Unscientific promotion of science

It is not often I criticize efforts to promote science. But today, I am compelled to do so, and ironically in the interest of science. I refer to an article in in The Hindu of today (2012-07-01) by one Dr. Dhirendra Sharma entitled Ma Ganga needs scientist Bhagirath!

The article is against environmental movements in Uttarakhand, particularly in the context of opposition to damming of rivers and generation of hydropower. More specifically, the target appears to be Prof. G D Agrawal and his alter ego, Swami Gyan Swaroopanand. It is to be noted that Prof. G D Agrawal was successful in damming the Bhagirathi River in 2009 by going on a fast. And the title of Dr. Sharma’s piece is a retort to that effort is only too obvious for further clarification.

Dr. Sharma is, of course, well within his rights to voice his opinion and if a newspaper like The Hindu gives him space, more power to him. But, it is also well within my rights to comment, in a space that is at best a quasi-public forum, on this mental outpouring that does not appear unmotivated.

I recall, though I cannot give Chapter and Verse, that Dr. Sharma wrote against movements such as that of Swami Gyan Swaroopanand (I specifically referred to his putatively non-secular name) just when the leading environmental activist was in the middle of one of his “environmental” fasts and was admitted to AIIMS. The tone was pretty similar to the one discerned in the current piece. Environmental concerns have to give way to economic growth, no questions asked and no moderations to be accommodated.

The point that Prof. G D Agrawal (in his current avatar as Swami Gyan Swaroopanand) essentially makes is that such a victory for economic growth cannot but be Pyrrhic. And, for the uninitiated, let me tell you that Prof. G D Agrawal is a “doyen of environmental engineers in India” and on whom I had posted a piece earlier [1]. However, what Dr. Sharma had written, calling for the “scientist Bhagirath”, implicitly downgrades Prof. Agrawal.

With that prologue let me start refuting Dr. Sharma’s arguments and positions. He starts off with the unsubstantiated assertion, “Scientific management of the glacial rivers and lakes of the Himalayas is the only way [my emphasis] to take care of irrigation and drinking water needs of millions of people in the Gangetic plains.” There is not even a whiff of reducing the demand, or at least slowing down the rate of increase in the demand, here and all throughout the article. It is like, we are going to consume and consume more and let “Ma Ganga” take care of herself. Dam and damn the Ganga!

The article does not even mention sewage treatment plants along the river stretch and water pollution controls to be mandated on industrial units, restrictions on sand mining, to save “Ma Ganga”. The implicit argument: Obviously these will cost money which we do not have, and also industry will incur additional cost, which, of course, we cannot afford. This, if anything, is a war cry against environmental activism.

As an atheist, I am with Dr. Sharma in decrying use of religious idioms in the campaign to make people bring aware about how the rivers, not just “Ma Ganga”, are being abused. However, as you may notice from my post at [1], it is not a raw condemnation as in the following: “There is no traditional [implicit rejection of traditional methods as unscientific] or spiritual method available to us to us to meet the 21^st century demands for water and power,” and, “development …cannot be achieved by washing our sins in the holy river.”

Dr. Sharma has to do this because for him “Ma Ganga” comes under the “nothing buttery” scenario – “Ma Ganga” is “nothing but” the source of our life comforts no matter what we do, and that is that. There can be no claims on behalf of “Ma Ganga”. In addition he repeatedly asserts that science can handle all the challenges. This is “scientism” of the worst kind – the claim that science must not be scrutinized and there is no need to look beyond science.

I will substantiate what I have said above, beyond the opening statement in his article that I had already commented upon: a. “[W]ith the advancement in science …we can plan and prepare for their [natural resources] better management.” b.  “[O]nly scientific methods would restore purity of the mighty Ganga.” c. “Scientific knowledge gives us the confidence for corrections and construction of water storage facilities and hydropower generation, without damaging environment.” d. “With the scientific and technical experience gathered from dam constructions … we are in a commanding position to build strong and safe dams with sustainable development strategies in the Himalayas.” e. “I appeal to our dharmgurus and acharyas to resist the temptation to arouse emotions against scientific development projects.”

My observations on the above:

On (a) … the phrase “better management” is meaningless in the absence of what the writer thinks is “better”. From the tone of the article and the exclusive focus on economic growth, it is more like “exploitation” in the Biblical sense rather than “informed stewardship,” which is the current thinking. Quite antediluvian, I would say.

On (b) …I have no issues except that there is no mention of untreated sewage outfalls and untreated industrial effluents, while, “[p]ouring milk and dumping bodies would not bring purity to any river” is mentioned prominently. That is, what we do in the name of science and economics is OK but things in the name of traditional practices and beliefs must be condemned. I am looking for some balance. Alas, the article offers none.

On (c) … obviously the author is unaware that the 600 km long reservoir of the Three Gorges Dam is starting to show its ugly environmental colors.

On (d) … that is a technocrat speaking, “strong and safe” dams. Where is the ecologist who is concerned with the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment? After all, “Ma Ganga” is not “nothing but” H₂O molecules thrashing about and moving on.

On (e) … the activists are more against unbridled exploitation and argue for stewardship of environment in the cause of sustained benefits from the natural systems. What the author argues is more akin to killing the goose that laid the golden egg! True, the phrase “sustainable development” finds its way in once, but in its tone it is an insulting sop.

What is given at (e) above comes after a series of irrelevant questions: Why these gurus have not focused on animal sacrifice and female foeticide? Besides the possibility of these rhetorical questions being wrong (in the sense these may have been raised by some guru or the other), it is not incumbent upon the gurus to raise only those questions that the author deems important!

More points to criticize:

There are major political problems associated with a dam much up stream of Aswan across River Nile. Many dams across the American Northwest are being demolished in the cause of salmons swimming upstream to spawn. Dams across the River Mekong, originating in the plateau of eastern Tibet, is highly contentious among the four riparian countries – Thailand, Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam (one may want to add China and Myanmar into this mix!). When the author traverses the globe – Russia, Canada, the US, Finland, Egypt – to add heft to his arguments, I have similar rights to go where I wish to go, to try to skin that fat turkey!

The author condemns fasting as a means of protest, but only within the context of “saving rivers”. More aggressive “fasting” against corruption as public protest goes uncommented. If you would please recognize, I am directing the author’s questions back to himself: why has the author not commented upon “fasting” in the context of corruption?

But, more significantly, it makes it clear that the target is Swami Gyan Swaroopanand, aka Prof. G D Agrawal.

Let me also inform Dr. Sharma, on the authority of Prof. E O Wilson of Harvard University in his book The Future of Life, that the Catskills Mountains filter water that serve New York City. The free ecological service rendered by this process is reckoned in billions of dollars. So, his parting question about that city providing clean water to its citizens is at least partly answered. And, this will be to the benefit to the riverine societies.

And, by the way, the hydroelectric power produced by damming rivers in their remote reaches will do little to help the local people, and if at all only during the construction phase, as much of the power will be evacuated to far off places, only to pollute the river by unregulated sewerage discharge from the population centers and industrial effluent from industrial clusters. All that talk about people – “doctors, engineers and teachers” – will be willing to work in rural areas is just that, talk. We have the example of resistance to mandatory rural service by doctors to go by.

The article is also unscientific in a core sense – by denying, based on a reference to a lone study, that Himalayan glaciers are receding. One last point: his piece seems to be motivated by the hydropower lobby.

By situating science outside of the context of its interactions with society in all its facets and repeatedly stressing that science will do this and that, the author resorts to the most unscientific arguments of “scientism”. As a concerned layman I have to register a strong protest. Given my own limitations, this is about as much as I can do in the service of science and society.

Raghuram Ekambaram

 References

1.       http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2012/04/agrawal-aint-no-match-for-hazare.html