Subsistence living the only way?

How many of us benefit from the gains make available by industrialization and technological advancement? It seems that our everyday lives are so filled with them we do not stop to think specifically about the means by which they become available to us, or more importantly, what costs do they have? In Bradford's piece "We All Live in Bhopal" he outlines what he feels are extremely important points about industrialization and the problems is causes for people around the world.

The first point that I thought was intriguing was the idea of third world countries and their inability to afford both safety measures to deal with hazardous contaminates used in their fledgling industrialization. It immediatly made me question not whether or not these chemicals should be used by them, but rather, if we are in the situation as a supplier don't we have a higher obligation to see that they are used effectively and safely? I felt that Bradford went straight to the solution of removing all chemical production. While this is a possible solution, I do not think it has the practicality necessary to become a legitimate solution.

Moving on, Bradford comes to the same conclusion when speaking about non-subsistence living. He believes that industrial civilization, or as he refers to it, an "exterminist" system, is the result of corporate "greed, plunder, salvery..." and that the only way out of it is back to subsistence living. While I understand the correlation between industrialization and widespread chemical use, I cannot submit to the claim that is a contentious decision of the factory owners or government to allow for such things. Or to the short-sighted claim that the only way to counter these problems is to go back to a subsistence living. Technology is a mighty tool, one that is in need of responsible use. Just because chemical production has negative aspects does not mean it is bad; rather it requires greater focus on safety and proper usage. Outright reversion to "village life" is not something that is practical, while it may be effective. Responsible handling of chemicals, of all technologies that produce pollution, can result in perfectly safe technologies. In developing countries, aid should be given by nations that have cut their pollution quantities in the mindset that it will be beneficial to all. As dicussed in the earlier piece by French, one nation's pollution does not only affect that localized area, but has far-reaching consequences.