Musings in Malaysia

Last night, we had a discussion with a young German couple next door to us, Ella and Franz, in which we all, laughingly, agreed that Malaysia was not quite 'foreign' enough for our liking. We agreed that It is certainly too familiar feeling, too easy, too developed, too 'Westernised' to make us feel, however fancifully, that we're travelling adventurously! Maybe Borneo will tip the balance back again ... who knows?

Ella had been working in Hanoi for a year, and was now travelling through south-east Asia with Franz (his first visit to the region), and both preferred the simple lifestyles, traditions and customs of the village people in rural Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos - and we felt very much the same. But then, we challenged each other about whether, by this, we meant that Malaysia is simply not poor enough for our liking - a sobering thought. This discussion started to crystallise some thoughts I'd been having about these kinds of issues ever since we arrived in this country (much as we're also really enjoying ourselves here).

We had, of course, arrived from the poorest region of Vietnam (the Mekong Delta), and mainly rural areas of Cambodia, into Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia's biggest, busiest, most developed, high-rise, fast-paced city. We were struck, immediately, by two things: firstly, the large number of hugely overweight Malaysians we saw - something we hardly ever saw amongst the Cambodians and Vietnamese - including many seriously obese children as young as maybe 5. (Yeah, yeah, I know the one about the pot and the kettle, but hear me out, because I'm certainly not trying to have a go at individuals; rather, I want to make a wider point - no pun intended!)

The second thing we'd been struck by was the amount of oil and energy being expended on cars, buses, trains, taxies, aeroplanes, stations, the billions and billions of lights and HUGE air-conditioning units humming away in the streets, shops, hotels, shopping malls, leisure centres, theme parks, etc. - all of which doubtless increased 100-fold with the additional lighting for Christmas, Chinese New Year, Divalli, etc. etc. Oh, and not forgetting the enormous volume of objects and 'stuff' in the shops - much of it mere 'fripperies' rather than essentials, and the associated packaging of the goods, including of the hundreds of varieties of crisps, snacks, sweets, and fast foods available everywhere (presumably related to the obesity and associated diabetes problems here). So much stuff, in fact, that you could think that the world would sink under the weight of it all! And, of course, it's the same in every one of the world's 'developed' countries, not just this one.

At the same time, we'd been reading and talking about the current 'moral panic' over the predicted arrival of the world's seventh billion person, and the discussions around over-population. Over the past couple of years, I've had several conversations with friends and colleagues about the problem of over-population and the need to, somehow, limit family sizes. It almost always seemed to me that, expicitly or implicitly, the finger of blame was being pointed at those countries in the 'developing' world, mainly in Africa and Asia. However .....

... it's become very clear to us how relatively insignificant is the actual 'environmental impact' of those rural poor with large families in, for example Cambodia, living in self-built wooden houses with thatched rooves, no electricity, no air conditioning, no piped water or sewage disposal system, whose only transport is a maybe a bullock cart, a bicycle or a moped, and who grow most of their own food, which they cook for the whole family over a single log fire. It would not surprise us if the environmental impact of those of us living in much smaller families in the 'developed' world actually have more than a hundred times the environmental impact, in terms of using up the world's precious resources, than do these 'problematic' people in their large families.

I'm sure we all know that there is a strong correlation between small family size and increased family wealth. However, there is still, despite several international studies, no proven causal link between the two (i.e. do those who choose to have smaller families become wealthier as a result, or do those who become wealthier choose to have smaller families?). It is certainly the case that the richer we become the more the problems are actually those of over-consumption (in all its manifestations, not just what we eat or drink), over-production - and the associated massive waste - rather than family size.

But then, of course, there's clearly no possibiity of reversal (other than, perhaps, by the kinds of economic crises we're living through, whilst there are those of us (ditto the pot and the kettle argument already mentioned) who want to have all the benefits of being richer - including flying around the globe, to live in air-conditioned hotels or dormitories, eating in air-conditioned restaurants, drinking ice-cold beer, having our laundry done for us, and buying unnecessary clothes or knick-knacks from gift shops. And, of course, if we stopped doing all of those things, would there be continuing, or even more poverty and unemployment in these developing countries, preventing them from having all these benefits of the developed world, or could they simply continue to live in, what seems to us anyway, a simpler, but more contented, 'subsistence' lifestyle - that is, in those places where there is enough food for everyone, anyway?

Answers on a postcard, please. And here endeth the Party Politcal Broadcast on behalf of the not-so-Green Party!!