Inspiration. Trepidation.

A lot has happened in the past two months that has both inspired and caused bouts of fist shaking toward the world. But the inspired has by far outshone the dreadful.

Dearly loved friends were visiting and visited, new friendships cultivated, a new and unexpected project revealed itself, a thought-provoking semester ended and a new one began. The holidays, with the many interactions I participated in, as well as observed, were stunning. Previously separated worlds collided, causing just a bit of curiousness as to how all would get along. Or not. But silly me, these are all people I love. How could they help but love each other? Yeah, there’s more than a bit of smugness in that statement.

Last semester was quite successful academically, with the exception of my bewilderingly difficult introduction Norwegian course… I suppose I should be grateful I did well enough to continue with it. And I will persevere and learn it! For myself and because this place is becoming, more and more, “home”.

I have started working with fantastic coffee people in Oslo very recently and am still wondering how it is that there’s such perfect synchrony between work and study. Very simply, the purpose of my work (the name is still up in the air until a fitting one is found) is to build a community of roasters and coffee producers who are working toward a transparent, equitable and sustainable model of coffee trade. As the coffee chain has many layers, it can be difficult to bring all parties together but if the industry weren’t lofty and overambitious, we would all still be drinking (or not at all, in my case) poorly roasted and highly altered coffee that we paid insultingly little for. I’m not interested in categorizing this within a box – prevailing or newly defined. I just feel privileged, albeit a touch overwhelmed, that I get to participate in it.

So that’s a large part of the inspiring. The trepidation comes from all the uninspired happening in the world. Especially in beloved Canada. Why, in such an amazing, beautiful, diverse place, filled with pockets of inspired and inspiring people, is the country increasingly allowing a few to petulantly raise its middle-finger to the rest of the world? How else to describe one of the most shockingly embarrassing examples of this: the Harper government not only withdrawing from Kyoto but also playing smarmy uncle wagging his finger at others who naïvely continue to participate.

It’ll be a great but challenging year. My mind was blown during week one of my consumption class by Hal, who is steadily becoming my favourite lecturer. Everyone has an intellectual crush on Hal. Most often in academia, one is presented with recycled thoughts, debates, descriptions of the same phenomena. But this week, I encountered a concept that I had truly never come across before and it forced me to pause and wonder. And also cringe.

Daniel Miller writes about anthropology’s role in the study of consumption. In one of the two papers I read this past week, he presents the idea that it is not politicians nor even TNCs that control the world markets. Housewives do. The aggregate of daily purchases made worldwide by housewives is enormously large and influential on supply and demand, which leads to two crucial consequences: 1. Perpetuation of inequality and poverty stemming from this group’s choice to buy cheap goods and 2. Maintenance of patriarchal control (This one is quite a bit more complicated, so I’ll do my best to explain). These two consequences are mutually reinforcing – women are the lower wage earners, are still less educated in much of the world (though this is slowly changing) and are mostly in unequal relationships. Even though their actions are the ones that change markets on the ground, they are not the ones voting and participating in politics. Thus their voices remain unheard or are ignored. Yes, this is changing in the North and in pockets of the South but the pace is glacial.

To wrap up, I am grateful and happy to be a part of the segment of the coffee industry I have spent the last four years in. It represents a miniscule proportion of the overall industry and it’s not perfect but I’ve honestly yet to meet a person in it that is in it to prosper and subsequently gain at the expense of others. The motivation to always aspire for excellence and to overcome previous distance and barriers between the various participants leads to a built-in mechanism for transparency and equity. Again, the industry isn’t perfect, which is why I’ve chosen to study it as well as participate in it. The point is that it’s very possible to make consuming/political choices that allow for pure enjoyment of life while not harming, or perhaps even benefitting others concerned.

Deep Ecology – Arne Næss and George Sessions

I first encountered Deep Ecology in my Philosophy of Environment course at the U of A. It confronts me again in my final course for this semester. Some believe Deep Ecology is naïve and misguided. Others contend that it is misanthropic. To me, it is concise (i.e. logical and simple) and normative, hence can be used as a basis for policy and social change. Here are its central tenets:

I. The flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth has intrinsic value. The value of nonhuman life forms is independent of the usefulness these may have for narrow human purposes.

II. Richness and diversity of life forms are values in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth.

III. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

IV. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

V. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

VI. Significant change of life conditions for the better requires changes in policies. These affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures.

VII. The ideological change is mainly that of life quality (dwelling in situations of intrinsic value) rather than adhering to a high standard of living. There will be profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

VIII. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

Global Health: A “License to Print Money”?

Bill Gates could have spent his money on art museums or vanity projects. He could have spent his money on cancer research, or on the development of space technology. He chose instead to tackle the diseases of the poor. He chose to go to Africa with much of his money. – Peoples Health Movement et al. (2008)

I can’t find a free online version of this paper I’m reading for class but I want to share the major points because it is important to be critical of philanthropy as much as anything else. If that sounds counter-intuitive, maybe it’s because philanthropy, by definition is an act of benevolence. But when the history of corporate philanthropy is assessed, particularly American philanthropy, it’s painfully easy to find examples of the rich using Corporate Social Responsibility to avoid paying tax. Without further ado, let’s get down to the findings of the above-mentioned assessment, which was performed on the Gates Foundation:

1. Investments worth at least $8.7 billion were in companies whose activities were contrary to the Foundation’s charitable goals. When asked why, the Foundation responded that it does not ‘rank’ companies because “there are dozens of factors that could be considered, almost all of which are outside the Foundation’s areas of expertise.”;
2. There is a lack of accountability and transparency within the Foundation. Interviewees working for/with the Foundation described a lack of checks and balances normally present within other organizations. Interestingly, other global health actors are held accountable to the Gates Foundation but not vice versa;
3. Considering the immensity of the Foundation’s funds, it is unquestionably a dominant actor in the global health movement and there are several examples of the Foundation using its influence to set the agenda (e.g. it provides a third of WHO’s funding and has influenced WHO to focus on malaria research);
4. The Foundation’s approach to global health is market friendly and venture capitalist. It focuses on technical solutions rather than structural ones in its demand for “high ‘return, but in the form of attributable and measurable social or health outcomes”;
5. In addition to the above point, the focus on technological solutions would lead to wider achievements if the strengthening of health systems were also addressed. But the Foundation does not “want to hear about systems strengthening, they said it was for governments” (though more recently, there has been a shift in focus), and finally;
6. Ties to the pharmaceuticals industry have led health activists to question whether the Foundation is “converting global health problems into business opportunities”.

The report does not suggest that the Gates Foundation is not doing good for the global health agenda. It is simply pointing out flaws within the organization that are both serious and potentially detrimental to the overall success of international initiatives. When one organization exerts as much influence on the world health agenda as the Gates Foundation does, it is important to question the legitimacy of that agent’s power. Is it helping or hindering what is right and just?