In a February 2014 episode of 60 Minutes, Anderson Cooper reported on US homelessness, explaining how it actually costs more to ignore the less fortunate than to provide them with free or heavily subsidized housing (some complex owners also donate some of their units for this cause). Cooper interviewed the Nashville faction’s project champion Becky Kanis who said, “a night in the hospital costs more than an average month’s rent… we are paying more, as taxpayers, to walk past that person on the street and do nothing, than we would be paying to just give them an apartment.”

The 100,000 Homes Campaign seeks out and surveys the homeless to find the most needy, then gives each of them their own apartment. The project has been a success as, once given housing, people generally find employment, make friends and partake in hobbies. This reflects a similar philosophy to that of the Grameen Bank, which empowers impoverished people through small investments called micro loans. People use these loans to fund long-term small business operations or to buy goods and then sell them at a margin on the street. When people are constantly wondering where their next meal is coming from or where they will sleep that night, they do not have the time or the resources to do what they’re capable of.

Returning to the 60 Minutes episode; Cooper makes an important point near the end of his report, mentioning how “a lot was achieved by getting people who don’t normally work together, such as outreach workers and private landlords, to focus on the city’s most desperate residents.”

The civic-minded owners of the condo complexes who voluntarily rent out units for little rent, economically speaking, are actually suffering a loss as a result of their philanthropy. Yet, as participating landlord Kirby Davis so eloquently put: “none of [the well-off] got to where [they] are without taking risks, so how about taking a risk for somebody else?”

Although it’s utopian to imagine a world where CEOs would consider anything but their shareholders, people like Davis show how powerful it can be when those at the top consider things other than the bottom line.

Critical thinkers often problem-solve by employing the model of systems thinking: analyzing in terms of interconnections, interdependencies, patterns and specific context. The fundamental idea behind the concept is that everything works in synergy; it is vital to have balance among facets of a system in order to achieve the greatest benefits possible for each segment. Traditional analysis, conversely, breaks down systems into constituent elements and examines them separately. Context is resultantly overlooked which can lead analysts to making a fundamental attribution error, where emphasis for explaining a persons behavior in a given situation is placed on internal issues rather than taking into account external influences. An example of this is how Huntington, in The Clash of Civilizations, paints Muslims as ‘backward’ and hopelessly obstinate. He essentially claims that Muslims are simply troublemakers and that they could never participate in a civil, cooperative international arena. It is important to take note of the oppressive regimes preaching anti-Western rhetoric that these people were living under when Huntington’s article was written. Muslims want democracy, peace and connectedness just like any other human does; their jaded impressions of politics were due to their country’s leaders’ discourse. Seeing things in context allows thinkers to establish the root cause of issues, which is vital to deducing solutions.

The Ganges water dispute between India and Bangladesh provides an example of how cooperation leads to improved outcomes for all. Ganges water rights were a source of dispute between these two countries since India built the Farakka Barrage in 1975. Although there were on and off treaties to share the water in the time between dam construction and 1988, for the eight-year period after that until 1996 India unilaterally withdrew water at Farakka, as there was an absence of any agreement. This caused Bangladesh to raise the issue in international forums, consequently deteriorating India-Bangladesh relations. When both countries saw a change of government in 1996, new hope for an equitable water-sharing agreement arose as India’s United Front government wanted to live up to their earlier promise of amicable relations with neighboring nation-states. At the same time, newly elected Bangladeshi Prime Minister Hasina “found that her political interests would be better served by signing a Ganges water-sharing accord with India than by using the dispute as a political weapon” (Swain, 2002, p. 69). The lack of agreement caused huge losses for Bangladesh’s forestry, agriculture and fisheries industries; continuing without a solution to the Ganges water issue would be economic suicide.

In December 1996, the prime ministers of both countries signed a new, 30-year, water-sharing agreement. Unfortunately, low rainfall during the first year of the treaty resulted in minimal spring and summer runoff, meaning that the two governments had to work together to increase the dry-season runoff. The implementation of the 1996 treaty thus created an environment conducive to discussing issues surrounding water. Discussions regarding “other water-related issues such as flood management, irrigation, river basin development and hydropower generation for the mutual benefit of the two countries” (Swain, 2002, p.70) replaced the previous unconstructive political debates. The value of meaningful cooperation became clear.

References:

Swain, A. (2002). Environmental Cooperation in South Asia.

Wolf, . T., Kramer, A., Carius, A., & Dabelko, G. D. (2005). Managing water conflict and cooperation. State of the World 2005: Redefining Global Security, 80-95

Too many people are disconnected from their meat; we’ve been so well trained to just go to the grocery store and not question anything except for the prices. This arises from the fact that farmers are not dealing directly with consumers. There used to be a day when people would go to the local market, pick out the animal they wanted to buy, and haggle the farmer on the price. Nowadays, processors get in between the two sides and undermine the sustainable eating process with packaging, preservatives and costly marketing. It’s important to discuss these matters because this is not simply our planet to exploit as we wish; animals deserve to be treated with respect, as this is their land too.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) cram as many animals as possible into a small space for the sole purpose of fattening them up for slaughter. I think this is unethical because the animals aren’t given a nice life where they’re allowed to enjoy the little time they have. Rather, they’re living cargo that processors see as cash.

We have to also look at the positives of this situation to understand it holistically. Meat provides essential nutrients to humans. If all of it were free range its price would increase, as farmers wouldn’t be able to put as many chickens on a lot. That means decreased supply which leads to rising prices. Less people would be able to afford meat, which would put strain on other resources causing their prices to rise as well.

Some people argue that if humans all switched to a plant-based diet we could use animal feed cropland to grow for our own consumption. Given the worldwide popularity of meat and its growing demand in now-wealthier China, is this idea realistic enough to be worth even considering? There’s no doubt that this is a complicated topic and one has to look at all sides before forming an opinion. As mentioned, I believe animals should be allowed to live somewhat fruitful lives before going to slaughter. Small-scale farms would be best in my perfect world, but again this is quite unrealistic.

Hunting is the fairest method as animals at least have the chance to escape. However, if all we did was hunt for our food we wouldn’t progress much as a species as we’d be preoccupied with feeding ourselves. Would this lack of progress be more natural and fairer to Earth, or a waste of our intelligence? Isn’t a person’s answer to that question based on their values and perspective?

Writing this journal has caused me to more fully understand that ethics is a sliding scale depending on whose viewpoint you’re looking from. The personal result of this lesson is the insight that I need to always evaluate things fully before coming to an opinion. One cannot base decisions on what one feels; we have to think and analyze in order to come to appropriate conclusions.