A Bucket

What do you know? A bucket of water is all you need to wash yourself properly, shave, wash your hair, and then wash your underwear. When I think of the buckets and buckets of water that I use to shower, I'm a little amazed at the waste.

But I have to admit. I do miss showers terribly.

Affluence: The Debate Rages On

Several years ago, I was on a plane to Indore, and sitting next to me was a young, educated fairly well off ( we were on a plane, after all) man. We got to talking and he asked me where I was going. "It's a village called Bagli," I responded.

"Bagli?"

"Yes."

There was a slight pause as this young man tried to figure out in his head why in the world a young Indian-American would be traveling to some God-forsaken place like Bagli. Suddenly, he hit upon it.

"Is your dad, like the prince of Bagli?" he asked me.

I stared at him a little confused. Then the pieces clicked. Of course. The only reason he could come up with for my traveling to some village called Bagli would be if I were a local royalty!! To unpack this a little, an affluent person would only travel to a village to exploit the people, not to help the people.

A few days ago, the second APLS Carnival was published on the topic of affluence. Though I haven't yet been able to read all the entries, it remains true that the word "affluence" is still a controversial term.

I've always been in favor of keeping the word of affluence, as most of you know. Affluence is a loaded term because so often, wealth has been used to separate people. To provide a gap.

But it is important to remember that affluence has also been used, and is perhaps necessary, to unite people. To bridge the gaps.

Where would Doctors Without Borders be without the help of affluent countries and individuals? Or the Peace Corps? Greg Mortenson built schools in Pakistan because he could do what the tribal people and the government of Pakistan could not. How did this happen? Because Greg Mortenson came from an affluent society. He had the benefit of the education such a society provides. He could afford the airfare to attempt the climb of K-2. And then he was able to find wealthy connections who helped pay for the school. Mortenson, even when he was sleeping in his car, had so many assets that the people he was trying to help lacked.

To me, my affluence is a powerful reminder of how blessed I am. Of how lucky I am. Of the opportunities I have been given. It is also a reminder of the responsibilities that fall to me, as a member of an affluent society.

My entire approach to sustainable living is guided by this. As a result, I think I approach sustainability in different ways from others. Rather than boycott goods made in China, I would prefer to buy Chinese goods made under ethical conditions. Rather than eat only locally, I would prefer to eat fair-trade foods. Rather than giving only to local organizations, I would prefer to divide my money between worthy causes in my backyard, and worthy causes in Africa and Asia. Many people live by the mantra, "Think globally, act locally." But personally, I prefer to think and act globally and locally alike.

I understand that not everyone sees things the way I do, of course. That's what makes our vibrant e-community so great. Where I believe the admission of affluence is a necessary one to have an honest dialogue with a subsistence farmer, my good friend Melinda sees the word affluence as a barrier. I see a bridge, she sees a gap. Still others see both sides, but figure, if affluence is such a controversial word, why bother to use it? Why not just drop it?

I see that point. I don't wish to offend people. I don't wish to push people away. But just because affluence is a touchstone, does that mean we shouldn't use the word?

When I first saw the group "Riot for Austerity" I felt a little "othered." I had no interest in rioting nor austerity. I still don't. And yet, I now consider myself a defacto member of R4A. I understand what they are trying to accomplish. I agree with the goals. And I even understand what "riot" and "austerity" mean in the context of the group. I understand the point they were trying to get across with the word "riot." That maybe the word riot turns me off, but that that's part of the point. That it's supposed to incite some emotion. That it's not a movement about people quietly sitting in their air-conditionless homes eating their local salads and drying their clothes in their windowlesss basements. It's about making some noise and hulabaloo and proudly showcasing your choices to the world. And it's the same with austerity. The word is specifically chosen because it's more dramatic. Imagine, instead, if the group had been called Non-Confrontationally Promote Living Simply But Not So Simply That You Want To Kill Yourself. Although NCPLSBNSSTYWTKY is what most rioters actually practice as opposed to rioting and austerity, it doesn't make a great title for a group. That and the acronym is a little unwieldy.

To me, what separates "APLS" from other living simply groups is that there is both a local and global focus. Yes, we focus on the local with regional coordinators. But there is also a reminder that the world exists outside the US and Europe. There is a reminder that there are children in India who need more electricity, not less. There is a reminder that affluent countries need to invest in poorer nations to develop clean energy sources. That we may need to forgive Brazil's debt in order to save the Amazon. That our community doesn't just extend down the street, but across the world to a poor child sleeping in the street. That those of us in the first world who live in relative affluence have an obligation to help those in the developing world.

I believe, that when you take away the word "affluence," that controversial word, you lose something of great significance and value. You remove a key point of the group's identity and mission. When we are "All People Living Sustainably" how are we different from any other sustainable living group? Would there even be a need for APLS given the sheer number of groups already in existence that promote sustainable living?

Either way, I believe in the work APLS are doing, day in and day out. Whether we are All People Living Sustainably, or Affluent People Living Sustainably, I still plan to participate in this wonderful community.

But I do feel, very strongly, that without the word affluent, a core piece of who we are as a group gets lost. Will it turn other people away? Definitely. It already has. But I hope, that those people might eventually come back, just as I, after many months, am proud to Riot even if I don't literally believe in rioting.

In any case, let's keep the dialogue going. Read more of the discussion at One Green Generation and Green Bean Dreams.

Traffic Sucks

I apologize for the lame post titles lately. I blame the jet lag and the dial up connection.



But traffic does indeed suck. Every time we step outside, my nerves end up rubbed raw by the horror that is Bombay traffic.



And as we drive, I keep wondering, have we brought the worst sides of industrialization to India, instead of the best?



Several months ago, Siddhartha Shome published a piece in Breakthrough regarding Tata's plan to start producing $2,500 cars. Shome supported the plan and suggested that Western environmentalists are hypocritical for extolling Priuses in the United States while chastising Tata for producing a cheap car that gets more miles to the gallon than the Prius.

At the time, I agreed with Shome. Who are Western environmentalists to get on their soap boxes and tell Indians that you shouldn't drive cars that are way more environmentally friendly than 99% of cars in the United States? Wouldn't it be great if Indians started driving more of these ecologically friendly Tata Nanos and gave up their 30-year old gas guzzling polluters?

But once in Bombay, I realized the truth. In India, a 30-year old gas guzzling polluter is never going to be sent to the scrap yard. It will be driven and driven and driven until it dies. Then it will be fixed and driven another 10 years until it dies again. At which point it will be fixed and driven until it literally disintegrates.

So the Tata Nano isn't a replacement for a vehicle already on the road. It's an additional car on the road. And there's the rub.

Because if this were just about the environment, I'd feel uncomfortable telling India, "You don't all get to have cars."

But this is not about the environment. This is about quality of life.

And the truth is, the quality of life is getting worse and worse with every new car that ends up on the roads. The traffic is so bad that merely going outside has become a giant headache.

Forget rush hour. Any hour of the day, the traffic is maddening.

Bombay doesn't need more cars. What it does need is a better public transit system. At present, the train system is a relic from the British Colonial days. And the trains are so crowded, that people are cramped together, and practically falling off the trains. It's so bad that my relatives refused to even take me on a train.

"Why isn't there a proper subway system?" I asked.

"Not enough money."

Of course.

The problem is, a lot of corporations stand to gain from putting more Indians behind the drivers seat. Residents of Bombay may lose out, but Ford, Tata, Honda, and Toyota all win. So there is a keen interest in foreign investment in cars for India.

By contrast, companies don't stand to gain by developing a public transit system. In fact, the better the public transit system, the more car companies lose out.

I think the solution must be, then, to find a way to semi-privatize the public transit system here in Bombay. Because the government doesn't have the money to improve things. If there is a way to create an incentive for corporations to invest their money in public transit, then the system will be updated. Without private investment, I'm not sure the system will ever be improved.

Even if that's not the solution, it's clear that something has to be done. And fast. And that more cars aren't going to make anyone happy. Except for the CEOs of Tata, Honda and the like.

Three Cups of Tea- Book Review

While I'm not generally a huge fan of jet lag, I cherish the first few days in India when I wake up early enough to hear the morning call to prayer. As the loudspeakers summon the faithful out of their bed and towards Mecca, I stare out the window and watch the sun rise over Bombay.


Hearing the ritualistic prayer is a comfort, a reminder of the things that have stayed the same for centuries. For hundreds of years, Bombay Muslims have climbed out of bed in this pre-dawn hour to say their morning prayers. The prayer is also a reminder of the cosmopolitan city Bombay was and is. A city where a multitude of religions and ethnicities live together in relative peace.


But that peace is gradually under assault.


As our plane from London to Bombay flew over Pakistan, I discussed the degrading situation in Bombay with the man sitting next to me. His family is from Northern India, and he bitterly spoke about how the native Maharatis (full disclosure: I'm half Maharati) have been trying, with some success, to Maharati-cize this cosmopolitan city. I nodded in agreement and then mentioned the terrible ostracization of the Muslim populations. At which point, my educated and wealthy plane-mate, sat up straight.


"Well, that's not just a Bombay thing. Muslims have problems everywhere." And then he told me a joke about a man who had made the statement that "All Muslims are terrorists," and then finally, under much pressure, revised his statement to "All terrorists are Muslims." It was clear that this man sitting next to me on the plane agreed that while all Muslims might not be terrorists, certainly, all terrorists are Muslims.


I didn't know what to say, but not wanting to engage in a lengthy debate with a man I was stuck sitting next to for the next few hours, I shut up.


The world has changed tremendously since 9-11, and India along with it. Where once, Muslims may have lived next to Christians and Hindus, now Muslims are pushed out of housing complexes, regarded as potential terrorists by their neighbors.


And it's a vicious cycle. The more Muslims are ostracized, the more they resort to violence. And the more Muslims resort to violence, the more the rest of the world ostracizes them. It's a downward spiral, and an incredibly dangerous one at that.


That's why Three Cups of Tea is such an important book. Perhaps the most important book I've read all year. In a time when most of the non-Islamic world is turning its back on Muslims, Greg Mortenson is gaining the trust of Pakistanis and Afghanis, one school at a time.


Three Cups of Tea relates the true story of Greg Mortenson, an American former mountain climber. How a wrong turn coming down from K-2 resulted in his new life path building schools for girls all over Pakistan and Afghanistan.


Mortenson believes strongly that education and especially the education of girls is critical in diffusing tension and fanaticism. He points out articulately that terrorists are not created in a vacuum. And that when children are given education and opportunity, they are much less likely to resort to terrorism and fundamentalism.

Three Cups of Tea makes the case that the majority of Muslims are peaceful people who want the best for the children, just like the rest of us. So, today, on September 11th, I highly recommend you go to the library or your local bookstore and pick up this book.

Is it about the environment? Not really. But it's about humanity, and about the values and beliefs that unite us all.

Five out of five stars, and recommended for everyone, green, dark green, fuschia or turquoise.

On Being Affluent

Rich. Poor. Middle-class. Wealthy. Broke.

These words are relative terms. A rich person is defined as rich because he has more money than everyone else. Likewise, a poor person is considered poor if they have much less money than the average person. Without anything to compare to, the words are rendered meaningless.

In our celebrity-obsessed society, it is too easy, then, to watch TV, and think, well, my life isn't like Paris Hilton's so I must not be affluent. If I am poorer than Brad Pitt, then I must be poor.

It is too easy to look at what you DON'T have.

Today, I spent fifteen minutes gazing out the window at some children playing cricket in a narrow strip a few feet from the railroad tracks. While in America, your child might be part of a Little League team that boasts regular after school practices and games with coaches in proper parks, these children were playing on their own, in the dirt. Every so often, the ball would get hit onto the tracks, and a child would scramble onto the traps, pawing through the litter to find his ball. Meanwhile, I would stand at the window, hoping that the child would find the ball in plenty of time before another train came whizzing along.

And as I'm watching them play, I couldn't help wondering, why aren't these children in school? But, then again, I already knew the answer, didn't I?

This is the life of India's poor. Children who lack the opportunity to go to school playing cricket dangerously close to the railroad tracks.

And I'll tell you the truth. When I see these children, and others like them, I get angry. These are children that the world has failed. No child should be forced to beg for food. No child should have to sleep on the street inches away from crazy drivers . And no child should lack the opportunity to go to school. And yet, there are so many children still in this world who are lacking such basic needs.

So it frustrates me when middle-class Americans claim that they're not affluent. That they might own a home, that they have an education, that they've been to college, even, but that they're not affluent.

Because affluence is a relative term. And yes, if you're only comparing yourself to other Americans, you might be right.

But this is an increasingly global world. And we're not going to get anywhere if we only compare ourselves to the lucky denizens of a smattering of first world countries.

Instead, we must open our eyes to the way a majority of the world lives. We must look at these children of India living in the slums by the railroad tracks, not as an exotic species in a National Geographic magazine, but as our children. As our community.

Being in India, I am always reminded of how much I have. I might have only made the median income in California, but I am so much wealthier than my paper assets. I have a first class education, health care, independence, and countless opportunities. I was raised to believe that I could accomplish whatever I set out to achieve. If that's not affluence, I don't know what is.

It is beyond time for us to extend that dream to every child in every corner of the world. The child playing cricket is just as deserving of education and opportunity as a child growing up in Fremont, California or Pleasantville, New York.

We must fight to give all children something to reach for.

And that starts with recognizing what we have. What we were given.

Affluence.

*Get your posts in for the APLS Carnival by September 10th to be included in this month's carnival.

India

It's hard for me to express all my thoughts about this country, my motherland, in words. Especially when I'm on a dial up connection! But I'll give it a shot.

This is a weird country, yo.

Heh. Do you like how I started off with such depth and insight?

I'm here in Bombay during the celebration of the elephant god, Ganesh. During this time, giant forms of Ganesh are erected, and then they are taken to the ocean to be immersed in water.

This year, my aunt tells me, the Ganeshes have gone eco-friendly. Because previously the Ganeshes weren't melting properly in the water and they were causing problems, so this year, the Ganeshes are all made from soil and paper.

And so the Ganeshes go eco-friendly while meanwhile the traffic has reached new heights of unbearableness.

As I was walking down the streets, I saw a shop advertising organic rice. Now normally this would be a woo-hoo moment with me, but this time, my first thought was, "I wonder how much that rice COSTS! And who buys it? And who can afford it?!"

Is organic rice yet another new and trendy luxury of India's wealthy? While meanwhile the cost of food is rising and more and more people are having trouble feeding their family?

I last came here five years ago. In that time, India has changed tremendously. Everyone, from the business man to the taxi driver, seems to have a cell phone. New fancy shopping malls, apartment complexes, and five star hotels have been erected. The dilapidated stalls on the street now sell sim cards and blue tooth headsets.

And yet too much seems unchanged. Too many children still sleep on the street. Too many women must beg for money to support their family. Too many people go hungry.

And I can't help wonder, "Is this the best we can do?" Is the twenty-first century a time where we accept the rising economic disparity between the haves and the have-nots with nonchalance because, well what can you do?

I don't know what to do. But what I do know is that nonchalance is unacceptable. Because when you stop caring, you stop trying to make things better.

And things must get better in India. Because too many people are being left behind.

Hello!

In London. Leaving tomorrow for India. 

Will update soon. But don't forget, your posts on affluence are due by Sep 10th for the APLS Carnival! So don't be a slacker like me. Start writing!