Social Planning and Economic Upgrading

By: Stephen Ainsah-Mensah

1. An economy, as usual, goes on developing in a way that is great in many respects. Technology fuels unrestrained advancement, and one must keep glorifying this marvel of development because it proves the ingenuity of us humans. But there is a weakness to this technological wonder. Ultimately, this style of development begins to retreat in a fashion never thought of or dreamt of. What must have gone wrong? Was technology not responding to the human and natural needs that it used to respond to? One may go on to ask these other pressing questions: “would not the unrestrained use of technology for unrestrained production fail, at some point, to match with human consumption?” How can human consumption be unrestrained if money for use by humans is restrained?

2. The failure to go on with the process of unrestrained production comes about from this production-consumption gap stated in 1. The gap widens; human failings become manifest; producers in particular and consumers in general are, thereby, warned to exercise moderation in ways of doing things. And this shows that production planning unmatched by human planning is a major determinant of an economic retreat that can be far more insidious than was previously thought. Human planning unmatched by production planning may lead to a similar embarrassing predicament. The spiraling effect is massive layoffs. If there is a big shortfall in consumption, curtailing production to match the shortfall requires an immense reduction in the workforce. This kind of prudence, though called for, has a moral and social deficit attached to it. Why lay off so many people and bring intolerable stress to them if you could previously have checked this disruption by merely proving your moderation through social planning? Social planning has the tendency of rendering predictable outcomes. The untold stress from layoffs is not all there is to the plight of the victims. Suppose they cannot make ends meet, then the very emotionally unstable ones could resort to rare misdeeds that may generate social-economic disarticulation. So, we must be on the alert to forestall such hazards. Those individuals who pride in the buildup of wealth and believe that is what human creativity is for are mistaken, not in principles but in practice. They just do not realize that, with time, social-economic disarticulation poses challenges, insecurities to the private accumulation of wealth.

3. Eventually, we humans may have to learn to understand that private and public planning of enterprises is what can save us from missteps that we, first of all, created and brought to bear on ourselves. But, then, private enterprises can hardly check themselves from excesses whenever they live through unrestrained profits. If we can grasp this fact, then it may be easy to avoid the unpleasant consequences of economic decline that come with the stubborn refusal to plan production in relation to the realistic ability of people to buy what are produced. Not only that; people ought to buy and consume what is to enhance personal and collective development; the environment too has to be liberated from the dangerous traps of unwanted pollution and other natural devastations. The production - and hence, consumption planning - that is here being espoused tallies with human planning. It suggests that human planning is also what may ordinarily be termed social planning . This is the kind of planning that puts the society in order and warns that human activity and creativity ought to follow a predictable yet sound trend if we are not to encourage chaos to mature and consume the society in a resolute fashion. Unrestrained production cannot simply be resolved on its own accord by the private producers. The other way (round) to redressing the dilemma of unrestrained production is to raise consumption to an unrestrained level, so that consumption matches with unrestrained production. But this will, perhaps, be the height of human folly since products will sprawl everywhere and be an extraordinary nuisance to the environment. What may fully satisfy our human desires, our fitting appetites, is a condition of restrained production that equates with restrained consumption. That is what social planning is for; social planning strives for this goal.

4. It is just not realistic for some people to express disapproval of social planning. Their error in judgement is this: a government plan that follows the direction of getting involved in private enterprises hinders individual creativity and the natural spirit of private enterprises. What naturally follows is the obstruction of private enterprises from bringing about the coveted progress to culture. But here is the response to such opponents. An economy is in decline; a government intervenes to correct errors that keep growing from unplanned production (from private enterprises). What the government does is to help in fixing mounting mess by infusing discipline into ways of doing prevalent businesses that tell on the lives of the majority of the people. Individuals who engage in private enterprises are far more keen on swelling their profits than on devising measures aimed at promoting social-economic coherence. But one can see a sense of frustration, bitterness, from those who think government intervention entails introducing the suppressive and oppressive instruments of government into private enterprises. Herein rests the confusion! Does social planning mean socialism? For lame opponents of social planning, it does.

5. One gets caught in ambiguities if one claims that it is not the government's business to occupy itself with the social planning of the economy for the benefit of private enterprises. The argument is likely to be put forward that those in the best position to grow private enterprises, develop them to amazing heights are the people. Ask yourself who the people are, and you will see yourself unable to define your position without being elusive. Do you mean the people preoccupied with private enterprises or the people who consume the products of private enterprises - or both? Or, do you mean people other than these two? But admit it: consumers have to face a hitch. Most of them might have reached a point where they do not have the capacity to undergo a consumption spree in order to induce unrestrained private enterprises in the fashion that it used to be. To say that private enterprises have to, at this point, be given all the necessary incentives to promote production and consumption ensnares you in a bad argument; it is the kind of argument that shows that you see no problems in going round - in a circle. Besides, The people are not a definable or designated group of people. The term fails to make sense unless it is given a practical connotation whereby what is being done at any moment is connected to who is doing them, how the doers are affected as well as those who have direct or indirect connection with the doers. In short, to use the term, the people, is to render the term practicable, workable, within a specifically defined domain, not to leave the term like that - as a conceptual confusion. The same goes for a claim that a free-enterprise economy is a system run by the unrestrained self-determination of the people. You need to answer the question: “who are the people?” once and for all.

6. Now, ask yourself again: does government have to play an important role in the development and security of private enterprises? Yes! But, again, how? We may be foolish to say government should, indeed, own the enterprises instead of helping to inspire them, giving them the requisite lift, seeing to it that they do not use haphazard techniques to advance and/or enlarge profits. The former approach has long been held to be what socialism is all about; the latter is moderated capitalism or a kind of it or some other economic system not yet tagged with a standard name. The latter is tempered by the hand of government to enable it stay away from an amorphous social-economic arrangement. And is not moderated capitalism or whatever name you may call it what we yearn for as humans in place of economic anarchy that thrives from the doings of unrestrained private enterprises? If moderated capitalism is claimed to be socialism, then we may be playing with words. That does not change the practical efficacy of this kind of system compared to a host of others that may prove to be failures.

Technology Instructs Culture

Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

No coalescence or assimilation or coexistence of cultures appears right if the process does not come from the voluntary will of the participants. Coercion could lead to cooperation but with some misgivings from the coerced culture(s); and this merely postpones dissension. Technology energizes the base of culture. It brings culture to a new level of relationship with the natural environment and may tempt a rather vigorous exploitation of the natural environment. Eventually, the culture may lack the critical resources to keep its spirit. That is where resources may be sought elsewhere, and if not available, force may be used to acquire them. The idea of controlling other cultures, micromanaging them or appropriating them, stems from this reality. But this way of doing things, while it may be claimed to be quite unreasonable is inevitable; for once technology is launched on the road to unimpeded success, its roots and branches ought to be nurtured by a natural environment, which may not have the full capacity to do so. At last, technology hangs unto culture as if a natural connection has failed; and while all sorts of planning within the framework of technology could stimulate progress, it is social planning that appears to slow down as technological creativity tends to disregard the collective human elements of progress in the society.

Culture's Role in Progress

By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

1. One may dispute a very well-liked view of development. It is a view that fixes the idea of development on the putting up of structures. This view tends to disregard the natural connection that the structures have to have with the progress of the people; that is, structures may be of little use unless they, in general, complement progress of the people. The structures may show progress of a few people. This also means the structures are of little use. The view in question sees, above all, development not necessarily as something guided by the hand of culture. People do things anyway and care less about the role culture has to play - or has been playing - in their doings; so progress can go on as usual; the signposts of culture could stay unheeded. There is a problem with this kind of development. Since culture is the unique way of life of a people carved principally from their natural surroundings, development may lack the natural vitality if culture is forsaken. Problems get compounded when the people seek comfort, admiration, the means to progress from others' culture(s). Here, one can see the connection between the people and their natural surroundings to be that of a rejection initiated by the people themselves. But, then, this is also a key to the unnatural growth of the people's intelligence even though intelligence could advance at a fast pace to stimulate development, especially in the domain of technology and, for sure, structures. The sin, however, is that way of life fails to conform to the progress of culture; that naturalness of culture is just not there; it is stifled!

2. One has to be reminded that there could be inadequacies in the natural surroundings to support a growing population. This will require shared views, thoughts, experiences with other cultures to encourage mutual progress. The problem arises when the sharing is not seen as essential and is, thereby, set aside for one culture to decide the direction of progress of another culture or cultures. This could begin an unfaltering rise in the barrenness of culture. And too often barrenness is not equated with the culture but merely with development. People are tempted to say: “Your culture is not going through the necessary progress. You require the service of developed cultures!” What this means is that the missing progress is the result of errors in the doing of some standard things unrelated, for the most part, to culture but typical of a customary human cleverness. Once this form of thinking gets wholly accepted, it is taken as a given that progress is a universal thing that need not be connected to the boundaries of particular natural environments; and this contention also means progress can reject culture and still keep its tempo.

3. When one begins to question the thesis of developed and developing cultures, one encounters a difficulty that, perhaps, has gone unrecognized or disregarded. Now, suppose you say that a culture is developed - meaning also that the right progress is going on - one has to look over the means used to arrive at the development. The means may have been that of the use of wrong morals; that is to say, the means that brought about the present development must have been morally wrong. The human character might have worked in an illogical way. Dishonesty could be common; the logic of life then gets distorted by a host of human doings that draw inspiration from wrinkles, gimmicks, deception, aggression, machismo, and related practices in order to keep up progress. One can be sure that the future inclination of this kind of culture is not praiseworthy. Progress of this nature is simply on shaky ground. One has to keep asking: what are the ingredients of the culture and the progress thence? The response is that one has to go back, again and again, to the question of the natural surroundings. Are the said ingredients natural springs of the natural surroundings or species of them? The practice of forcing culture to follow a path that is not, in any case, consistent with the ingredients of the natural surroundings brings sin to bear on the way of life of the people. We are generally in favour of a developed culture that abides by the rules of moral correctness and of the logic of life, which is of the form: “do these to others because you like to do them to yourself!” Here, one's selfishness in doing these to one's self shows entirely in the way one does things to others as if a moral equivalence is in place. We may call this unselfish selfishness.

4. We are fond of saying that this is the way of life of the people, that this way of life has shaped the people's style of progress. But if the way of life of the people is all there is to culture, then it is silly to say that progress can be neutral of culture and that, therefore, culture need not always underlie - or be wedded to - progress. Much of the problems of the modern concept and practice of globalization come from the mistaken notion that development could, anyway, go on notwithstanding the sidelining of culture. Globalization is supposed to bring different cultures closer to one another with the hope of freeing them from misunderstandings and the weaknesses of trade, business. Cultures, thereby, see each other in two basic lights: developed and developing cultures. If instead of equitable interactions, the idea of developed and developing cultures is made to decide how trade is to go on, one is bound to see equity supplanted by the gut-feeling of superiority from those who claim - or are said - to be superior precisely because they are developed. And this feeling of superiority generates its opposite feeling - the feeling of inferiority - or a complex variation of it from the side of developing cultures. The problem goes further than this. If I am developed and you are developing, I'm prone to believing that I have more of the traits of smartness and sophistication than you do. This kind of thinking is flawed, logically; but it also fails to grasp the concept of smartness and, so one may say, sophistication.

5. The inadequacy of the concept of smartness shows up when smartness excludes or fails to incorporate the appropriate role of the human fibre in the execution of smartness. Thus, a man is claimed to be adept in communicating with all sorts of people, organizing them effectively, winning their interests, proving to be masterful in human relations, doing what is naturally judged to be morally right and capable of sowing the seeds that generate the right choices by people for promoting the desirable development in the culture. He also understands that the natural environment is our greatest natural friend and strives to live with it, in it, for it, by it, in as cordial and peaceful a manner as possible. We ought to integrate these valuable skills into the overall conception of smartness; for such skills, moreover, moderate human excesses and tend to encourage social planning, which is vital for purging wastes and observing prudence in the procedures of progress.

6. In general, one will prefer prudence to an overambitious way of life - granted one is being honest to one's self. It may be held that the latter can lead to awkwardness in culture if it so happens that despite the available soaring creativity wastes is widespread and takes its toll on the environment and the people. This problem could come about from the misuse of technology. For sure, technology eases the production process; it brings special comfort to life; it surrounds us with all sorts of amazing gadgets, machines. Technology reduces the time expended by humans on the production process. It demonstrates the progressive sophistication of the human mind and its creative ability. Technolgy shows that a culture can withstand the pressures of inadequate natural resources by exploring human ingenuity to as great a height as possible to enable the flourishing of production. But this human marvel hits the wall whenever instead of enhancing moral decorum, it promotes the contrary; whenever instead of elevating social cohesion it brings about social disintegration; whenever - and this is very important - instead of enhancing economic equity it accentuates economic classes and brings business to the level of moral and social ridicule.

7. The question of smartness can, perhaps, be resolved conclusively if we pay much more attention to the advancement of science and technology and its integration with the original traits of culture that says: “let the moral conscience inspire the logic of life and foster the spirit of progress!” Here, science, techonology and culture advance but within the framework of the natural character of we humans. We are barred from obstructing other cultures from progressing the natural way - and according to the natural character, which is spurred, in general, by the natural environment.

8. Imagine some men from a developed culture who go to a developing culture with the sole purpose of achieving trade deals. Their intuitions are those of people who think winning over their counterparts without giving room for any equitable compromises is the natural thing; they think they have the power, the advantage of “knowledge” and smartness, the spirit of pre-eminence to back them. As the business talk resumes, one can see their winning spirit directing the procedure. The talk ends, and they achieve their hearts' desire: an overwhelming trade benefit at the expense of the developing culture. Whereas the developing culture loses heavily, the developed culture gains a great deal. The developing culture cannot do otherwise; its economic weakness obstructs it from undertaking a tough stance in the talking terms; so the developing culture reaches a point at which it gives in to the influx of all sorts of items from the developed culture helping to buttress the latter's economy, its general strength. The natural drift of the progress of the developing culture gets stalled. When the developing culture gives in to the unwarranted, crushing requests of the developed culture in terms of trade (of business), the internal mechanism of its natural environment is distorted; culture ceases to show its natural character, and progress proceeds in a messy fashion. Much of the forced migration of people from developing cultures arises from such anomalies.

9. We want to say that respect for all sorts of cultures is crucial for promoting culture-determined progress; so, think of any kind of human ingenuity in any domain, and it ought to be relative to culture. There is no superior culture, nor is there an inferior culture. All cultures stand at the same level as far as they grant satisfaction, the hoped progress to the people in relation to a cohesive natural environment. But, then, natural environments are not the same, so cultures are also supposed not to be the same. The idea of lording one culture over another arises from vulgar ignorance and dangerous arrogance, which is a clear sin and should be avoided. At best, cultures should learn from one another and seek help from one another granted there are some perceived deficiencies in resources essential for progress.

How Troubling are Pesticides and Fertilizers to Modern Farming?

By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

It is now all too common to see farm produce bigger in size than before. Fruits and vegetables readily come to mind. Besides, produce look more polished, neater, heavier and far more enticing to consumers than they were in the past. Many people seem to be saying to themselves: “how great farming and farm produce have become, thanks to the wonders of technology!” Farm-soils are micromanaged with the obvious help of fertilizers and bug repellants, especially in areas where land for farming is sadly insufficient. While the former, as we know, promotes the quick growth of crops, the latter guards against the vicious activities of pests on crops.

So far, one can say that such techniques in farming has sped the pace of crop yields; and never has modern technology quickened the advancement of food production than now. The advantage relates to how limited farmlands can nonetheless offset the problems of rapid population growth by turning over massive quantities of crop yields for human consumption. It is as if turning back on this remarkable farm technology could lead to food shortages and cause human suffering. This irresistible feature about technology in relation to farm yields has even drawn the attention of those farmers who have no substantive reason to imitate the farming practices of those other farmers whose farmlands are restricted in expanse.

The question, then, is: should farmers with adequate lands choose to produce according to technologically induced methods of farming that embraces the extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides? Or, should the extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides be set aside for farmers who produce on restricted farmlands? Either way the harmful effects of the consumed farm produce on human life is palpably real. It may be shown by experts - or, it has been shown by experts - that boosting farm yields through the use of, say, all kinds of fertilizers and pesticides increases the risk of, say, carcinogenic foods on the human body following their consumption. This point may stand unchallenged and is in agreement with commonsense. If chemicals are massively introduced into farm-soils to encourage, in turn, massive crop yields, it stands to reason that the yields were “disturbed” from developing according to the plants' natural capacities. The artificially induced yields are consumed, and they produce in the human body mutated elements of the chemicals, which were originally introduced into the soil, in whichever form. Accordingly, the human body reduces its natural capacity and may, quite unexpectedly, suffer from bouts of sicknesses or unhealthy development that, in its natural cast, it would not have suffered from.

Some people may argue that the issue of producing chemically induced foods – or what is commonly termed genetically engineered foods (GEF) - does nothing or does little to distort the natural balance of the human being. To them, the human body can readily adapt to, even, carcinogenic foods and subsequently become resistant to them. Suppose these contentions are true, then we are left with the issue of whether a new breed of humans fed on genetically engineered foods (GEF) are as capable in life's activities as their counterpart humans fed on naturally induced foods, usually termed organic foods (OF). One may not be able to address this issue definitively. But it is clear that it is a matter of whether some designated consumable foods are harmful to the human body or not. If they are, it may make no sense to argue in their favour on the basis that some human bodies may resist their acknowledged harm. Even for these harm-resistant humans, they may suffer from unrecognized or unknown harms that may work unsuspectingly on the body’s structure and development. Why allow harm to persist in order to eventually resist it when the possibility of preventing the harm to occur exists?

But, then, there is the problem of disregarding the role of technology in farm production if, first of all, the farmer has to stay away from the pressures of insufficient income that comes with low crop yields. As one can see, the natural way of growing crops and harvesting them for human consumption does not bring about massive yields in comparison with technologically induced crop yields that subscribe to the principles of genetically engineered foods (GEF). Therefore, the dilemma the farmer has to face is this: “Am I to do what is morally right by producing food that is mostly natural and safe for human consumption? Or, am I to do what is logically justifiable by producing food that can support the growing population and also support me with regard to a predictable, good income even though it could be harmful for human consumption?” One can see here that what is morally right to do and what is logically justifiable to do tend to clash with regard to modern techniques of food production on the farm; and it is essential to seek some kind of a synthesis between the two if we are not to stay inexorable in claiming that these two are glaringly complementary, therefore exclusive in operation.

It is far more appropriate to claim that what is grown and eaten ought to be connected to what gets into the environment. Pollutants are not just lodged in the environment; they get carried over into farmlands and affect the natural growth of crop yields. The farmer who faces this problem is logically compelled to use pesticides and, in many cases, fertilizers to accomplish the goal of getting the anticipated yields. It may not be easy, in modern farming, to stay away from the massive use of fertilizers and pesticides in industrialized areas or in areas where pollutants are hardly proficiently managed. Policy and decision makers could merely initiate and sustain public education strategies that make clear the harmful effects of chemicals on farmlands. Of course, the sources of pollutants ought to be vigorously pursued in order to minimize their effects. Suppose pollutants and pollution of various forms are expertly controlled, then farmers could be instructed to do their part in producing as many organic foods as possible instead of the counterpart genetically engineered foods (GEF). The emerging problem would then have to be in connection with how to price farm produce. A reasonably high price would encourage farmers at large to stick to the production of organic foods. Low prices would naturally be a deterrent.

Nowadays, however, it is not surprising to see quite an important increase in organic food production. Consumers have become so familiar with the large quantities of GEF compared to OF. With the limited supply of OF, many farmers may cash in on the increased prices by striving to increase their production. What is hard to do is how to capably produce OF in the presence of unreceding pollution.