I am back in Germany after four months in Nepal. First impression? Germany is well-organized, super quiet, and populated by zombies. The living dead, you know. (Oh and, Germany is so flat. Very strange. Why u not hilly?)

It just does not make sense. If something like Germany is the endpoint of developing areas' development, what is development for? It has no meaning at all. Essentially, after all the development, people in Nepal would be

  • just as unhappy as people in Germany
  • all their earnings will be used up for so-called "living"
  • people won't talk to people anymore
  • there will be just as few options for alternative lifestyles as in Germany, where this is systematically minimized by forcing people into consuming and paying
  • people will work in brainwashing, marketing, SEO etc. to force-feed each other the useless products of their industries … consuming up the world's resources …

Essentially, all the Germans (and Europeans and U.S. Americans, for that matter) do is keeping their country up and runnning, with insane amounts  of energy and worktime. Their countries are "optimized" to maximize the amounts of energy and worktime to invest for just keeping the country up and running. The first is called "economic growth", the second "full employment". And all these aspirations to "wealth" that is not wealth and "wellbeing" that is not wellbeing in people make them miserable. Directly and indirectly. They never have enough. They are brainwashed by advertising since decades, and the advertising comes from capitalist monopolies whom they serve with their lifetime and money.

And then we have the audacity to call ourselves a "developed nation", to be imitated by the "developing nations" … . These "developed" nations do not contribute any significant amount to a better future for the planet. They are not engaged in any concerted effort to construct a meaningful and sustainable future. Instead, they just consume. And much more than their share. While villages in Nepal are much more sustainable, since most stuff is made from fieldstones and bamboo. In terms of our global future, that is more developed than the developed "nations" … . But currently, developed nations devour the planet, and fast. Wow. (Now the good thing about Nepal is, it has so many so remote places that global capitalism will not reach them in my lifetime cheeky Like Rolpa. It currently takes three days and nights of travelling by bus from Kathmandu.)

Ok … so if development according to the paradign of "developed" nations makes no sense, what makes sense?

  • Minimize resource and worktime usage in "developed" nations, to the levels in Nepal and below. No more economic growth, no more full employment. There is such a ton of interesting work to do for that, including medical research, frugality research, full transition to a minimal energy economy, etc. etc..
  • Real development has to be integrated. Like, set up and keep up a sustainably developed commune in a remote village in Nepal, or transform a whole village into such a sustainable model village with both low resource usage and a high standard of living. Serving as an example to be imitated in the thousands of other villages. It means for an educated group of people (from Nepal, from abroad, or mixed) to go there to live there. For the long term. To make that commune able to sustain itself through sustainable production. And help it minimize the resource and time efforts needed for that. (I collected a lot of relevant tech and knowledge for small-scale self-sustainable living in EarthOS already.)

2 thoughts on “The end of “developing”

  1. The “sense” is highly depending on the level you reach in your social life (e.g. graduation, PhD, marriage, kids, living status). I like your views, but they are not that openly shared by people above 30. Even in Europe, you can still find people with miserable living standard that can live happily for years.
    I visited your page after searching something about web reference managers, the key word was Docear.
    greetings from Bulgaria,

  2. Love your website Matt and your thoughts on social change resonate on a number of levels. The widely accepted definition of ‘developed’ country definitely needs to be critically analysed. Its most common past definition was GDP per capita, which was both a driver and benefit of the consumer boom orchestrated by marketing, advertising and financiers way back in the early 20th century. Now that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) exist and are being widely adopted the definition of ‘developed’ has broadened and is better, but still far from perfect. Under the SDG’s the USA for example can be considered a developing country in many respects, such a neonatal health and health coverage.

    The tricky question for me about ‘Development’ is not whether we should try to make things better, nor what should we make better (I think the with the SDG’s the world has worked out a broader set of metrics is important) but how do we pay for these developments without reverting to consumption based economy / consumer demand?

Leave a reply

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>