Philanthropic efforts seem to be directed toward a physical gift of
medicine, computers and GM foods. Though the first two are certainly
essential, the root causes of rapid spread of contagious diseases are
ignored. If they were addressed properly, the rates of infection would
be greatly reduced. Unfortunately the economies of developing nations
are being cast in the flawed images of developed countries that exploit
poor nations for their own success.
It would appear that ARV medicines should be easier to deliver, now that
generics have brought the cost of treatment for an individual down from
$10,000 to about $300, but environmental poverty too often prohibits its
delivery to most concentrated areas of infection. Underfunded clinics,
distantly situated, educational barriers, and ever-increasing
wide-spread rape and prostitution are huge obstacles resulting from
Western agricultural/industrial development and exploitation that have
propelled poverty toward crisis levels.
Had transnationals not come into most of these regions, environments
would have been primarily self-sustaining. Education would have been the
simplest solution. With displacement of farmers and local industry
employees, unemployment and poverty is rampant. Huge tracts of
agricultural land full of pesticides and herbicides separate villagers
from community centres where opportunity for health, education and
employment would normally transpire. No village square for these people.
The vast distances have also caused small ghetto-like clusters of houses
that have no clean water, no sewage systems and conditions that
generally invite malaria and child and female sexual abuse.
Poverty is not being adequately addressed, and won't be while the toxic
industries are allowed to remain. Education for all ages is key, but is
prohibitive or not being provided. Food and water should come before
medicines, but often does not. Individual disease focus has its pros and
cons in philanthropy, but taking the example of AIDS prevention, in
which numbers of new infections in Africa and South East Asia keep
outnumbering those getting treatment, efficacy will only be realized
when environmental and educational poverty is reduced. Wealthier nations
have experienced a decline in infection rates, just as we overcame many
other diseases by increased standard of health, access to medicine and
inoculation.
I would challenge philanthropists to seriously look at the fundamental
reasons for spread of diseases and poverty, and to initiate efforts to
change, replace or discourage Western corporate development in
developing nations. But that's like asking them to stop being rich, for
most, since so many have acquired their wealth by contributing to
impoverishment of these poor nations.
Perhaps Peter Buffett could take the lead, and help restore developing
nations back to dignity with new programs that discourage corporate
pillaging and exploitation, encourage sustainability, education,
housing, food & clean water, proper sewage treatment, and medical care
for all. He's right in saying that you cannot solve a problem with the
same mind-set that created it. He needs to dialogue with those who
understand the barriers, and who have solutions that their own
governments are unwilling to, or cannot afford, to implement.
One person who could steer Buffett on course is Dr. Vandana Shiva,
Indian environmental activist. It would do him good to get away from
lawyers and accountants and corporate donors. Who knows?
Natalia Kuzmyn
From:http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/7329/the-clinton-and-gates-foundations-global-health-superpowers
Under the current global health regime, the vast majority of medical
benefits and medical research benefit the world's wealthiest 20 percent
-- even though poor countries shoulder 80 percent of the global burden
of disease. By the early 2000s, worldwide annual expenditures on medical
research totaled $70 billion, yet 90 percent of this funding focused on
diseases that constitute a mere 10 percent of the global burden of
disease. Of the 1,223 new drugs developed between 1975 and 1997, only 13
-- a mere 1.06 percent -- were for treating tropical diseases. ...
On 27/07/2013 3:03 PM, Arthur Cordell wrote:
*Subject:*The Charitable-Industrial Complex
The Charitable-Industrial Complex
·by PETER BUFFETT
·July 26, 2013
·original
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130727&_r=0>
.
I HAD spent much of my life writing music for commercials, film and
television and knew little about the world of philanthropy as
practiced by the very wealthy until what I call the big bang happened
in 2006. That year, my father, Warren Buffett, made good on his
commitment to give nearly all of his accumulated wealth back to
society. In addition to making several large donations, he added
generously to the three foundations that my parents had created years
earlier, one for each of their children to run.
Early on in our philanthropic journey, my wife and I became aware of
something I started to call Philanthropic Colonialism. I noticed that
a donor had the urge to "save the day" in some fashion. People
(including me) who had very little knowledge of a particular place
would think that they could solve a local problem. Whether it involved
farming methods, education practices, job training or business
development, over and over I would hear people discuss transplanting
what worked in one setting directly into another with little regard
for culture, geography or societal norms.
Often the results of our decisions had unintended consequences;
distributing condoms to stop the spread of AIDS in a brothel area
ended up creating a higher price for unprotected sex.
But now I think something even more damaging is going on.
Because of who my father is, I've been able to occupy some seats I
never expected to sit in. Inside any important philanthropy meeting,
you witness heads of state meeting with investment managers and
corporate leaders. All are searching for answers with their right hand
to problems that others in the room have created with their left.
There are plenty of statistics that tell us that inequality is
continually rising. At the same time, according to the Urban
Institute, the nonprofit sector has been steadily growing. Between
2001 and 2011, the number of nonprofits increased 25 percent. Their
growth rate now exceeds that of both the business and government
sectors. It's a massive business, with approximately $316 billion
<http://www.cnbc.com/id/100831257> given away in 2012 in the United
States alone and more than 9.4 million employed.
Philanthropy has become the "it" vehicle to level the playing field
and has generated a growing number of gatherings, workshops and
affinity groups.
*As more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that
creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds
to "give back." It's what I would call "conscience laundering" ---
feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could
possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of
charity*.
*But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place.
The rich sleep better at night, while others get just enough to keep
the pot from boiling over. Nearly every time someone feels better by
doing good, on the other side of the world (or street), someone else
is further locked into a system that will not allow the true
flourishing of his or her nature or the opportunity to live a joyful
and fulfilled life. *
And with more business-minded folks getting into the act, business
principles are trumpeted as an important element to add to the
philanthropic sector. I now hear people ask, "what's the R.O.I.?" when
it comes to alleviating human suffering, as if return on investment
were the only measure of success. Microlending and financial literacy
(now I'm going to upset people who are wonderful folks and a few dear
friends) --- what is this really about? People will certainly learn
how to integrate into our system of debt and repayment with interest.
People will rise above making $2 a day to enter our world of goods and
services so they can buy more. But doesn't all this just feed the beast?
I'm really not calling for an end to capitalism; I'm calling for
humanism.
Often I hear people say, "if only they had what we have" (clean water,
access to health products and free markets, better education, safer
living conditions). Yes, these are all important. But no "charitable"
(I hate that word) intervention can solve any of these issues. It can
only kick the can down the road.
My wife and I know we don't have the answers, but we do know how to
listen. As we learn, we will continue to support conditions for
systemic change.
*It's time for a new operating system. Not a 2.0 or a 3.0, but
something built from the ground up. New code. *
What we have is a crisis of imagination. Albert Einstein said that you
cannot solve a problem with the same mind-set that created it.
Foundation dollars should be the best "risk capital" out there.
There are people working hard at showing examples of other ways to
live in a functioning society that truly creates greater prosperity
for all (and I don't mean more people getting to have more stuff).
Money should be spent trying out concepts that shatter current
structures and systems that have turned much of the world into one
vast market. Is progress really Wi-Fi on every street corner? No. It's
when no 13-year-old girl on the planet gets sold for sex. But as long
as most folks are patting themselves on the back for charitable acts,
we've got a perpetual poverty machine.
It's an old story; we really need a new one.
Peter Buffett <http://www.peterbuffett.com/> is a composer and a
chairman of the NoVo Foundation <http://www.novofoundation.org/>.
References
Original URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130727&_r=0
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
