This story, besides inspiring me with its creative approach to raising awareness about important issues, got me thinking about the power of transforming wealth and privilege into a constructive force. There is the ethical dimension of such action (or being a bystander and not using that opportunity to help), there is the scale of issues and the challenge of determining the levels of innovation required to truly leverage a situation, and there are the choices involved in determining which issues should receive our attention and how best to channel the resources we possess. Let's briefly examine each aspect...
Ethical obligations were well presented in Peter Singer's article for the NY Times Magazine, "What Should a Billionairre Give - And What Should You?" in Dec 2006. He shared the dilemma that he presents to his students about the obligations of passersby to save a drowning child, increasing the scale and complexity of the situation until we are examining implications for a full community saving an entire pool full of children. One interesting element of the article is his calculation that we could meet the UN Millenium Development Goals by modest contributions, if we all gave something, and could even achieve this goal comfortably if the richest 10% of Americans gave 10% of their income to this effort. Bill and Melinda Gates are leveraging their vast wealth to make significant impacts on large-scale issues , as recently discussed by Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times (Jan 26, 2009), and Andy Patrick is using his wealth to support the aspirations of those whose economic situation would preclude them from making a difference. This brings us to the question of scale.
I often wonder what difference my life (or any other person's life) influences those of other people. When I was younger, I tended to equate ambitious goals with impact on the most people; in other words, if I did something 'amazing,' it would qualify as such because it was on a huge, national or global scale. As I've aged (and perhaps matured in my thinking, perhaps not), I have come to see my influence as being potentially as great by making deeper, relational impacts on a smaller circle of people, fostering a sense of excitement that catalyzes them to influence others. This is similar to the "connector" quality discussed by Malcom Gladwell in Tipping Point, where he describes the capacity of certain individuals to spread news much more rapidly because of their relational efficacy, an extraordinary ability to connect with others in a way that has great credibiltiy and power. He uses it to describe how Paul Revere, and not his collaborating rider on that incredible night in Boston, was able to get people aroused out of their beds and into action to defend the colonies. He also goes to on describe these qualities and their power in achieving the tipping point for change.
When I consider my influence and the question of scale, I also recognize that we are dealing here with complex systems, and that the butterfly effect may certainly apply to my actions. We can try to intentionally organize ourselves to address critical issues, but ultimately we must acknowledge that these issues are far more complex and chaotic than we can control. I am not a wealthy man, but if I summon my privilege to address critical issues within the scope and scale of my influence, I may have significant effects. This, of course, brings us to choices and priorities.
How do we determine how best to use our influence? Where should we focus our innovative efforts? We appear to have a cultural bias in favor of innovations in science and technology, perhaps because we can see relatively fast 'return on investment' in new treatments for major illnesses, new tools for increasing economic productivity, etc. And we often consider the impacts of those options that are significantly funded to be more important, for the sheer scale of the approach. I can see this thinking, but would like us to consider other questions, as well:
- If we allow innovative markets to foster 'increasing returns' to accumulate capital and accelerate change, as initially examined by W. Brian Arthur at the Santa Fe Institute, what opportunities are overlooked because they do not ascribe to market forces? For example, new capital is streaming into cloud computing technologies, for good reason. But other pathways that could ethically yield greater returns get overlooked. Tom Friedman may cheer the 'flatness' of globalization, but his analysis may discount the human rights effects, the spreading gap between rich and poor, or environmental factors that capitalism tends to regard as externalities. As John Ikerd has discussed in his work on Sustainable Capitalism, a fundamental reframing of the system may be required.
- If we focus on 'big issues,' in our near-term strategic interests, how do we properly assess the importance of emerging issues in remote parts of the world that may not get our attention? And what about small-scale changes, such as Negroponte's self-meshing laptops, PlayPump's amazing merry-go-round water pumps in Africa, or the effects of extraordinary learning experiences through organization's like Engineers Without Borders?
- And what of the impact of the arts on the quality of our lives and on our communities? Are there not lingering, sustainable benefits that uniquely emerge from viewing a performance, creating a work of art, collaborating in serious play? Do these 'interruptions of serious work' not provide the catalyst for truly innovative efforts in prioritized areas? If we facilitate the types of creativity offered by Google's "innovation time off" or the Serious Play Conference or even Disney Imagineering, does that not result in energized efforts that could help us solve critical problems, as well?
This could go on much longer... The FiftyCrows Foundation appears to capture some of the greatest, most ethical elements of innovative philanthropy: Patrick has taken his passion and his resources and applied them to something that has a sustainability factor intrinsic to the work. Not only does he empower aspiring photojournalists to do meaningful work, but he does so in a manner that has 'ripple effects' (like the micro-lending ventures we have previously discussed on this blog) to sustain that impact and encourage others to 'pay it forward' over their careers. We live in a time of paradoxical abundance or recession; we have a greater awareness of the challenges facing the planet than ever in history, we have phenomenal wealth, and yet we are often trapped in ways of thinking that preclude integrated, innovative, collaborative actions that best use those resources. If we can start to figure that out, we'll be leaving a really valuable legacy for the next generation.
-Harry
No comments:
Post a Comment