First of all, Uttam babu is a maoist; you don't want/ can't argue the people with blind-faith. He gave a good try to explain a collapse; I screened through his article; here're some critics if that's what you're looking for. He totally forgot to mention about many important factors that can make the societies collapse; and didn't mention much in the context of Nepal as well. He tried to compare maoists and bring the topic of maoists and all that unnecessarily. Population explosion be it by our own population growth or the migration from northern or southern countries. Population is the main cause for degradation. I agree that army is unproductive not only in the case of Nepal but everywhere it takes the major chunk of budget and is one of the most unproductive areas. I've had been to presentations which showed these. He is always very biased in favor of maoists. According to my understanding, maoists are the bad guys. After 1990's democracy, despite corruption, our country had developed in so many factors: e.g. education sectors - many good quality private schools, colleges, and universities e.g. health sectors - establishment of good gov. and private hospitals e.g. societies - community development, NGOs e.g. communication - great development in newspapers, media e.g. open to the outer world - had there been panchayat era or communism, we would never have got a chance to see this land of US of A. These hypocrites like Uttam babu wants to enjoy this land of freedom but at the same time, they want people in Nepal to suffer. Imagine what would happen if communism comes to Nepal. Coming back to the point of collapse, I've not got a chance to read that book yet. The societies that will have resilience to the factors to the collapse will be the self-sufficient small communities - e.g. the ones who grows their own food and have access to water resources. He totally ignored about this food issue and instead gave importance to yarcha gumba, probably because of monetary values in that vicinity. Now, I've a question to you on this topic as Uttam babu didn't seem to reply to any of the poster on mysansar: Ma chai yo hawadiri analysis sanga kimartha sahamat chhina. -> Instead of writing this one-liner, can you tell me why do you think it is hawadari. I don't think it is hawadari; he has got some valid points, but he is very biased. He mentioned how much loss army is causing to the country but he never mentioned some of the humanitarian works army have done; being a maoist, he simply wants to degrade army. I'm totally in favor of not having army, but we've OTHER PRIORITIES at the moment. Army provides employment and is provides food to many of the households in Nepal. So-called jana-sena of Maobadi has not added anything to our society. They KILLED nepali people, destroyed basic INFRASTRUCTURES like bridges, schools, buildings, historic places, captured people's houses and looted the banks. They're getting the SALARY from the government, but unlike army, the chunk of their money is again being looted by their senior masters and I doubt if any of them are being able to provide any financial assistance to their families. I can go on and on; but I'd stop here and let others to add more. The issue of collapse is not only relevant in the context of Nepal but also to the place where we're currently living.

Okay Arhat, Since you urge me to write, I shoud write some thing. I am not responding to this guy's article. I am just focussing on some of the lines he borrowed from some body (A big head I think). Here are my points for arguing that Nepal can't collapse so soon or other so called mighty nations have equal probability of disintegration/ collapse. I am not arguing that Nepal has great potential to sustain, but I am analysing comparatively with other nations: Lets see some of the points what I think: 1. China can collapse (disintegrate) if communist party lose the Grip. So many states in china are waiting for being independent. 2. USSR collapsed even if it could support itself in many things. 3. Last year a russian analyst predicted that USA will collapse, disintegrate in couple of years (But it looks like it is not going to happen soon) 4. I do not see any bright future of india after excercising 60 years of independence. 50-60 years is very short period of time (in term of history), what happens next can not be predicted. So many movements (Bodoland, kasmir,ULFA, Gorkhaland, Maoist.....) are going in india and it has so many other problems related to poverty and other issues. 5. There are other so many nations which are surviving from long time under such a difficult situation. If becoming a poor nation is understood as a "Astitwo Samapta" I have nothing to say. Last edited: 21-Jul-10 08:04 PM

Okay Arhat, Since you urge me to write, I shoud write some thing. I am not responding to this guy's article. I am just focussing on some of the lines he borrowed from some body (A big head I think). Here are my points for arguing that Nepal can't collapse so soon or other so called mighty nation has equally probability of disintegration. I am not arguing that Nepal has great potential to sustain, but I am analysing comparatively with other nations: Lets see some of the points what I think: 1. China can collapse (disintegrate) if communist party lose the Grip. So many states in china are waiting for being independent. 2. USSR collapsed even if it could support itself in many things. 3. Last year a russian analyst predicted that USA will collapse, disintegrate in couple of years (But it looks like it is not going to happen soon) 4. I do not see any bright future of india after excercising 60 years of independence. 50-60 years is very short period of time (in term of history), what happens next can not be predicted. So many movements (Bodoland, kasmir,ULFA, Gorkhaland, Maoist.....) are going in india and it has so many other problems related to poverty and other issues. 5. There are other so many nations which are surviving from long time under such a difficult situation. If becoming a poor nation is understood as a "Astitwo Samapta" I have nothing to say.

I read two of Diamond's books, "Collapse" and "Guns, Germs and Steel". I read Collapse long ago, as soon as a review came out in the New Yorker. Collapse is an okey book-- Diamond is a great writer, but he is far from being a 'mahan' chintak that Uttam thinks he is. Diamond is a geography professor at UCLA, and if you live in Los Angeles, I am sure with some effort, you may get to talk to him about what he meant by Collapse of Nepal. (If you are young enough, pretend like you are going to register for his course, and knock his door!) Back to Uttam's mumbo jumbo, I didn't understand what his man was trying to connect. Global Warming is also an issue that is being cast into doubt these days (The Economist reported a few months ago about how people have begun to doubt the studies; how European scientists have selectively used data to buttress their points). There is only so much we can do anyway, and no person in any policy circle worldwide would believe that Nepal should spend its own money on such anticipative defense.(We didn't create the problem in the first place). To say that Nepal Army should be compromised to protect global climate change effects seems weird. Uttam's writing is like that of a man who has just read a book. Such novice people try to connect a lot of things unnecessarily. They elaborate trivial points, but ignore to explain how they connected things to come to their conclusion. His problem is his insistent in connecting politics to almost all issues, and since we know his political affiliation (hardcore Maoist), one can only laught at his writings. Look at the following paragraph: प्राकृतिक र वातावरणिय रुपमा झन् स्थिती भयावह नै छ । जलवायु परिवर्तनका कारण देशमा पछिल्ला वर्षहरुमा अतिवृष्टी र अनावृष्टी सामान्य हुँदैछ जसको कारण बाढि पहिरो र सुख्खाका समस्याहरु बढिरहेका छन् । (so he knows the cause of atiwristi and anawristi, which he thinks are happening simultaneously!) जसले गर्दा खाद्य उत्पादन कम भइरहेको छ र हाम्रो खाद्य सुरक्षाको स्थिती दिनप्रतिदिन गम्भिर वन्दै गइरहेको छ । कर्णाली जस्ता दुर्गम भेगका जीवनयापनको मेरुदण्ड मानिएको यार्सागुम्बा निकै कम पाइन थालेको छ । थुप्रै ठाँउमा पानीका मुहान सुकेका छन् श्रम गर्न पर्ने मान्छेहरु पिउने पानीको खोजीमा दिन विताउन पर्ने वाध्यता देखा पर्दैछ । (हेर्नुस हालसालैका पत्रिकाहरु: which patrika haru?) हिमालमा हिउँ कम हुदै गएको तराईको वनजंगल मासिएको, चुरे भासिएको, गैडा मरेको, वाघ घटेको (gaida mareko? I thought it had to do with poaching, and not global climate!) खबर दिनप्रतिदिन आइरहेका छन् । यी खबरहरुसँगै गोरु वेचेको साइनो नभए जस्तै काठमाडौं वर्षै पिच्छे सरकार फेर्दैछ (Ah, now, we are finally into politics.) । ... useless to go over the article. May be he should focus on politics. Now he is connecting global warming and politics in Nepal. Finally, my guess is this is what happened. He went to hear Jared Diamond talk somewhere. He was probably excited to hell as soon as he heard Jared utter word Nepal. Like a teenage girl excited at seeing some rockstar, he wanted to write about it, and remembered his old comrade Umesh ko website. Comrade Umesh has not reported about things like Kali Bahadur Kham even when all newspapers carried report on him. His article can be summed up in two sentences: "I went to hear Jared Diamond talk where he mentioned Nepal as one of the countries that may collapse. Karl Marx , Mao jasta narapichas lai ta maniaaekai thiyau, aba yo gora professorlai pani manau ra nepalko aasanna collapse ko wiruddha ladna nepalko army lai falaau." Last edited: 21-Jul-10 08:08 PM

Srijana, I guess I didn't understand the concept of collapse you're trying to address. If I understood correctly, it is not focussed on the disintegration of the country; at the same time, I'm not denying that the huge impact it will have on the inhabiting societies. Let's talk about the collapse of societies; again politics have the impact on it; but according to my understanding, the focus is on the sharing of the limited resources, and the impact of disasters or the imminent collapse of the resources, so I kindly request you to write this in the context of Nepal. Pire, I agree with most of what you wrote except global warming issue. The Economist reported a few months ago about how people have begun to doubt the studies; -> Economist is the not the place where the natural or physical or climate scientists will publish their results. how European scientists have selectively used data to buttress their points. -> This issue has already been cleared and there were no misdoing. If you're really interested, I can try to dig up the articles from SCIENCE or NATURE. Regarding Uttam babu, he seems to be a hardcore maoist and also happened to be a student in climate/natural science and is trying to link those. Next, he might come up with the article how maos have the brilliant idea to save us from climate change.

"The issue of collapse is not only relevant in the context of Nepal but also to the place where we're currently living." Arhat, my main point is the same as you said here. Great Pire, thak you for the input.

Arahat:Sure what you say about economist is true, but that's not the point. It is my understanding (and would love it if you could clarify it) that there are considerable uncertainties in three levels: 1. The accumulation of GHG in atmosphere due to anthropomorphic activities. (Regarding this issue, it seems almost everybody agrees that GHG is increasing in atmosphere due to our action, but I think people think consumption of polluting GHGs will go down with time as people's purchasing power goes up and they adopt cleaner technologies.) 2. The impact of GHG on temperature. I don't think this has been settled. Some European studies think that global mean temperature will increase by more than 10 degrees if GHG stock increases two fold, which is just ridiculous. 3. True impact on people of temperature fluctuations. Nobody really knows about it. After all the world has seen 17 ice-ages before. Temperature may increase or decrease even when people have nothing to do with it. These three points are not mine. I have read them so many times that I just summarized them according to my understanding.These three issues are not yet settled. In deed, whether consumption of GHG emitting products should be increased or decreased even if there are bad consequences is still an unsettled question . If you are related to these subjects, I would love to shut up and listen to you. In particular,pointers to the articles in reputed journals or by professors of reputed schools (and summary, rather than the details that I don't understand) would be welcome, and so do the clarification about the doubts of recent European studies and UN position. Last edited: 21-Jul-10 08:29 PM

I agree with you pire. What has been known is that if you have more carbondioxide in a glass house you feel hoter than outside (Carbon dioxide traps the infrared radiation responsible for heating). Yes, scientists have tried to correlate increase of CO2 concentration vs. the increase in temperature of the earth. And they say that there is a similar trend (it is there in IPCC, 2007 report). In my understanding also it might be the carbon dioxide increasing the global warming (because of the similar trend), but there might be other effects (may be effects from sun itself ).

1. The accumulation of GHG in atmosphere due to anthropomorphic activities. (Regarding this issue, it seems almost everybody agrees that GHG is increasing in atmosphere due to our action, -> I'm glad that you agree that anthropogenic activities are the reasons for the increased CO2 levels. but I think people think consumption of polluting GHGs will go down with time as people's purchasing power goes up and they adopt cleaner technologies.) -> IPCC publishes the future predictions under different scenarios regularly. So even with the best scenario ( people's purchasing power goes up and they adopt cleaner technologies.) that you mentioned we will have to witness the changes due to the doubling of CO2 in last century. It is highly unlikely that we'll be able to meet this scenario with the current development and investments. Future cleaner technologies are imminent but what has been emitted, have already been emitted but will have consequences. 2. The impact of GHG on temperature. I don't think this has been settled. Some European studies think that global mean temperature will increase by more than 10 degrees if GHG stock increases two fold, which is just ridiculous. -> If you take any course related to this, you'll need to do the math on how much temperature will rise with the particular increase in CO2 or other green house gases. It's called global warming potential and it is the established knowledge; again if you want the formula to calculate it, I can google it and paste it here. 10 degrees increase is possible if all GHG stock increase. GHG is not only CO2; there are other gases such as N2O and CH4 which has much more global warming potential than CO2; so if you double all those, it might be possible; I've not done the math yet; if we really want to go into this debate; I can again google it and we can play with the math here. How likely it is going to happen? To answer that, we've to look at how much increase it is happening in the world currently. 3. True impact on people of temperature fluctuations. Nobody really knows about it. After all the world has seen 17 ice-ages before. Temperature may increase or decrease even when people have nothing to do with it. -> There have been many ice-ages, and there might be another one to come and the current impacts of all GHGs might be neglected. But do you think we should wait this to happen? Currently, we don't know if or when ice-age will happen; what we know is GHGs are increasing and it is a fact that it will increase the temperature and we are seeing the increase in temperature.

Last edited: 22-Jul-10 08:07 AM

Above are not the scientific article; but from the god-journals in the science field; I hope these will shed some light on the issue. Any misdoings from the so-called climategate scientists at UK have already been cleared (FYI) and you can perhaps search it in google yourself. I read it in either science or nature.

Thanks,Arahat for the links.