Could the Mobization of India Hurt The World?

Countries that have disproportionately overpopulated the planet have an opportunity to redeem themselves by giving up some of those "rights".

The planet can no longer sustain runaway population growth and the attendant strain it puts on the ecosystem and scarce resources. The superior technology of the developed world will ultimately save the planet and all its diverse peoples; however, if the developing world does not come to grips with runaway population growth we are all doomed together to a life of misery. It's no longer a question of rights but a question of mutual survival.

I still dont have any answers, maybe you can help me? ;)

Like it or not, we in the Western world are in competition with China and India (and others for that matter) for precious petroleum resources. The mobilization of the emerging economies is going to have a dramatic impact of the price of gasoline and diesel fuels.
What this means is that mainly Americans will have to radically downsize their autos just to be able to drive the same miles/year that we've been accustomed to for decades. The Europeans won't have as much of an adjustment since their autos are already much smaller. Which brings up an interesting question: since the Europeans already have fuel efficient autos they may be hit harder than the U.S. motorists who have a lot of room to further downsize and thus adjust.

Americans have come to realize (though a little late) that effective mass transportation systems are the way to go. Cities that have great mass transit systems (NYC, Chicago, Boston, etc.) are benefiting. Communities that don't have them (LA, Atlanta, Houston) suffer some of the worst traffic congestion in the country.

India would be wise to invest in an effective mass transit system first to help their people. Most poor people just want to get to work, and really don't care about buying a $2500 car as a status statement.

The short answer to the question is not whether mobilization will hurt the world -- we all know that transportation options improve individual quality of life at the expense of natural resource depletion and pollution -- the real question is how we plan the infrastructure to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the benefits to ALL people across the globe.

No one is going to say that it's wrong for a hardworking person in any country to buy himself a car. The problems is that we've been continually producing bigger, more complex, and less fuel efficient cars in affluent countries when all automakers should be offering a full range of economical cars worldwide. If unequal useage of ressources continues, then political strife will only continue to worsen.

Moreover, cars are not the only answer to transportation needs. All large cities must develop better mass transportation solutions, otherwise automobile advancements will be meaningless. Who cars how great your Lexus or BMW or Mercedes is when it's sitting in congested traffic?

Exactly. It's not about car "ownership" which is a stupid depreciating asset anyway, but rather about mobility which can be addressed more effectively by mass transit systems. A poor person who owns a $2500 car to get to work is no better off than the same person who gets around just as effectively on public transportation systems, YET gets to keep the $2500 to invest in something more worthwhile.