Memo+27+draft+background+section+(drawing+on+timeline)+(Dan+F)

The history behind the current global system of interactions that has defined attitudes on proper participation and development between and within various regions is vastly complex and its accuracy is only defined by the amount of detail included in heavily popularized renditions that generally follow through to similar conclusions. This system of understanding is based on extensively intrusive waves of colonialism, imperialism, and finally globalization that set the stage for the reign of the current mainstream ideology. The Hegemonic backdrop for the current global interactions among civilizations of different supposed levels of development and wealth is an impossibly large discourse to put into any level of detail here historically, but it can be sufficiently simplified for the purposes of this thesis by starting with American political ideology at the end of Word War II. Westernization and globalization were rebranded from more historical terms and could be said to be at least slightly more ethical evolutions of their past forms. At least in part, capitalization and democracy were the strongest forces spread as far and fast as possible initially and the philanthropic components have been around almost just as long. The largest and most powerful component of globalization is Western economics. Trade liberalization was promised to open up opportunities for all that took part and claimed to allow for equality and the end (or at the very least a reduction) of world poverty. This system ranked the world’s people by the financial structure of the most powerful countries. This of course made it appear that those that weren’t using the system were the ones worse off, but that was primarily only because that is not how they necessarily measured their own development. Globalization and its economic components spread because they were used by those of the most world power, which allowed the systems to steadily become used by the majority. The only other known alternative to this form of development at the time was communism. The point is not that this might have been the right course but that there may have been another course possible, but left undiscovered. It is the belief of many in the current hegemony that this capitalist global system is the course of development that all who develop independently will likely get to if left to develop long enough. It is considered the natural predetermined evolution of every civilization.

Unfortunately the system is extremely flawed because it relies on endless growth on a finite planet. There can be little doubt to how a situation like that ends. The purpose of discussing this is not to suggest that an entirely new system needs to be developed. Change would have to happen on an unprecedented scale and alternatives have been illusive, so the next step in this hegemony has been to slowly patch the failures of the system and keep the system going any way possible. The system has been steadily patched and rebranded to account for its failings since its inception until present day. The idea that growth is the desired result form this system led to the idea that financial wealth is extremely important in the shortest possible time spans. To achieve this, technology has been used to speed up almost every part of the system allowing everyone to be a part of such a fast moving system that it is difficult to see what the long term impact of every day actions is likely to be.

Overwhelmingly, technology and its spread are considered important and optimal, but it has not gone on without question. Many of the major effects of this global system have been discussed and argued at length by those who experience it first hand, and academics in a variety of fields. Major arguments include but are not limited to the trade off between labor and technology, the positive and negative affects of globalization/trade liberalization, quality of life and standard of living, development aid, and the natural progression of civilizations proper course. Wrapped up in all of this is the fight against inequality, poverty, sexism, racism, and the very meaning of life and human existence. The arguments are political, ethical, social, and environmental.

Amazingly enough the sustainable stove movement rests on all of these arguments and the many issues that are wrapped up in them are the primary drivers of the movement. This can be said about a fair number of development efforts. The clean cook stove movement is well under way and through the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, which has been derived out of a perceived need by the United Nations, in an effort to get 100 million households to adopt clean cook stoves by 2020. The immediate issues indicated include deforestation, women’s rights and time management, climate change, and health. These immediate issues may seem much smaller and more manageable then the broad topics discussed above relating to the entire global system, but the transfer of solutions is determined by all of those interlocking factors.

It is important to discuss approaches because it defines success and the future of everything that is implied by the idea of development. There can never be too much analysis because every situation is different. The entire system is a constantly evolving work in progress that requires critical thinking and constant adjustment.