Modern Science and Technology - A Subaltern Reading

Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute , Chennai.

MTh Integrated Course 2009-2010.

The Church and the Ecological Crisis.

Seminar Presentation on the topic:

Modern Science and Technology and the Distress of Earth.



1.Introduction. One of the exclusive claims of this time is that we can solve any problem in this earth by using modern science and technology. We believe that the developments and discoveries in the field of science and technology would benefit to the humanity. But is it true? Science and technology should be for the people, by the people and of the people. But the history of science and technology reveals that it is far away from the grass root communities and confined in the laboratories or it is controlled by power structures for their dominant ideologies. Its journey with the prophets of modern development and the relation with the dominant group led its direction away from the mother earth and caused many damage to the life in it. This paper is an attempt to read the science and technology and the distress of earth from the perspective of the earth and subaltern communities.

2.Science, Technology, Patriarchy and Colonialism The rise of modern science and the colonial expansion of Europe after 1492 constitute two fundamental and characteristic features of modern world history….The story is dual one. One of its aspects concerns how science and the scientific enterprise formed part of and facilitated colonial development. The other deals with how the colonial experience affected science and contemporary scientific enterprise(Harding,1998,39). ….Harding has called it a ‘western, bourgeois, masculine project’, and according to Keller “science has been produced by a particular sub-set of the human race, that is, almost entirely by white, middle class males. For the founding fathers of modern science, the reliance on the language of gender was explicit; they sought a philosophy that deserved to be called ‘masculine’, that could be distinguished from its ineffective predecessors by its ‘virile’ powers, its capacity to bind Nature to man’s service and make her his slave”(Shiva,1988,15).

According to Vandana Shiva, “ Colonial domination systematically transformed the common vital resources into commodities for generating profits and growth of revenues”(Shiva,1991:14). For centuries the important natural resources like land, water and forests had been used by the village communities for their existence. Modern science and technology with an imperialistic and profit oriented value system threatened the preservation of these natural resources and challenged the existence of the village communities.

How science and technology being used by Powerful Nations and communities to subjugate? Answer to this question can be found in the nexus between Power, Development, and Science and Technology. Science and Technology is having a strong colonialistic basis and there by an exploiting nature. Science and Technology is closely related with Capitalism and its power structures. There starts the problem. “Violence of science and technology, from a postcolonial perspective, is not a problem with science and technology per se; rather it is the consequences of the prevailing dominant power relations and social relations on which science and technology is embedded”(Zachariah,2008:109). ). A kind of colonial violent forms of violence is inherent in the modern science which never give space to compassion.
3. Postcolonial and Feminist Readings on Science and Technology.
Development of the science and technology has been conceptualized in the North as the transfer of European models of sciences and technologies to the underdeveloped societies in the Third World. The Postcolonial reading observes that this kind of importing process has primarily de- developed the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the transfers of the science and technology. Different readings on science and technology helps us to understand it properly.

3.1.A feminist Reading. According to Vandana Shiva, “ Modern Science was a consciously gendered, patriarchal activity. As nature came to be seen more like a woman to be raped, gender too was recreated. Science as a male venture, based on the subjugation of female nature and female sex provided support for the polarization of gender. Patriarchy as the new scientific and technological power was apolitical need of emerging industrial capitalism. While on the one hand the ideology of science sanctioned the denudation of nature, on the other it legitimized the dependency of women and the authority of men (Shiva,1988,17,18).

3.2.Postcolonial Reading. According to George Zachariah, “Violence against earth and the subaltern communities is the apt title that one can attribute to the history of modern science and technology in India. Modern science and technology came to the subcontinent along with European colonialism. Colonialism was committed not only to destroy indigenous knowledge systems and scientific practices, but also to exploit them for the advancement of European science projects: a three way process of incorporation, appropriation, and erasure” (Fahrenholz,2008,104).

Different readings on science and technology reveals the hidden hands and interests in the process of its development. “Knowledge is Power” is the one of the values of today. Those who owns knowledge holds the power. Always Europe owns Knowledge and Third World Nations and the poor people in the First World are the powerless. At the same time women are excluded from the discourse of knowledge. Women are close to nature and most of the time ecological crisis disproportionately affect them.The de- mothering of nature through modern science and the marriage knowledge with power was simultaneously a source of subjugating women as well as non-European peoples (Shiva,1988,18,19).

4.Presuppositions of Our Discussion. Who is the owner of this earth? We may have different answers. But today Earth and its resources are controlled by the people who is having power. Those who are having money and “knowledge” will decide the fate of the earth. They are the policy makers. While they create policies whose interests are taken in to consideration? What is their ultimate aim behind monopolizing the natural resources? Is it profit? Then we could say that without violence and destruction they cannot make profit. We have to start our discussion from this point. Claude Alvares in his book ,”Science, Development & Violence”, bring some presuppositions which are good for our discussion.
one, that modern science and violence(himsa)are inextricably connected, and that the relationship has made possible a degree and intensity of violence hitherto unknown;
two, that the extension of the reach of modern science can only lead to more extensive and intensive forms of violence;
three, that development ideology is partly legitimated by modern science; and
four, that development, legitimated by modern science, constitutes the most serious threat to human rights in our era(Alvares,1994:64).

Modern science is having a gaze of a Capitalist who see the value of every thing from the perspective of the market and it is embedded with notions like colonialism and violence.
5.Claims of the Modern Science and Technology. Technology claims that it can turn scarcity into abundance and poverty in to affluence. Technology is viewed as the motive force for development and the vital instrument that guarantees freedom from dependence on nature. There are people claims that the affluence of the industrialized west is due to the introduction of the modern science and technology. Many claim that, development of the biotechnology, genetic engineering etc will increase the productivity and thereby we could overcome the poverty, underdevelopment and other problems. These claims have to be evaluated critically. In the history of India we could see many scientific revolutions with lot of promises and claims. But the closer look of each revolution challenges all claims and promises. It destroyed the soil, community and thereby destroyed the life support system of the earth.

5.1.Green Revolution-On the 26 Jan 1986, one of the country’s leading magazines the Illustrated Weekly of India, ran a cover story on ‘Hunger’, and the fate of a 100 million Indians caught in an anxious state of drought, famine and starvation. This is 20 years after the launch of Green Revolution, advertised the world over as one of India’s outstanding achievements. Ironically, the country had 29 million tones of food grains, mostly wheat, in its storehouse at that time. These conflicting images of large food surpluses, ‘revolutionary’ production technology, and hunger have a common basis: the application (in many cases, imposition) of western agricultural science, inspired by western (agribusiness) capital, to an environment that had once not only raised its own competent agricultural tradition, but also a population immensely talented and interested in agriculture. An alien model of development, of handling nature and society, fashioned originally in a western context, was used to straitjacket diverse socio- geographical, bio-regional phenomena that had evolved in response to different specific environments all over the south (Alvares,1994:33).

Closer Look. 1.The green revolution turns out to be essentially a ‘revolution’ in the production of a single commodity: wheat. Dr. Bajaj notes, the increased productivity of wheat was achieved by undermining the productivity of other equally important crops. Ashok Thapar in the Times of India had observed, “ Paradoxically enough, the spurt in the production of food grains has in many ways only aggravated the problem of malnutrition. There has been a 16 % drop in the production of pulses, an important source of protein in vegetarian diets, as more and more pulse growers have switched to the profitable cereal crops”. The point to make at this stage is that rice, and not wheat, is the principal crop of India and Asia. The estimates says that the post Green revolution phase has been less than it was in the preceding period.
2. Before Green Revolution the import of chemical fertilizers was marginal. Most of the resources required for agriculture came from the agriculture itself. The Green Revolution changed all drastically. We spend three times the price of wheat for the decade 1967-76 for the fertilizers (equals wheat imports in the Green revolution decade had increased by 50%).
3.Use of the pesticides. The indiscriminate use of pesticides, most of which are banned in the industrialized countries.
4.The soils of India are dying, and the most fertile among them are dying because of the violence of green revolution technologies.
5. Many land owners became labourers because they don’t had capital to invest.
6. According to Vandana Shiva green revolution accelerated the desertification process or the death of soil (through large scale monocultures, high water demand and high nutrient uptake and low organic nutrient returns to soil by the hybrid and cash crop cultivation).

5.2.White Revolution and Realities. The modern Indian dairy science establishment was set up by the British. As in other spheres, the entire foreign system was imported. But the imported Breed cows and bulls cannot live in the tropical heat. And also the exotic animals do not have the resistance to disease. Indigenous breeds, evolved over centuries, are specially adapted to the Indian climate were ignored and considered as inferior breed. The green revolution has emerged as an enemy to the white, as the high yielding crop varieties have reduced straw production. Like hybrid crops, hybrid cattle also demand resource intensive input. Cross-breeds, however, like hybrid crops, respond only to intensive inputs like green fodder and concentrated feeds, which puts new pressures on land. Just as the green revolution replaced local ecological integration by commercial integration at the level of global markets and the manufacture of pesticides, fertilizers and seeds, the white revolution has replaced local ecological linkages between fodder, cattle and food with global commercial linkages between trade in cattle feed and in milk products and substitutes(Shiva,1988:173). White revolution aimed to increase the milk production ended in failure and it negatively affected the Indian breeds.

5.3. Blue Revolution and the Ecological Disturbance. Green and White Revolutions have been followed by a blue revolution in fisheries where , with the intervention of modern technology, the intake of fish protein all along India’s coasts has rapidly declined. The new fishing technology consisting of mechanized boats and nets was ostensibly introduced to meet the ‘protein shortage’ of the local population. As had happened with the other technological interventions, the new fishing technology caused a major ecological disturbance. Its use disrupted the fishing methods of traditional fishermen beyond tolerance and sought to usurp their niche. It destroyed the natural cycle of the fish breeding and the living organism of the sea.

5.4. Social Forestry- Social forestry advertised as a safe, alternative, ecological approach to rural development. But different studies concluded that social forestry is headed the way of the Green Revolution in its disastrous impact on employment, food and ecology. Just as the Green Revolution created surplus food stocks while millions found themselves without the purchasing power to benefit from the new increases, social forestry schemes are leading to a firewood crisis even while thousands of hectares of land are being enthusiastically crammed with trees. The firewood shortage is an effect of numerous causes. The principal one is that the rural population no longer controls the forest and in its environment. Social forestry projects are a good example of single-species, single commodity production plantations, based on reductionist models which divorce forestry from agriculture and water management, and needs from markets. Modern science cannot reconstitute a natural forest. Vandana Shiva criticized the social forestry project as ‘colonialism and the evolution of masculinist forestry’.

5.5.Tradition Vs Modernity-Claude Alvares, argues that, tinned baby food, monospecies ‘forests’, white sugar, alcohol, white bread, are all symbols of that great modern co-operative: science, technology, development. He questions basic notions of modern science by highlighting the imported and ‘civilized’ life style and food habits of today. He quote Rudolf Ballantine regarding the invasion of the white sugar in the place of our traditional sugars like gur and khandsari. ‘Nutritionally speaking, when one eats sugar he has incurred a “debt”. Gur and khandasari contain vitamins, iron, calcium, and phosphorous that refined white sugar does not have. Now things changed from tradition to modernity like we sifted from Roti(vitamins, minerals, B complex etc) to Bread( all beneficial is eradicated). He again argues that, western-trained, western oriented scientists in India, still remain ignorant of the vast store house of fermentation technology that South India constitutes. And also there is a conflict between ‘natural’(breast feeding-tradition)and the ‘scientific’(Bottle feeding-oppressive force) (Alvares,1994:64-89).

5.6. Science and Subjugation of the forest. The crucial importance of forests to survival was recognized early in Indian Society. In fact, Indian culture is replete with the celebration of an aranya culture, based on reverence for trees. Tribal communities raised food supplies through a sophisticated interplay of forest and crop systems. In the plains, in non-tribal areas, an equally harmonious relationship seems to have prevailed between village communities and adjoining forests. Modern science and colonial demands changed all that overnight. The health and well-being of the tropics were now subjected to the demands of ‘production forestry’, fuelled by the intimate links between science and big industry, or rather, between colonial science and British imperialism. Large forest areas were removed from the control of villages, and reserved for the purpose of industry and revenue. Villagers lost interest in their maintenance and alienation commenced.

A forest ecosystem is a community of infinitely diverse living organisms that has evolved untouched by the human species, complete with a self-sustaining soil, and a full complement of so called ‘useless’ species. In a fundamental way, all forests have a component that is useless to man, but vital for other organisms. This component is linked with other ecological tasks, some of which will always be unknown to us. In fact, some of the interrelationships between species are still in evolution. A natural forest grows and is constituted over time, sometimes over centuries. As a totality, a forest system has a right to its own ecological niche in the earth system. Modern science cannot reconstitute a natural forest(Alvares,1994:86-87).

6.Genetic Engineering and Agricultural Disaster. Biotechnology and genetic engineering developed as a solution to the different problems in the society. It claims better productivity and resistance. Genetic engineering is the manipulation of the genes within species and between species and even between plants and animals aiming better result.

6.1. Bio-Technology and the Earth. For many proponents, biotechnology will help agriculture to ‘feed the world’ and to minimize pollution. One scientist advocates inserting herbicide-resistance genes into crops, as ‘a moral imperative for world food production’. Through this humanitarian and environmental images, the bio technology industry seeks ethical legitimacy for its efforts to obtain state subsidy and to minimize regulatory constraints (Shiva,1995:175 ). WCC criticizes the mechanistic world view of biotechnology which threatens the integrity of creation. According to a researcher for Britain’s National Farmer’s Union, herbicide- resistant crops run ‘against the spirit of nature’ (Shiva,1995:177-78).

6.2.Bio-Technology and Monoculture. Without idealizing nature, some organizations criticize biotechnology for taking agriculture further down a misguided route. That is, it develops single-gene solutions for problems which derive from a mono-cultural farming system, designed on industrial models of efficiency. These critics foresee transgenic products intensifying farmer’s dependence upon laboratory-based expertise and industrialized inputs; for ex. the familiar pesticides treadmill would be replaced or even supplemented by a genetic treadmill. From this perspective bio-technological control would aggravate the socio-economic dependence and environmental hazards endemic in the wider risk-generating system of monoculture (Shiva,1995:178). There is a prevalent misconception that biotechnology development will automatically lead to biodiversity conservation. The main problem with viewing biotechnology as a miracle solution to the bio-diversity crisis is related to the fact that biotechnologies are, in essence, technologies for the breeding of uniformity in plants and animals.

6.3.Bio-Technology and Colonisation of the Seed. In the recent revolutions in the field of agriculture through Green revolution or through bio technologies the seed is at the centre of all recent changes in agricultural production. All technological transformation of biodiversity is justified in the language of ‘improvement’ and increase of ‘economic value’. …The improvement of the seed is not a neutral economic progress. It is, more importantly, a political process that shifts control over biological diversity from local peasants to TNCs and changes biological systems from complete systems reproducing themselves into raw material. It therefore changes the role of the agricultural producer and the role of ecological processes. The new biotechnologies follow the path of hybridization in changing the location of power as associated with the seed. As Jack Kloppenburg has stated, “ It decouples seed as “seed” from seed as “grain” and thereby facilitates the transformation of seed from a use value to an exchange value(Shiva,1995:199).

Herbicide and pesticide resistance will also increase the integration of seeds/chemicals and the multinational’s control of agriculture. A number of major agricultural chemical companies are developing plants with resistance to their brand of herbicides. This increase the market power of the TNCs. The farmer’s will own the land, but the corporation will own the crop in the field, giving instructions by a computer that monitors the progress and needs of a crop grown from genetically programmed seed.

Biotechnology can thus become an instrument of dispossessing the farmer of seed as a means of production. The relocation of seed production from the farm to the corporate laboratory relocates power and value between the North and South; and between corporations and farmers. It is estimated that the elimination of home-grown seed would dramatically increase the farmer’s dependence on biotech industries by about $6billion annually(Shiva,1995:201,202). Even though the seeds which do not serve the commercial interests they are essential for the survival of nature and people.

6.4.Hybridisation -Genetic Violence. The hybridization of seed was an invasion into the seed itself. It broke the unity of seed as food grain and as a means of production. The commodified seed is ecologically incomplete and ruptured at two levels.
One, it does not reproduce itself, while by definition, seed is a regenerative resource. Genetic resources are thus, through technology, transformed from a renewable into a non-renewable resource.
Two, it does not produce by itself. It needs the help of other purchased inputs to produce. As the seed and chemical companies merge, the dependence on inputs will increase.
Ecologically, whether a chemical is added externally or internally, it remains an external input in the ecological cycle of the reproduction of a seed. It is this shift from ecological processes of production through regeneration to technological processes of non-regeneration production that underlies the dispossession of farmers and the drastic reduction of biological diversity in agriculture. It is at the root of the creation of poverty and of non- sustainability in agriculture(Shiva,1993:133). Hybridisation is a kind of genetic violence which destroys the centuries old seeds of the different crops and breeding process in cattle.

In the era of globalization, Genetically Manipulated Organisms like Bt. Cotton are the new faces of the continued presence of imperialism on our land which poison the earth and kill the subaltern communities. In the year 2007, 1095 farmers committed suicide in the Vidharbha region in Maharashtra; one suicide in every eight hours. Vidharbha is also the region where Monsanto sells most of its genetically engineered Bt. Cotton. Vandana Shiva calls this the “suicide economy of globalization”.(Zachariah,2008: 105).

6.5.Genetic Engineering – Do we have Hope? Here we are to see the claims of bio technology and the present situation of it. A document published by WACC and WCC help us to understand today’s technology in better way.
1. To increase the yields of crops - which has had little success thus far;
2. To produce crops that can withstand environmental pressures such as drought, salinity or frost – this has had little success;
3. To increase the nutritional value of the plant, so that staple legumes and cereals would carry vital amino acids, which they currently lack, thus reducing the required quantity of food intake – this process is still in its infancy;
4. To enhance resistance to disease, weeds and pests, or (as in most cases) to enhance tolerance to designer herbicides, which kill off the disease, weeds or pests but leave the plant healthy – this is the most well developed aspect of Genetically Modified Organisms thus far;
5. To minimize the need for fertilizers and agrochemicals, although this seems rather unlikely as the companies which produce the GMOs also produce the fertilizers and the chemicals; and
6. To enhance the texture, flavour or shelf-life of the plant. Quite a bit of work has been done in this area(WCC/WACC,2005:27).
All these points highlights that the claims of the modern science are not worked out successfully and it created disturbance in the web of life.

6.6.Patent and Privatisation of Knowledge. Where technological means fail to prevent farmers from reproducing their own seed, legal regulation in the form of intellectual property rights and patents is brought in. Ownership and property claims are made on living resources, but prior custody and use of those resources by farmers is not the measure against which the patent is set. Rather, it is the intervention of technology that determines the claim to their exclusive use, and possession of this technology then becomes the reason for ownership by corporations and for the simultaneous dispossession and disenfranchisement of farmers(Shiva,1993:133).

According to Vandana , “If you want to have one tool for imperialistic control, it’s patent law under the WTO agreement. It’s in my view the worst of the WTO agreements. It is a totally coercive tool. It has only a negative function: to prevent others from doing their own thing; to prevent people from having food; to prevent people from having medicine; to prevent countries from having technological capacity. It is a negative tool for creating underdevelopment”.

“It’s the privatization of knowledge. I have called it the enclosure, the ultimate enclosure. We had enclosures of land. Now, we are seeing enclosures of biodiversity, life itself. In my book “Biopiracy”, I’ve talked about how this is the last colony. It is the spaces within our minds -- for knowledge. The spaces within life forms for reproduction. A seed cannot reproduce without permission of the patent holder and the company. Knowledge cannot be transmitted without permission and license collection. It’s rent collection from life. It’s rent collection from being human, and thinking, and knowing”(www.inmotionmagazine.com.).

The increased water, fertilizer, and pesticides use led the farmer’s into financial problems and loosing the fertility of the land – Large scale mining of ground water. Yield may be high but cost of production in terms of fertilizer, pesticides etc became higher and we should think that this high yield is at the cost of ecology

7.Science and Technology and Implications on Earth.
1.Uncontrolled use of the fertilizers, pesticides destroyed the fertility of the land.
2.Biodiversity was destroyed through scientific and technological interventions.
3.Everything is commodified and sold for profit including seeds.
4.When profit became the motto there was a shift from food grain cultivation to cash crops.
5.Traditional scientific knowledge, practices, Knowledge attained through experience and values were undermined as unscientific.
6.Over dependence on science and technology destroyed the community oriented farming.
7. Violence to nature is closely associated with violence to women whose life is closely associate with nature.
8. Water mining and other unlimited use of the natural resources badly affected the regeneration of natural resources.


8.Challenging the Power with Spinning Wheel. Among the pressing challenges posed by modern biotechnological developments, the anthology discusses the relationship between biotechnology and biodiversity; the politics of biotechnology in North-South relations; the patenting of plant genetic material; values, conceptions of nature and understandings of knowledge within biotechnological research and development; the importance of ethics in a time when technological possibilities seems to have put traditions and ethical systems out of the running; and the issue of risk.

Gandhi’s spinning wheel is a challenge to notion’s of progress and obsolescence that arise from absolutism and false universalism in concepts of science and technology development. Obsolescence and waste are social constructs that have a both a political and ecological component. Ecologically, obsolescence destroys the regenerative capacity of nature by substituting manufactured uniformity in place of nature’s diversity. The induced dispensability of poorer people on the one hand and diversity on the other constitutes the political ecology of technological development guided by narrow and reductionist notions of productivity. Parochial notions of productivity, perceived as universal, rob people of control over their means of reproducing life and rob nature of her capacity to regenerate diversity(Shiva,1996:198).

Ecological erosion and destruction of livelihood are linked to one another. Displacement of diversity and of people’s sources of sustenance both arise from a view of development and growth based on uniformity created through centralized control. In this process of control, reductionist science and technology act as handmaidens for economically powerful interests. The struggle between the factory and the spinning wheel continues as new technologies emerge.

8.1.Non-Stop Journey of Struggle. Modern science and technology led the people, earth and history in a wrong direction. One of the important reasons is that they couldn’t find out the possibilities inherent in our indigenous knowledge. We had a long and rich traditions of knowledge. Everything destroyed or got patent in new form or name by the First World. Our traditional knowledge always walk along with nature and nurtured it. But all were destroyed and plundered. Let me bring some suggestions to reduce the stress on the earth created by the modern science and technology.

1.Good research should be done to find out the richness of the traditional and indigenous knowledge and practices.
2. Our knowledge should not be gender biased. Women are very close to mother earth so that their knowledge also considered seriously.
3. Over dependence on the west should be avoided. We need to find out ourselves and we need to believe in ourselves.
4. People who live very close to nature know nature and its pulses much better than the western scientists. Believe them and include them in our journey of struggle.
5.We need to find out the traditional seeds which are close to our climate and habitat.
6. Develop an indigenous technology which see the life seriously than profit.
7. Develop an agricultural pattern which reject monoculture and enhances biodiversity.
8. Engage ourselves with the movements which support life and resist violence and exploitation.

8.2.Seven Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture. Nicanor Perlas in his article says that , the green revolution paradigm has collapsed. So he suggests seven attributes towards a
‘Based on Integrative and Holistic Science’.
‘supportive of the development of Human Potentials.
Culturally sensitive.
Founded on the Use of Appropriate Technologies.
‘Ecologically Sound’.
‘Socially Just and Equitable’
‘Economically Viable’(Perals,1996,234).
We have to develop an earthly friendly agriculture system which includes the powerless, people without capital and women. Modern science and technology ignored them and handed the entire agriculture to the industrialists and capitalists and thereby ecological crisis worsened.

9.Conclusion. While I conclude this presentation I realize that any system or knowledge which is imposed on us disturb the earth and the life in it. Modernity constructed a wrong notion about the knowledge which we have and said all these are superstitions and you should learn from us. But from the above analysis we learned that the science and technology developed in the laboratories of the West are not free from colonialism, exploitation and hidden agenda. Today we need to deconstruct these notions and find out the politics and economics behind it. We need to come out of the colonial notions and engage ourselves with the social movements especially with the subaltern communities to develop a non violent science and technology.

Bibliography

Alvares, Claude. Science, Development& Violence, Oxford, Delhi:1992.

Harding, Sandra. Is Science Multicultural?, Indiana University Press, Bloomington:1998.

Leach, Melissa, Ian Scoones and Brian Wynne (Eds). Science and Citizens – Globalisation and the challenge of engagement, Orient Longman, Newdelhi:2005.

Perals, Nicanor. “The Seven Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture”, in Biopolitics, Vandana Shiva(Ed), Orient Longman,UK:1996.

Shiva, Vandana . Staying Alive-Women, Ecology and Survival in India, Kali for women,Newdelhi:1988.

Shiva, Vandana. Ecofeminism , Kali for women,Newdelhi:1993.

Shiva, Vandana & Ingunn Moser (Eds). Bio-politics ,Orient Longman,UK:1996.

Shiva, Vandana (Ed). Minding Our Lives, Kali for women,Newdelhi:1993.

Shiva, Vandana . Ecology And the Politics of Survival, Sage: Newdelhi/London,1991.

WCC/WACC . “Science, Faith, and New Technologies:Transforming Life, Vol.2,Discussion document on
Genetic Engineering of the JPIC Team, Geneva:2005(p.27-57).

Zachariah, George. “Peace on Earth and Peace with Earth” A Search for Alternatives” in Peace on Earth and Peace with the Earth, Geiko Muller- Fahrenholz(Ed), Geneva:2008.

Online Material.

http://www.inmotionimagemagazine.com/global/vshiva4_int.html, cited on 5-7-2009.

Presented By : Sajeev Thomas, MTh. Com.II

Course Co-ordinator : Dr. George Zachariah.