When
considering all the mounting environmental and resource availability problems
our modern society is facing, many people turn to advances in technology and
neo-liberalisation as potential solutions. In Paolo Bacigalupi’s novel The Windup Girl, powerful
agro-businesses, known as “calorie companies”, specializing in genetically
modified organisms hold almost absolute economic and political control in a future
society. One relationship I noticed between Bacigalupi’s world and our world is
between the control of calorie companies in the future world and the potential
for water privatization today. Both
are examples of the so-called “solutions” where industry takes over control of
a necessary resource, with the expectation that pressures of supply and demand
coupled with technological advances can solve societal problems better than
government regulation. I’m arguing
that both Bacigalupi’s novel and modern cases of water privatization are
examples of this theory going awry.
Although water privatization can benefit the public and help create
water security, when implemented incorrectly it can lead to ramifications
similar to the result of calorie company control in The Windup Girl.
Water
privatization involves transferring the control of water operations and
distribution from the public sphere into private hands, and is a very
controversial topic. Those who
advocate for privatization argue that the private sector, operating on the
principles of supply and demand, would be much more efficient in setting prices,
updating infrastructure and technology, and distributing water than the
government. Those opposed argue
that water is a fundamental human right, and should be controlled by the public
sector to avoid problems caused by high prices or poor water quality.
Today food is, of course,
controlled by the private sector and sold in markets operating on the
principles of supply and demand—but it is regulated by the government and not
nearly as monopolized as it is in The Windup Girl. The monopoly of food resources
that the calorie companies hold in futuristic Thailand allows them to engage in
bio-warfare and create a market for their products because they control such an
important resource. Similarly,
businesses that exercise a monopoly over water resources have the option to
manipulate the resource to their benefit, because water is an even more
essential human need than food. I
am not arguing that water privatization leads to bio-warfare, but it can often
lead to pricing out of the poorer class, health problems, and conflict.
An
example of this occurred in Cochabamba,
Bolivia in 1998. The Cochabamba government was corrupt and inefficient and
therefore unable to provide sufficient water to their citizens. At that time
the World Bank was spending a lot of money to promote neo-liberalism in
developing countries with transitioning governments, like Bolivia. The World Bank lent them money on the
condition that they privatize their water system. Cochabamba entered into a 40-year contract with a private
firm, giving them total control and ownership over their water system,
including the water itself. Prices
of water skyrocketed, traditional water practices were banned, and the water
quality actually decreased. After
just two years, public protests and civil unrest led the government to break
the contract and take back control of the water system.
Like
in Cochabamba and Bacigalupi’s futuristic Thailand, when companies gain
absolute power over a resource that is essential to life, such as water or
calories, there is a strong possibility for corruption and greed. Many people view technological advances
and neo-liberalism as keys to solve and adapt to our growing environmental
problems, The Windup Girl warns against this growing reliance. As we discusses in class, human nature
tends to be “reactive” as opposed to “proactive” and instead of dealing with
issues of climate change and water scarcity head-on favors taking the easy way
out and trying to adapt using technology and economic control. I believe that in order to be proactive
we should focus fixing on the systematic flaws of our lifestyles to try to
combat the problem, as opposed to relying corporations and technology to combat
them for us.
I agree that the privatization of water poses dangerous risks. A shortage of water or food would be devastating, and likely lead to violent conflict. However, water privatization seems to pose a more imminent threat because of the nature of water distribution. In the United States there is typically one water provider for a given area. A private company with sole access to a region is essentially a monopoly. The power a water monopoly would have is too severe to allow.
ReplyDelete