Phil questions 10

1. Why does Mies call catching-up development a myth and what is the true reality of development?
2. Why, according to Mies, is development a losing proposition for all people?
3. Explain how the example of breast milk poisoning illustrates Mies' argument that development is a myth.
4. Explain how Whyte distinguishes between traditional environmental justice and environmental justice with
respect to indigenous people.
5. What is the difference between the socioecological contexts of Western societies and indigenous societies, like
the Anangu?
6. What kind of solutions would be appropriate for the conflict between tourist visiting of Uluru
and Tjukurpa law against climbing, especially considering the problems of enforcement.
7. Explain the complex web of responsibility that exists within some indigenous cultures and the related idea that
environmental problems are not just environmental problems but threats to cultural survival and thus collective
continuance.
8. Explain how Whyte uses the idea of collective continuance to explain the environmental injustice settler
colonial societies inflict on indigenous people.
9. Given that virtually everything about American society can be described as a form of environmental injustice
toward Native Americans, and thus as a form of genocide, what is our responsibility?

1. The myth is based on a linear understanding that the history of mankind has
already reached its peak. All thats needed for those not currently developed is
a little more technology, a little more development. Poverty of underdeveloped
countries is the direct result of the overdevelopment of the rich. Development is
just colonialism in disguise.
2. It is ultimately a losing proposition because it is an unsustainable one. If
everyone were to have the same development level, none of use would be able to
maintain it. Eventually it is a system with a logical end, due to the finite nature of
the world we live in.
3. Development ultimately leads to conflict between the peoples of the world. The
mother in Germany wanted safe food for her child, so much so that she was
willing to set up an economic system that would eventually take that same safe
food away from mothers in southern India. The belief that money is an acceptable
substitute for ones environment is just a cheap way of hiding the exploitation
going on.
4. Normal EJ is simply concerned with unjust relocation of environmental harms
and degradation, done systemically by a privileged class of people to protect their
own interests. EJ in respect to native communities is more about the permanent

5.

6.
7.

8.

9.

loss of ways of life. And how settler communities aim to completely erase socioecological context of a people thorough such systematic destruction.
To the Anangu, their law allows them to experience the world that gives it greater
meaning, through the lives of there ancestors, and respect for nature, such as the
rock which is the center of their belief. The Australian tourists see climbing it as a
matter of national pride, and ignore the significance it has to the native people.
They dont prevent it because it goes against their law. Western societys focus
more on tech as a medium to live our lives rather then the natural world.
Ultimately it must come down to a matter of respect for ones culture and heritage.
Perhaps the native people can tech the visitors about the rock and its significance
in order to deter would be climber in the first place.
All beings, not just humans, have intersecting responsibilities to one another.
This is due to a mutual dependence on one another. It takes the form of Natural
Law. Water for example is integral to the survival of all things, and all things
suffer at its degradation. It erases this system of responsibilities, causing a
sociological decline. It interferes in ways for beings to experience the world
Collective continence is the ability of a community to adapt to natural
environmental changes. If one society interferes with anothers ability to adapt to
a change, much like colonial society has hurt the ability of indigenous peoples to
adapt, then they impose preventable harm on the indigenous people (of an
injustice).
Our ultimate responsibility is to work with the Native Americans. What we have
done to them and their native land cannot be undone in its entirety. However, the
horrible practice of reservations can be reversed, and parcels (larger ones) of their
native land can be returned to them.