How would you like it if, after you turned 21, the federal government cut you a check for $10,000, every year, for the rest of your life? Murray's idea is Provocative.
Jan Egeland of Norway is the key person for the UN’s humanitarian affairs. He noted last year that Tsunami areas got plenty of international aid (almost 100% of that needed to rebuild) while Pakistan earthquake victims languished (I think it was 25% of the needed relief).
In Africa starvation now stalks millions. Egeland was recently quoted suggesting urgent need could rise to 15 million, momstly in Somalia, and correctly noted that if, for example, Scandinavia faced hunger on this scale the world would be scandalised:
“It would be evident if, say, all of Scandinavia faced collective starvation, the world would really respond. “If all of northern Iraq was facing massive starvation, I think the world would really respond. If Kosovo and Bosnia again faced starvation, I think the world would massively respond.”
Some suggest foolishly that starvation is a natural limit on population, yet it’s clear that over long periods development leads to LOWER birth rates. Thus funding development in third world can *theoretically* lead to a positive feedback, creating less suffering in the long term.
Political impediments caused by instability and despotic leaders and persistent ignorance about basic health issues stand in the way of optimal distribution of aid. Yet there are always better ways and collectively we should be able to find them.
I think many who oppose higher levels of aid to Africa would support much higher levels of international aid if there were better mechanisms to make sure the funding was working and demonstrate the benefits to the skeptics.
As the cost of the Iraq war approaches $400,000,000,000 I’m reminded that 20% of that number, or $80 billion, was cited a few years back as the cost to eliminate world hunger. Where are all those conservative economists when you need them for this cost/benefit analysis?
One of the most common and legitimate criticisms of both public and private sector enterprises is that they are run in ways that serve narrow, often selfish interests rather than the broad public good.
In the private sector this takes the form of profitability, sometimes attained at the expense of "doing the right thing". In the public sector one often finds that spending can be very inefficient due to lack of incentives – sometimes more a function of political pressure and interest group influences than common sense and the public good.
In many cases one could argue that in business the short term return on investment is too important where in Government it's not important enough.
Whoops – I got off the point. I was wondering about how a model of production would look if you characterized activity primarily in terms of how people *avoid* work and feather their own nests at other's expense. How businesses use regulation to thwart competition and create unneeded goods and services.
Just a thought
This water purification system sure looks promising and Kudos to Rotary for working to promote it. Using simple, low cost methods it can purify water using only ceramics and gravity. A higher tech but also inspiring approach is this machine promoted and invented by Dean Kamen of Sedgeway and other invention fame.
Clean water is among earth’s greatest challenges to humanity since disease is often spread via unsafe water supplies in the developing and undeveloped world.
Hey FOX news – some might even want to hear about these innovations in between the latest celebrity gossip or missing upper middle class party people.
I was sorry to see Bill Gates bashing MIT’s $100 Laptop project
Gates’ credentials as an advocate for the developing world are unsurpassed, but I’d guess he’s reacting more to the fact this is a Google sponsored project than legitimate concerns about it’s viability.
I love the $100 Laptop Project not so much because it will bring tech to the poor, especially children (though it will do that), but because it will help to rapidly and aggressively break down what I see as the key barrier to development which is the lack of communication and exchange between “them” and “us”.
A dictator’s tyranny or a famine in Nigeria will take on a whole new relevance when THEIR kids are all playing video games and instant messaging with OUR kids.
Bill, you got this one wrong, dawg. But the Gates Foundation remains the world’s most heroic development effort.
I’m sure there is some virtuous stuff amidst the current swirl of motivationally spoken self-helping new ageified banter, but I can’t [self] help but think “hey, this is mostly just a license for people to feel comfortable about doing whatever they darn well please”.
At least with much of the bible thumping old time religion there is an undercurrent of helpfulness and broad social responsibility. Also the new and improved and globilized business models are paying more than lip service to the idea that business responsibility goes far beyond profits for shareholders. This includes the big beneficiaries of big biz. One needs look no farther than the Gates Foundation or Google.org or the Omidyar (Ebay founder) efforts with Microloans to see how powerful this new business ethic has become in solving real world problems.
Many new age folks would suggest that there is some form of collective consciousness and that participating at that level does much good for the world. I’m very skeptical. Tell that to the kid in Africa with AIDs or Malaria or no clean water. They’ll (correctly) choose water purification to soul purification, and we should all get that set of priorities straight.
Provocative thought for the day:
Change is coming from the WRONG set of ideas. It’s coming from both the positive and negative “exciting” stuff like wars and conflict, concerts and rich people. Change SHOULD be coming from a careful examination of what is working the middle class mundane lives that most people in the developed world lead – the tried and true stuff. How do we bring this boring but workable stuff to the rest of the world?
*Bringing mediocrity to the world* is going to require great thinking and great innovation – wild and speculative innovation included. I sure like projects like Dean Kamen’s power/water devices which are a great way to make boring mundane but ESSENTIAL change happen in the 3rd world.
…. jeez, he introduced it at the TED conference a few years back… maybe I’m WRONG about TED. If it’s spreading this kind of innovation I’m….WRONG.
FOCUS defines a LOT of the world. What we as people, nations, groups, businesses choose to focus on defines a lot about us.
It’s much easier to focus on big controversies or big positive events than it is to focus on the mundane, daily grind events. YET, it’s our own mundane daily grinds where the stuff is happening that we need to pass along to those for whom the daily grind is …. life threatening.
Joe Duck 