Development: Is it all it's cracked up to be?

In Year 12 (that's my junior year to all you Americans), my geography teacher showed us a picture of rural China. It was green and luscious--a beautiful country side. Later we were looking at pictures of Beijing and other more developed areas of China. The cities were gray with pollution and the only sign of anything green was in the neon lights. I remember thinking--why is it that we view what has come to be called development as the world's ideal? We put industrialization on a pedestal when really, mother nature knows much better than any man what to do with her land. Reading about the development in the United States has brought similar questions to my mind. Are big cities really the better way to go? Sure, there are closer access to things like hospitals, grocery stores, a wider selection of just about anything one could ever want but is it truly a better way of living?

In my Soc 310 class we have been talking about Durkheim and his theories on solidarity. One theory, Mechanical Solidarity, based more on a pastoral setting, states that humans are unified in doing the same thing--everyone grows crops, everyone harvests etc. In a large industrious city people are unified by Organic Solidarity--people begin to specialize and then fulfill the needs of others. Instead of everyone growing crops just a few farmers do, instead of everyone making their own bread we have bakers, instead of everyone learning to make furniture we have carpenters. While we as a society can probably get more done, does this really bring us closer together? Does it truly unite us? I think not.

As American began to industrialize it became increasingly individualistic. Everything was about me and only me. As time wears on this is only getting worse. Is development really the goal we should strive for? Maybe not