Resetting our goals?

Studying at the Duke University Marine Laboratory (DUML) in North Carolina has allowed me to view things from a totally different perspective, including development. According to Rist, his definition of development is “the general transformation and destruction of the natural environment and of social relations in order to increase the production of commodities (goods and services) geared, by means of market exchange, to effective demand” (Rist 488). I do agree with his definition in some aspects, while in other contexts, I do not.

From a more biological/ecological/environmental approach, I do agree with this definition. This type of “development,” which, I believe, “construction” would fall under, can be seen almost anywhere. For instance, here at DUML, there is a new bridge being built across from Piver’s Island (the island that DUML campus is on), but there’s already an existing bridge, that, to me, seems perfectly fine. (Now, I’m sure there is a (somewhat) justifiable reason as to why an entirely new complex is needed, but why not just refurbish the one that’s already there?) This is an example that perfectly fits Rist’s definition of

Construction of a new bridge across from Piver's Island

“development” because this construction of a new bridge is “geared to effective demand” (Rist 488). So, as opposed to just refurbishing the original bridge, a completely new bridge is being built– and the surrounding environment/wildlife is taking a hit. With the building of this new bridge comes a lot of pounding, grinding, screeching, drilling, and all of the other common construction sounds that you can imagine. And if I, as a human being, am finding this “development” to be quite annoying and distracting, I can’t even imagine how the wildlife, especially marine life, is being impacted. Interestingly enough, one of the professors here at DUML is conducting research on how the building of the new bridge and the noise pollution that it’s creating is impacting the nearby wildlife, specifically dolphins. This is a prime example of how development is “…geared to effective demand” and “stimulate[s] the blissful feelings that typify artificial paradises“ because, while this type of development is accommodating to our “needs,” it is at the expense of other individuals (Rist 488, 485). The bridge construction is most likely driving organisms out of their natural habitat (which we have no right to be invading when there is a completely functional bridge available), resulting in the organisms to live in potentially subpar/stressful environments that are less suited for their physiological lifestyle and do not allow them to fulfill their environmental niche.

While Rist does provide adequate evidence on how development has negative sociological impacts, he fails to take into account how crucial some “development” is for the world– what about shelters? Soup kitchens? Charities? Housing for low-income families? Schools? Hospitals? Veterinary institutions? Or even parks? Not all development should have the negative connotation that Rist is illustrating for the reader. I believe his definition is not all encompassing– it does not take enough aspects of the world into consideration. But even if it were somehow possible to do so, it would not be possible to come to a conclusive, definitive answer on whether “development” is good or bad, right or wrong because the subjectivity of the word “development” is over-whelming.

Reference:
Rist, Gilbert (2007). 'Development as a buzzword', Development in Practice, 17:4, 485-491.