Originally posted by FMF Modernisation is a word to be wary of, perhaps - certainly if one wants to make oneself clear.
It can be used to mask a lot of unpleasant things like job losses, changes in working practices, and getting employees to do more for less.
But there’s just a chance it can also mean improved working conditions, new equipment or premises, more flexible ho ...[text shortened]... and a better life for everyone.
What are posters' opinions about this piece of terminology?
It can be both, surely?
What's your opinion about "chair"?
Is it something to sit on or something to crack a policeman over the head with?
Originally posted by FMF Modernisation is a word to be wary of, perhaps - certainly if one wants to make oneself clear.
It can be used to mask a lot of unpleasant things like job losses, changes in working practices, and getting employees to do more for less.
But there’s just a chance it can also mean improved working conditions, new equipment or premises, more flexible ho ...[text shortened]... and a better life for everyone.
What are posters' opinions about this piece of terminology?
I still think of modernisation within a positive context of improvement over historic or existing conditions.
While modernisation has to some extent become a pejorative term I would like to think that even critics of the word still have some notion of an improvement over existing conditions, through science technology and innovation.
I think you refer to "development"*, at least if you have in mind the ongoing debate
in the third world regarding the measures 'prescribed' to them by the international
development institutions and lenders.
Originally posted by FMF Modernisation is a word to be wary of, perhaps - certainly if one wants to make oneself clear.
It can be used to mask a lot of unpleasant things like job losses, changes in working practices, and getting employees to do more for less.
But there’s just a chance it can also mean improved working conditions, new equipment or premises, more flexible ho ...[text shortened]... and a better life for everyone.
What are posters' opinions about this piece of terminology?
'Modernization' is a code word with a double meaning. Officially it refers to growth and prosperity through a better model. In practice it means growing unemployment, falling wages and greater insecurity. In fact, most terms bandied about by the world's economists mean the opposite of what they are supposed to. Take 'free trade' for example. What it really means is the suppression of the democratic freedoms of the vast majority of people to augment the bank accounts of a tiny class of investors. Nothing an economist says actually means what he purports it to.
Originally posted by FMF Modernisation is a word to be wary of, perhaps - certainly if one wants to make oneself clear.
It can be used to mask a lot of unpleasant things like job losses, changes in working practices, and getting employees to do more for less.
But there’s just a chance it can also mean improved working conditions, new equipment or premises, more flexible ho ...[text shortened]... and a better life for everyone.
What are posters' opinions about this piece of terminology?
Do we pave paradise and put up a parking lot?
Or do we let nature grow freely, with all of us forced to live in caves?
Originally posted by Melanerpes Do we pave paradise and put up a parking lot?
Or do we let nature grow freely, with all of us forced to live in caves?
A quandary.
Or instead of trying to subdue and master nature we learn to harness its energies in a non invasive non destructive manner and integrate our needs into what nature can supply without loss. But of course that would require intelligence and innovation and the development of technology beyond the economically rationalised least cost rape and consume option we seem unable to live without. Blame the competition I know, our hands are tied, we must destroy, its in our nature its who we are, I know..... 😞
they represent the two forces underlying every act of "economic development".
When you build a housing development or a factory or a farm, you have to destroy some of the natural environment that existed at that location.
Obviously, if we want to avoid destroying any of the environment, we have to go back to living in caves --- but if we want to "maximize development and economic growth", we end up replacing nature with an endless stretch of strip malls and suburban sprawl.
But neither of these options are desirable. The idea is to find ways of maintaining a strong economy while minimizing the damage to nature. And the idea is find ways of preserving the environment without opposing proposals for new development. The quandary arises because there's no good way to maximize both goals at the same time.
Originally posted by FMF Modernisation is a word to be wary of, perhaps - certainly if one wants to make oneself clear.
It can be used to mask a lot of unpleasant things like job losses, changes in working practices, and getting employees to do more for less.
But there’s just a chance it can also mean improved working conditions, new equipment or premises, more flexible ho ...[text shortened]... and a better life for everyone.
What are posters' opinions about this piece of terminology?
It refers to everything around you, apart from nature.
Originally posted by FMF Modernisation is a word to be wary of, perhaps - certainly if one wants to make oneself clear.
It can be used to mask a lot of unpleasant things like job losses, changes in working practices, and getting employees to do more for less.
But there’s just a chance it can also mean improved working conditions, new equipment or premises, more flexible ho ...[text shortened]... and a better life for everyone.
What are posters' opinions about this piece of terminology?
just get a dictionary and quit making threads for no apparent reason.
Originally posted by Melanerpes they represent the two forces underlying every act of "economic development".
When you build a housing development or a factory or a farm, you have to destroy some of the natural environment that existed at that location.
Obviously, if we want to avoid destroying any of the environment, we have to go back to living in caves --- but if we want to "m ...[text shortened]... t. The quandary arises because there's no good way to maximize both goals at the same time.
One can have sustainable development without having to live in caves.
Originally posted by rwingett One can have sustainable development without having to live in caves.
I'm not saying that we can't have any development. No one wants to live in caves -- for that matter, no one really wants to go back to living standards that prevailed 50 years ago. But all development (including the most sustainable forms) has some level of impact on the environment.
The idea behind "sustainable development" is to find ways of developing that minimize the damage. And it means that we can't assume that just maximizing the GDP is the best strategy.
What is 'Modernisation'?
27 Oct '09 06:09
Back to Top