3.6 Conclusion
Ecological crisis from Daoism’s point of view was brought by the dominance of Yangcharacteristics over Yinones (Capra, 1975; Jenkins, 2002). Despite Daoists appraised the strategies of Yin, China’s recent history of mega project constructions displays, however, a notable propensity for Yang-style solutions to its needs (Dellios, 2001).
Over the last 2600 years since the first dam, dams, reservoirs and irrigation systems have been essential and powerful tools of the state for regulating floods and raising agricultural yields (Needham, 1956; Elvin, 1993; Webber, 2011). TGDP is, in this light, one of the most noticeable constructions in contemporary Chinese, an expression of the current administration’s enthusiasm for mega projects originated from the contrary old tradition of empire combined with the modern western paradigms of development, which emphasize nature-dominating and nature-exploiting (Dellios, 2001; Webber, 2011). The construction of the TGDP therefore guided by this ideology is highly regarded (McCormack, 2001; Webber, 2011). In this sense, the TGDP could also be viewed as an attempt not only to shore up water for hydro-electric power but also political legitimacy (ibid).
In essence, the TGDP represents a grand solution to China’s issues. Grand solutions in Chinese history were epitomized in the Great Wall, the Grand Canal, the Great Leap Forward, the Great Proletarian Cultural Resolution and most recently, the Great Weatern Development (Dellios, 2001). They all cost tremendously in terms of either human lives or material sources. It is still unclear the future fate of the ‘Great’ Three Gorges Dam, apart from the matter of human suffering associated with dislocation and environmental degradation (ibid). Whatever is the case, Mega-projects embedded, as Joseph Schumpeter (1947) rephrased, “creative destruction” in terms of socio-political-economic sense (Gellert & Lynch, 2003).
The survival of humankind depends on the survival of a natural environmental conducive to interdependent network of living on this planet. In technocratic-industrial society, nature is treated as a mere instrument for human’s ends; a resource-base for material wealth deprived of its own intrinsic value. Using their technological proficiency, humans have endeavored to make themselves into the masters of nature, placing themselves on the top of natural hierarchy and embarking on a ‘punitive expedition’ against their most important ally, the living world of nature. Over the course of industrial development since the Industrial Revolution, it has appeared in our daily life such environmental problems as air pollution, water and soil contamination, and rapid depletion of the planet’s resources (Li, 2003).
This environmental exploitation are based on the anthropocentric ethics and limited understandings of modern ecological thinking in philosophy and natural science and technology. In order to re-establish consciousness of a normal pattern in natural systems and processes, modern western environmental ethics such as deep ecology, ecofeminism and social ecology combine with particular Chinese moral and ethical values based on harmony, Daoism particularly, can provide a solid theoretical foundation for more ecofriendly beliefs and behaviors regarding appropriated interface of balance between humans and their doing in a way that honors the gifts it provides (Nash, 1990; Jenkins, 2002). Humans/nature relationship, of which the Daoist notions of the “Dao follows nature”, “Unity of Heaven and Man”, “The Heavenly Way is Non-interference”, and “the three realms exploit each other,” may be worthy of our attention (Daoism, 2013).