thus ling and systematic information about the particular risk under consideration. Therefore, the phenomena, such as earthquakes, etc., neither lend themselves to linear models (or their approximations) nor to probability theory.

Second, the phenomenon of risk, as calculable, must be distinguished from UNCERTAINTY, which is essentially incalculable, given the lack of the existence of prior probability distribution.

Third, climate and climate changes are the stuff of uncertainty the assessment of which needs cannot be probabilitized.

Fourth, the science of climate change cannot rely on the Newtonian Physics and the assumption that, for instance, a given magnitude of change at the beginning of the process would result in the same amount of change at the end. This misperception has already been proven by literature on chaos theory, for instance in patterns of weather.

Fifth, climate is an open system (as opposed closed systems), thus prone to unpredictable consequences.

Sixth, our global economic system (i.e., modern capitalism), too, is an open system, with unpredictable results of significant consequence. If you don't believe me look at the present economic crisis that has so far taken us on the verge of near-Great Depression.

Seventh, given the dialectical interaction of these two open systems (i.e., our economic system, on the one hand, and our environmental situation, on the other); one may imagine how the amplitude of UNCERTAINTY will be enormous at no time. However, we know for sure that any initial change at the beginning in such systems (i.e., similar sub-systems of both natural and social origins) will become necessarily several-fold as time passes. Therefore, climate might not be an exception.

Eighth, consequently, the real question concerning the climate is NOT that one should look at the "worst case" or "best case" scenarios. But whether one should rely on this sort of "scenario business" to begin with.

Finally, conservatives on the issue of climate and climate change are obviously wrong because they don't give a hoot about the long-term health of this planet and humanity. But, at least, they are honest and straight forward. A liberal (like our Johnny-come-late Lordship or, his triangulating supporter, Mr. Bill Clinton) is a 'bullshitter' who opportunistically craves for 'conventional wisdom' even on this subject at the crucial juncture in our predicament.

I hope that Mr. Davey realizes that I am in his corner but he needs to sharpen his analytical skills in order to give more punch to our concerned Lordship in this matter.

Sincerely,

Cyrus Bina, Ph.D.
Distinguished Research Professor of Economics
University of Minnesota (Morris Campus)

Website: http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~binac/index.htm

Cyrus Bina on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

Cyrus Bina — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:40:39 +0000

Second, the phenomenon of risk, as calculable, must be distinguished from UNCERTAINTY, which is essentially incalculable, given the lack of the existence of prior probability distribution.

Third, climate and climate changes are the stuff of uncertainty the assessment of which needs cannot be probabilitized.

Fifth, climate is an open system (as opposed closed systems), thus prone to unpredictable consequences.

Ninth, conservatives on the issue of climate and climate change are obviously wrong because they don't give a hoot about the long-term health of this planet and humanity. But, at least, they are honest and straight forward. A liberal (like our Johnny-come-late Lordship or, his triangulating supporter, Mr. Bill Clinton) is a 'bullshitter' who opportunistically craves for 'conventional wisdom' even on this subject at the crucial juncture in our predicament.

I hope that Mr. Davey realizes that I am in his corner but he needs to sharpen his analytical skills in order to give more punch to our concerned Lordship in this matter.

Sincerely,

Cyrus Bina, Ph.D.
Distinguished Research Professor of Economics
University of Minnesota (Morris Campus)

Website: http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~binac/index.htm

reconmarine on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

reconmarine — Wed, 06 May 2009 00:51:03 +0000

I may be mis-reading the tone of your post, but your resort to cold war "throw weight" arguments by counting noses of those who advocate as the only truth that evil man has caused the "crisis" of climate change and dismissing as corporate prostitutes those who deign to question this "truth," is not especially helpful to the honest debate I believe is needed. But perhaps that is the end game that you prefer--that we continue to rush headlong to "fix" the climate without any honest critical analysis. If so, you are certainly not alone.

bonzhe on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

bonzhe — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:50:09 +0000

What a shame that the silken gown of Lord Giddens' Third Way has frayed to reveal the worst excesses of market liberalism joined with the worst kind of stagnant self righteous authoritarianism.

What a shame that someone who once encouraged the development of 'alternative futures whose very propagation might help them be realised' turns, dejectedly, from his great lifetime project to this realpolitik which signals his withdrawal from ideals, standards, values.

What a shame that this is one book actually likely to be read by politicians, bigwigs and policy makers. Fortunately, though, a large number of us aren't prepared to leave them to it this time.

Write your books if it makes you feel better, oh illustrious new-labour peers. Times are a'changin'.

reconmarine on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

reconmarine — Fri, 01 May 2009 19:33:26 +0000

Like so many other of his fellow travelers, Mr. Davey uses as his premise the assumption (couched as irrefutable 'fact") that "climate change" is not only real in the sense of some dramatic threat to our continued existence that is universally agreed upon by the scientific community, but also that it is caused by human activity or is otherwise subject to being reversed by "green" behavior.

I am still waiting for an honest dialogue among the relevant sectors of the scientific community that fairly and non-politically addresses the competing views about climate change. Until that occurs and it is demonstrated that climate change is a real threat, any talk that assumes man has either caused it or can somehow intervene to positively affect it is both premature and arrogant.

The only "truth" that is evident at this juncture is that this issue is a shibboleth for those who seek increased control (by international and national governmental agencies) over commerce and the lifestyles of individuals.

sai bhargav on "Mahatma Gandhi’s achievement"

sai bhargav — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:01:04 +0000

dear sir,
please give the achievements in a straight foward language and mention them in points