In this liberal progressive world of philanthropists, foundations, trusts, charities, NGOs, platforms, outlets and beyond, a great deal of activity, though dressed up in the language of ‘change’, is not authentic. This language conveniently disguises the fact that actors in this space are still playing the extraction game. They appropriate the discourse of ‘systemic transformation’, and use it to sanitize and legitimize the very system of extraction that they are professing to transform. And they believe that their way is the only way.
Layer upon layer of self-soothing delusion serves to mask and intensify what are in fact behaviors that support extraction. They appear benign, and there are all sorts of rationalizations, excuses and explanations for their behavior: ideological indoctrination, structural constraints, social conditioning, psychological ailments, or simple incompetence.
But it doesn’t matter. Because the current configuration of liberal progressive myopia constitutes the most dangerous obstacle to saving people and planet that currently exists. It is standing in the way of real alternatives, real solutions.
Such a true article.
People who want real change are very rare among the progressive and liberal circles in the developed world.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
In this liberal progressive world of philanthropists, foundations, trusts, charities, NGOs, platforms, outlets and beyond, a great deal of activity, though dressed up in the language of ‘change’, is not authentic. This language conveniently disguises the fact that actors in this space are still playing the extraction game. They appropriate the discourse of ‘systemic transformation’, and use it to sanitize and legitimize the very system of extraction that they are professing to transform. And they believe that their way is the only way.
Layer upon layer of self-soothing delusion serves to mask and intensify what are in fact behaviors that support extraction. They appear benign, and there are all sorts of rationalizations, excuses and explanations for their behavior: ideological indoctrination, structural constraints, social conditioning, psychological ailments, or simple incompetence.
But it doesn’t matter. Because the current configuration of liberal progressive myopia constitutes the most dangerous obstacle to saving people and planet that currently exists. It is standing in the way of real alternatives, real solutions.
Such a true article.
People who want real change are very rare among the progressive and liberal circles in the developed world.
The blessed Bono.
Overconfidence, not just expert overconfidence but general overconfidence,
is one of the most common illusions we experience. Stan Robinson
Most of the "help" to the third world that I have seen from the likes of the Gates Foundation does more to bolster the status quo of US multination corporation domination rather than help the local population. The Gates Foundation in the Third World regularly supports the same "Green Revolution" that is bringing the death of soils ans insect life, soil erosion and the end of family farming in the US and Europe rather than the small scale, organic agriculture that numerous UN reports say is the way forward for the world to feed itself in future.
I think it's now been scientifically proven that giving people money locally, rather than trying to organise stuff, or send supplies of things/education/etc, is far more effective.
We simply can't second-guess what people actually need.
RenewableCandy wrote:I think it's now been scientifically proven that giving people money locally, rather than trying to organise stuff, or send supplies of things/education/etc, is far more effective.
We simply can't second-guess what people actually need.
RenewableCandy wrote:I think it's now been scientifically proven that giving people money locally, .....
or a goat to a woman so that she can feed her children and make a bit of money selling surplus milk or wells to supply clean water actually to a village
RenewableCandy wrote:I think it's now been scientifically proven that giving people money locally, .....
or a goat to a woman so that she can feed her children and make a bit of money selling surplus milk or wells to supply clean water actually to a village
....is far more effective.
And that, according to Rutger Bregman in Utopia for Realists, (specifically pages 29 to 31 in last year's edition) is not the case. The overall cost of supplying animals far exceeds the amount of money she needs.
The case for giving money as opposed to any other well-meaning efforts is intimately linked with the case for citizens' income.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
The cost of giving the initial animal might be high but as that animal has offspring every year and those animals are then distributed around the village the initial cost is divided among many people and that wealth spreads. The animals are fed on brush which cannot be eaten by people and the people are taught to keep the animals in a sustainable way such that their gardens are also kept. The dung from the animals helps fertilise their gardens.
This does not in any way affect the possible need for a citizens income but with all the knowledge that we gain from this forum can you actually believe that a citizens income is in any way sustainable for more than a few decades? Giving women a goat and teaching her how to keep it sustainably will outlive all financial crises.
Goats are a major source of environmental damage in many developing countries with fragile or marginal environment s. Charity supplied goats in some countries are causing poverty. Sheep are less destructive.
The schemes where I have seen goats deployed have all kept them in small numbers and zero grazed to protect the peoples vegetable gardens. But, yes, I agree that large numbers of goats left to go feral or almost feral are a bad thing. I have kept goats, up to 150 at one time, so I know just what they are capable of.
kenneal - lagger wrote:This does not in any way affect the possible need for a citizens income but with all the knowledge that we gain from this forum can you actually believe that a citizens income is in any way sustainable for more than a few decades?
Inequality means yes, we're going to miss the boat on the CI project.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
