Technology Will Save the World

Today in the university and business world alike, it is hard to go any length of time without hearing something along the lines of:

“Innovative technologies have the ability to solve our economic, social, and environmental, crisis.”

The sad thing is that this could not be any farther from the truth.

First, let me say that I am a tireless advocate for saving trees, and there was a time when I use to think that my computer was actually accomplishing this. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that not only was my computer not saving paper, it was actually causing more problems.

Allow me to explain:

If someone can tell me what every component of your computer (iPad, Smartphone etc.) is made of, AND where it came from – and by this I mean raw materials, I will write you a cheque. The crazy thing is, we can’t! No big deal right? It seems like a clean enough product.  I doubt anything too “unfriendly” was used to make it.   .   .  Even if we ignore any kind of labour issues, (and there are many) the environmental impact for one electronic device is astronomical compared to say-- a big old stack of paper.   

It gets worse.

 The rise of personal technology devices, and yes that includes desktop computers, has allowed us to spend BILLIONS of dollars on complexity. Gone is the day when you could trust your neighbours company without a 50 page contract, (which by the way, NO ONE CAN READ ANYWAY!) Massive corporations spend significant brain power, and money on “mitigating risk,” (ie watching their back) and looking for “contractual opportunities” (chances to screw over the sleepy competitor). And no I don’t mean by creating a new product to benefit society. I mean copyrights, patents, litigation, and a war over the “letter” versus the “intent” of the law which has become so complex it is almost nonsensical.  In case you think I am just picking on corporations, the exact same problem is rampant in our massive government bureaucracies as well. This is why we have Bills that are over 1000 pages long (and yes they were typed on a computer, and then ALSO printed so that people can “read them.”)  This speaks to another issue that I will likely write about soon, and that is the extreme complexity of human beings, and why “big solutions” will never work.

To top it all off we live in a superficial consumption driven society that says I need to buy a new laptop because mine is 4 years old and doesn’t have Windows 7. I admit that it is normal to want new things. When I hold a brand new iPhone or Blackberry in my hand a wave of excite flows over me, and I think about how much smoother and faster it is than my old phone. BUT, if I stop and put it in perspective there is absolutely no reason for me to purchase the new device when my existing device is functioning.  Sure my laptop might take 5mins to turn on .   .   . SO WHAT! (Watch this video for humour related to this point) I still have a computer more powerful then I need, oh AND  I can easily carry it around in a backpack. That is crazy. Of course, the most unfortunate thing is that my old technology is built to break down, and inevitably be unfixable sometime soon. A big thank-you to liquid modernity, and the “economic growth fetish” for that.  However, despite the lack of longevity in our products I think we ought to at least make an effort to use things for their entire life span!

And no, I will not be in the line up for the newest iPad. 

P.s. Why do we picture the future without nature!?

Clap-Slap of the Day

Once in while I will hear a story that makes me proud . . . that is until I complete the story and I slap myself in the forehead.

Today I was scanning through a recent Economist magazine and a small story read: “The consumption of carbonated soft drinks in America fell to a 16-year low in 2011” Even though the average per person consumption still worked out to something ridiculous like 16oz a day, I felt a moment of confidence for human race heading in a positive direction.

And then I read that we replaced Coke with a large increase in water bottle consumption. In a country with a never ending supply of FREE filtered (and SAFE) drinking water available almost everywhere, we still manage to be stupid enough to pay for, and waste billions of “one-use” plastic bottles.

Fail. 

p.s. 16 million gallons of oil were used last year just to make plastic water bottles. That doesn't include transportation which would more than double that number. 

A Complex Issue

An e-mail I wrote after a recent Andy Oudman show.

I have a couple comments regarding your show this week on homelessness and panhandling. 

First of all, I appreciate the fact that you even brought it up. It seems that often we don't address it as a real issue, because we have become desensitized to it. However, the major thrust of the conversation turned into a problematic simple battle cry. "Don't give them money." If you want bonus points send them to an agency, and then wash your hands of guilt.

The problem with this is multi-faceted. Many agencies (which I am NOT against, and think do wonderful things in this city) are at, or over capacity. This story rings true across the country. Rehab programs have to be cut short because the agencies simply do not have the resources or capacity to handle the need. I can't tell you how many times I have heard stories of people who genuinely wanted to turn their life around but were unable to receive the support they needed to get "over the hump."

The second problem is that we feed our already inflated individually centered mindset with the following lies: "I have done what I could" or "It's not my problem, they need to straighten their life out before I can help them." Don't get me wrong I am ALL FOR individual liberty, and often shake my head at government solutions. However, I see this problem as a breakdown of community. That is, if we were truly involved in caring communities, somebody who has fallen through the cracks IS OUR PROBLEM. That means we should do what we can to fix this, and not A) ignore it, or B) let someone else deal with it.

So what could we possibly do to help these people? I believe that one of your guests, Bob Black, was the only one who seemed to get it. It is about relationship. He never once suggested a one for all stamp solution (i.e. give money or not), but emphasized getting to know each individual on a personal level. I can tell you that from Vancouver to London you could not find an identical story as to why a person has fallen to the lowest of low. Yes, there are similarities, but it is FAR more complex then we often make it out to be. Can you imagine a community where individuals took time out of their daily or weekly routines to actually form a relationship with someone at the bottom of our society? Transformation takes time, energy, and a whole lot of patience. You were right to say that: These people have to want to change, but in order to desire this change they need hope they can depend on, not a half hearted job offer when they are addicted to oxycotton, and have a broken family. 

Contrary to what some of your callers believe, most of these people are not lying to take your money, and if they are it is likely because they are too embarrassed to tell their real story in fear judgement. Furthermore, for every one panhandler there are twenty faces that you cannot see with similar stories, sometimes even worse off.

Also, what might come as a surprise to some of your listeners is that so many of the panhandlers were in the same position we are now, and in the blink of an eye they ended up crushed at the bottom of society. Sometimes it was a bad decision, sometimes it was bad luck, almost always they didn’t have a network of family or friends that you and I have when we make the same bad choices.  I can’t imagine how hard it would be to motivate myself everyday knowing that I don’t have family and friends that can pick me up, and instead have to deal with the stigma of society. Think of only a simplified example. There is literally zero difference between a drunken man living on the street, and a hopeless alcoholic who happens to live in a million dollar condo, except that one has social acceptance and money to rely on.

You started off your show by saying how touched you felt when you thought that this could be happening to a “real person in your neighbourhood.” Until we stop thinking about these people as a “nuisance,” and realize that they always have been, and always will be real people just with a different circumstance then us, we will continue to sit on our high horse claiming to show compassion, while secretly feeling proud of our own jobs or accomplishments. 

Criminalizing the Homeless

A story caught some local London headlines last summer. Police in the city had increased the number of fines to panhandlers (up to 200 and something), and the Mayor Joe Fontana would like to make panhandling illegal in the city.

My first gut response to this is out right anger. There is little else I hate more than marginalizing the poor.

However, when I have gut reactions like this I try to work them out more "rationally"  (humans are incredible irrational) in order to see if my frustration has any merit.

My first question is: Why is this even an issue in the first place? Are there not more important things that our city could be focusing on? In a London Free Press article a Sergeant stated that "it's a public safety issue, and it's a nuisance issue too" This is a little strange to me because by law panhandling is not illegal unless it is done aggressively. In such a case I can understand the charge in the name of safety. BUT, I have never witnessed such an act, nor have I heard of any occurring in London.  I am assuming that if someone was abused by a panhandler it would likely be talked about.  In other words, there seems to be minimal (if not zero) public safety concern to worry about.

This means the vast majority of these charges (200) and concerns are based on the "nuisance" factor. In other words, some people get uncomfortable seeing a person struggling with poverty in the open . . . unavoidable. I think there is nothing wrong with this feeling, in fact I think it is a good thing. I should hope we never get comfortable seeing another human being suffering.

However, we should never criminalize this as a "nuisance." Not only do many of these people deal with rejection from much of society, but also they can't afford the charges, and many are on disability struggling with unimaginable mental, and/or emotional burdens. These "panhandlers" are simply another human being trying to make ends meet. To make panhandling illegal has almost nothing to do with the favourite catch phrase "getting tough on crime." We should ask why these people are in a position that requires them to panhandle, and what we can do as a community to change this.

I Wish It Was An SNL Skit

I do not watch much television, but recently I had an unfortunate encounter with the "Justice Coin" advertisement.

You can watch the one minute clip here: justicecoin.com

After I looked it up on the internet, and reconfirmed that this in fact is not a joke but a real "venture," I hardly knew how to respond. Since the events of 9/11 did not personally affect me or any of my family members, I often hesitate to voice much of an opinion on anything related to the tragedy. However, I simply cannot imagine a family who did lose someone in the event who would think of this commemorative coin in a positive manner.

The manner in which the entire gimmick is presented reeks of a lack of respect, class and sensitivity. Highlighting useless facts (24K gold coating, bonus silver coin, etc.) while glamourizing some of the most tragic tendencies of our human society. That is, it appears from this commercial that terrorism and revenge are part of an exciting real life video game. Not only is that disturbing on so many levels as a philosophy, but it is also free to prey on the minds of youth. If there is one thing that we should never teach our children it would be glorifying revenge in the name of justice, while minimizing the complexities of war. (which is done enough already in recruitment advertisements). What seems much more appropriate, (at least to me) is that killing always leads to more killing. The cycle must be forcefully broken. It is not a "weak" passive stance to act peaceably. In fact, it arguably takes more self-control, leadership, honour, respect, and courage to resist revenge than the act of revenge itself.

Furthermore, most people will admit that killing Osama Bin Laden does not bring the world any closer to peace and order. The problems we are attempting to solve are so much bigger than such trivial acts of violence. It has never sat right with me that in North America we would gather to celebrate the death of another human being (this is in reference to the crowds outside the white house after Bin Laden's death). I am not asking people to mourn the loss of such a man, but I see no rational to celebrate it. There is no reason to rejoice in revenge.

What is usually the case in similar promotions to the "Justice Coin," is that somebody saw the glowing opportunity to make a quick buck. In the general sense of our current economic system there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and we may even cheer for free choice/enterprise. I will not go into any depth arguing the pros and cons of this idea because that has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make. However, I will simply say that this "Justice Coin" certainly does not line up with my notion of ethical business (and here is to hoping it is not a success.)

If all of the aforementioned things don't make you sick enough, you will notice that on the website they added the tactlessness of Christmas lights around the border. . . as they self proclaim to be one of the best holiday gifts. What a way to celebrate the birth of Jesus!

Please do not read this as an anti-American accusation. That is by no means my intention. If the same coin was to be released in Canada my feelings would be the exact same.

Evangelical Tourism: Nothing but Negatives?

A response paper I wrote in my second year of University:

            Exploring the dynamics surrounding evangelical tourism has intrigued me. As the film by Vision 360, and the class discussion pointed out, there is a great debate as to whether the benefits outweigh the negatives with this kind of tourism. Among the hand full of heavily interviewed individuals, Dr. Salivarria, and Dr. Verbeek stood out the most to me. In Salivarria’s case he believed that short-term missions were essentially useless because they brought no long-term benefits to the community. He argued that a group of missionaries could come and run a health clinic for a couple weeks, and then leave it completely deserted, never to be heard from again. This is not something I had given much thought to before seeing this film, but I am becoming increasingly concerned about the non-beneficial aspects of short-term missions. It is important to clarify that short-term missions are not just an element of evangelical volunteer tourism, but rather, all sections of volunteer groups. I also found it fascinating to think that thousands of educated doctors are unemployed in Honduras because the government has no money left to support them, while at the very same time millions of dollars are spent on travel expenditures for short-term volunteers. One trip could spend upwards of fifty thousand dollars in travel costs, that is, enough money to employ a handful of qualified nurses in Honduras. After the self-interested traveller from the West leaves, it breaks my heart to think of the utter uselessness that is sometimes left behind. Stories of double immunization, empty healthcare buildings, towns built on swamps, structures being built by inexperienced workers, and so on, only further convinces me that short-term volunteering results in long-term pain for the host country. It was encouraging to hear statements from Salivarria that he had since planted 35 churches and medical centers by using the local people. This speaks volumes to those who may doubt the local population’s ability to enact in a way as ‘progressive’ or ‘advanced’ as ourselves.

            Having discussed the short-term, I would like to now focus on the long-term, and more specifically, on evangelical missions. The laid back and honest persona of Dr.Verbeek seemed much more appropriate for rational thought and critical reflection then many of the other evangelicals interviewed. Verbeek lives in one of the poorest areas in Tegucigalpa, and has lived there for over a decade. His clear knowledge of the local people’s needs far outstretches those coming in for a two week stint. He agreed that many short-term evangelical missions were inherently problematic, but insisted that if the group could take a few extra steps, the advantages would far exceed the downfalls. Verbeek suggests that groups should send money after they return home, and attempt to keep in contact with the locals they partnered with, thus creating a sustained relationship, and an opportunity to return. What is also paramount for Verbeek, is making sure to understand exactly what the needs are of the individual community that the group is working with, as told by the locals. I could not agree more. I believe whole heartedly that long-term volunteer tourism that is determined to understand the local needs of a community, as voiced by community members, and then seeks to follow-up with support for the long-term, whether evangelical or not, is a win – win situation. As Matthews states: “. . . without locals . . . one’s trip will be made meaningless," further demonstrating the importance of working with the locals. I believe that it is with this mindset that we can experience a true balanced learning experience between both the volunteers and the locals.

Another interesting theme was raised during this analysis, and discussion that I will briefly touch on. That is, the utter hostility towards Christianity in our modern day secular society, especially in academic circles. I find it fascinating, (and somewhat comical), that in a culture that prides itself in ‘equality for all,’ and ‘support for freedom of thought,’ continually pushes anything related to Christianity, evangelicalism, and so on, to the periphery of this tolerance. It seems to me that whenever these topics are raised, it is automatically acceptable to apply all stereotypes (such as George Bush’s leadership, or the wealthy lying American evangelical pastors) to blanket the rest. I am nearly positive, that if any other religious affiliation was attached to the film watched in class there would have been virtually no mockery, or disregard towards their opinions. It became paramount to me when I literally felt nervous for a young scholar in our class to admit she was a Christian during discussion. Why is that? How much more oxymoronic (emphasis on moronic) can we get? This is not to say that evangelical influence should not be studied critically, in fact far from it. What bothers me the most is the hostility and lack of respect displayed in a society which has essentially made an entire reversal in societal norms, and yet we seem to forget where we came from. (I wouldn’t doubt that a few decades ago a student could argue the exact same thing I am, only for the secular view to be accepted).  Finally, to expand on the previous point, I think it is important to mention that in today’s youth there is a growing number of so-called ‘Jesus followers,’ who do not subscribe to any of the institutionalized methods of the church. In fact, they are very much in support of a community based life working against liquid modernity, and are all about showing true love and tolerance to all. Maybe it is our own fault for not educating ourselves about what is really going on around us, or perhaps, we have become caught up in a powerful secular discourse.

Bibliography

CNN 360 Vision, Evangelical Tourism in Honduras. Accessed (February, 23^rd 2010).

Matthews, A. “’Negotiated Selves:’ The Impact of Local—Global Interactions on Young

Volunteer Travellers,” In Journeys of Discovery in Volunteer Tourism, edited by K. D.

Lyons and S. Wearing, 101 – 117. CAB International, 2008.