For last week’s blog I was doing a little digging and stumbled across a Youtube video I found really interesting. The video is called “First as tragedy, Then as Farce.” It’s an 11-minute video in which a philosopher investigates the ethical implications of charitable giving. It was this video that spiraled me into further research about charitable giving enterprises and more specifically led me to look for information about US Food aid. In my mind Food Aid was some sort of organization that provided food to nations who were starving or experiencing droughts or famine. Their website describes it as an allegiance of private voluntary organizations committed to eradicating hunger, malnutrition, food insecurity and reducing poverty. In isolation reducing hunger of course is a good cause. What I had not previously thought of is the impact this “charitable giving” has many elements but on biodiversity and the environment specifically and furthermore why there exists this excess food to begin with. Similar to the stance in the video, this article explains that this charitable giving does not work as a long-term solution for hunger and poverty because it simply undermines local farmers and in so doing further entrenches societies reliance on industrial agriculture and mono cropping.
“Wasting resources creates hunger. By wasting resources through one-dimensional monocultures maintained with intensive external inputs, the new biotechnologies create food insecurity and starvation.”(Global issues; Food aid)
In the historical examples mentioned in the article there were always other solutions available to the people suffering, solutions that could have been more effective. Of course we all know living more sustainably has endless positive repercussions for the earth, but for me the implication of this article is that as sustainable food sourcing increases, poverty will naturally decrease. Could sustainability eradicate poverty? What other global issues could possibly be rectified or improved with sustainability?
Citations
http://www.globalissues.org/article/10/food-aid-as-dumping
alexandrajoyce
February 5, 2016 — 10:00 pm
I think a key global issue that we need address right now is climate change. As we saw in class, even the World Economic Forum is predicting that “failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation” will be one of the biggest risks to businesses, economic development, and the environment in 2016. I think that the key is for businesses to clearly understand the link between profitability and sustainability, as was pointed out by Interface’s Ray Anderson in the “So Right, So Smart” documentary. If businesses engage in more sustainable practices, not only does it positively impact the environment, but it also reduces operational costs. I think the most important takeaway from that documentary was when Ray pointed out that in actuality, economies need energy, natural resources, and ecosystems to exist. Without engaging in sustainable practices, not only will the environment suffer, but the economy will suffer as well.
WEC 2016 Announcement: http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/what-are-the-top-global-risks-for-2016
maria abell
March 8, 2016 — 9:02 pm
I found this video very interesting. It is true that part of the situation that the majority of the population in this world is living is due to the acts of the “First World”. On the one hand, we are destroying many of their natural resources because we have already exceed ours. This has a strong repercussion on their life. However, on the other hand, we are trying to mitigate the effect with “charity giving”. I agree with the philosopher when he says that some giving and helping is better than nothing, but it is not a durable solution. The solution comes in looking at the ethics of our actions and see how can we change them so that others can benefit from it. Referring to the video, with this procedure people in need would not only living a bit better but we would be improving the situation which produced the problem.
Collin Singer
March 16, 2016 — 5:12 pm
I think that’s something that is often missed by those who are donating. I’d encourage you to check out this video done about why those “buy one, give one” models often end up hurting more than they help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX0g66MWbrk
People embrace charitable giving with a vehemence that belies how effective they actually are. On the other hand, donating actual money to micro-loan companies often helps to build up the local economy and create enterprise, which in the long run is often more effective than donating food or shoes.
I think people ultimately need to choose options which boost sustainability and help promote social goals in the long term, not those which boost self-esteem or make someone feel good in the short term. That’s the best way to create positive actual change.