by Mat Churchill

Developing countries around the world are striving to obtain what we in the West take for granted - a consumptive, disposable lifestyle. But is this the will of the people, or their governments with dollar signs in their eyes?

Here's and example.

The building of big dams in countries like India and China, with Laos to follow suit is justified by highlighting the economic hardship of the people of these countries.

Just the other night the ABC aired a program about the prospect of building nine big dams on the mighty Mekong River in Laos to create energy to export to neighbouring countries.

The minister for energy and mining in Laos justified the plan by saying the people currently earn less than US$2 per day. At first glance this sounds atrocious that so many people could live below the poverty line.

But we are looking at their situation through Western eyes.

These people do not operate in our gross economy where money is valued above all else. They live in harmony with their natural surroundings by using the resources such as the Mekong as sustainably as possible.

The governments of these countries do not care about the people of their country.

They see investment dollars from our superannuation funds (it's highly likely your super fund invests in projects such as big dams, forestry, etc. in developing countries), and loans from the World Bank as a way for an absolute minority (of which they are a part) to get rich.

So let's focus on the building of big dams for a moment.These projects are designed to control the flow of water to various parts of the country, handing control over people's livelihoods to the government.

The projects are often ill advised to the point they are completed at any cost, regardless of the social and environmental costs. But to make matters worse, the economic gain is often highly inflated, and the cost to the people is often ignored.

When big dams are built, millions upon millions of people can be displaced, sometimes forcefully by the military, from villages that their families have inhabited for centuries.

One Indian government official told a village to move or be drowned by the waters they rely on.

The people are relocated to areas that may be in the same country but is completely foreign to them. They are relocated miles from the river they grew up with.

They now need to pay for the fish they once caught freely. They have been dragged into a life that they know nothing about, and have little hope for the future.

In India, the scale of relocation is massive. Little to no compensation is given to these people and they are often relocated to arid land that cannot grow crops.

They turn to the cities such as Dehli and Mumbai for what work they can find, but because of the crippling level of unemployment, often end up begging and living in tin sheds in the slums.

To get a better understanding of the impact big dams have in developing countries, read Arundhati Roy's book 'The Cost of Living'. In fact, read any non-fiction book of hers you can get your hands on. It makes for interesting, frustrating, anger inducing reading.

As an Indian who grew up in a small village, and through her activism as an adult, she has experienced the damaging impacts these dams have.

In Laos it is predicted that proceeding with a big dam could wipe out 40% of their fish stocks, with many species likely to become extinct.

It will invariably create conflict with regions and countries downstream who see their livelihoods become a trickle. Who knows where that could lead?

So back to my point.

Should everyone strive to lead a life like us in Western civilisation? If that were the case then we'd need another four Earths to maintain such a lifestyle.

Perhaps we should strive for a lifestyle more like the villagers of Laos and learn to live with what we have, not what we think is our right.