Social Good

Climate change, war and education

It would cost $39 billion USD per year to provide universal education in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

That’s less than the USA increased their defence spending in 2018. Or to look at it another way it’s 6% of the $639 billion defence budget. Or, slightly more than the total USD officially contributed to global development in 2016.

Combined with improving Family Planning, universal education would have the most significant effect on global carbon generation of any single action.

The most significant effect. More than wind farms. Or electric cars. Or even eating a more plant-based diet (which incidentally is the most significant thing an individual has control over and can change immediately).

*Please take ten minutes to browse drawdown.org. I’ve never seen such a comprehensive and well presented set of information on climate change.

Who's it for? (or, who's missing out)

Who is an ethical, alternative, co-operative property system for?

Obviously it’s for all of us.

But the real question is, who is it most for. Who does the design bias towards. Who’s interests take priority, because there are always going to be competing interests, even (or perhaps especially) in an equitable system.

Here’s my proposal: It is biased towards the people not at the table.

Focus on the people furthest from the centre. Those most often left most disadvantaged. Create something that is generous towards these people, and it will work for all of us.

Some folks figured this out when designing homes for elderly, and people with disabilities. It turn’s out, these homes work really well for everyone.*

This is hard to do. It’s challenging to respond to people’s situations that aren’t mainstream. It’s especially difficult when they aren’t there to speak for themselves. And we make it harder still if we don’t know how to listen and learn.

But we want something truly equitable, something truly ethical, and entirely co-operative. To get there, we need to start at the margins.

*If you’re interested in the concept of designing in a way that is generous towards people at the fringes, you might like to look at Universal Design.

The language of social business

There's a lot of labels and terms floating around for businesses that try to do good stuff.

Social Enterprise.

Social Business.

For-Purpose Business.

Not-for-profit, but not-for-loss Business.

Triple Bottom Line.

Let's get serious here: A business going good stuff isn't anything special. It's just good business.

It's only special, because it isn't common.

Good, isn't common in business.

Buying Fairtrade isn't a do-gooder decision, a business model or a story used to sell a product: It's called paying a fair price. Businesses reliant on low-cost supply chains are at risk, because at some point you'll need to pay.

Deliberately pushing against the status quo, unconscious bias and systemic injustice within your business isn't a noble purpose: Diversity drives performance. We're better when we work together.

Solving societal problems, even in just a small way for a small group of people, isn't charity: It's necessary to regenerate and sustain society. Business doesn't happen in a vacuum, it happens in society.

Collaborative decision-making isn't a style of community engagement: It's the best way to (attempt to) keep pace with a rapidly changing world.

Making people's lives better isn't an optional extra that deserves to be applauded: It's called being human, and loving

When we all look after each other first, and ourselves second, we'll find ourselves very well looked after indeed.

Critique, questions and thoughts

Social media came through for me yesterday.

I came across this interesting thought piece which rapidly kicked my Friday morning brain up several gears. Thank you LinkedIn.

A few key takeaways and initial thoughts I'll be pondering over the weekend, and I'd suggest you might like to do so too:

Questions:

  • What are the unintended consequences of our well-intentioned actions?
  • What is our 'origin story'? How have we written the back story to our current state of being, and what does that story encourage in others?
  • How can we avoid viewpoints that can be described as totally valid, totally short-term, and totally defeatist, a harsh, but fair critique in the article linked above.

Thoughts:

  • Doing things differently, in a way that is better, for more people, more of the time, is hard. Strive to approach problems in a way that is valid (rigorous), long-term, and optimistic.

  • Trying to define 'good' is futile, yet necessary and immensely valuable. We won't all agree, and when we do that's because we're missing something. Any definition will always be incomplete, and have exceptions. But the process of discussing, reflection, documenting a definition of good, and then reviewing that definition in the light of the outcomes and decisions that it drives, is healthy. Working definitions work well for getting work done, and then getting more work done better.

  • Well constructed, articulated and respectful critique is a gift to us all.

*As a working definition of what good is when it comes to property, I've got a collection of thoughts on what makes a good home.

 

 

 

 

For the common good

in

Could we set aside personal financial gain and an individualistic framework of neighbour to create something that makes our neighbourhoods a bit better for more of us? 

Could we find the same amount of satisfaction in seeing smaller wins for more people, instead of big wins for ourselves?

Would we be motivated to strive for success when success is defined by more of us, and benefits all of us?

Do we want to build the neighbourhoods now that we dream of for the future?