Nov 18

Arab League Threatens Syria with Sanctions

Two weeks ago the Syrian government agreed to ends its crackdown on anti-government demonstrators, a development I was skeptical of.  I hoped that the Syrian government was legitimately ready to end the violence, but worried that President al-Assad’s history of broken peace agreements was a sign that he was not going to commit to a ceasefire.  Unfortunately, the events of the last two weeks have proved that my skepticism was appropriate.

On November 6th, less than a week after the peace agreement with the Arab League was reached, government troops killed at least 11 people in the Homs region during a holiday prayer session for Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice.  Government troops also fired at protesters in and around Damascus, though there were no reported fatalities from those attacks.  Since then the Syrian government has continued to react violently to protest attempts, and it has been estimated that 13 people have been killed by security forces amid international divisions over a way out of the crisis

In response to the continued violence, the Arab League has decided that it is time to take harsher measures against Syria in order to force the government to end the bloodshed.  As this video shows, the Arab League is tired of the regime’s reliance on military force, and has called on the Damascus government to halt the bloodshed within three days or face economic sanctions.  The Arab League has issued this warning several times, however, and keeps extending the deadline when the Syrian government fails to respond.  As you watch the video, consider whether or not you think the Arab League will follow through this time and sanction Syria if al-Assad refuses to end the crackdown.  I, for one, hope that they will, before the situation in Syria deteriorates further to civil war and humanitarian crisis. But, given that this is not their first extension of the deadline, I again find myself skeptical.

Share

Nov 16

He’s Done More than Win 903

Last night was a significant moment in college basketball history. Mike Krzyzewski, dubbed “Coach K” by his Cameron Crazie faithful, reached 903 wins and passed Bobby Knight to become the all-time leader in wins among NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Coaches. This achievement is just another feather in the cap in K’s long and illustrious career. He has already reached 11 Final Fours, and won 12 ACC regular season championships, 13 ACC tournaments, 4 national championships, and a gold medal with the United States men’s national basketball team in the 2008 Olympics. With such an astonishing resume, it is becoming indisputable (in my admittedly biased opinion) that he is the greatest coach of all time.

But to limit K’s accomplishments to what he has done with his basketball teams is to diminish the man that he is. Success in life for a coach or player should not be relegated to their wins and losses, just like an ordinary man’s life should not be judged by his net worth. Ask Joe Paterno and Bobby Bowden, the two winningest coaches in college football history, whether or not they’d trade a few wins to have handled scandals at their schools with more moral austerity and prevented their own falls from grace.

Coach K is special. And I don’t say this just because of the records he’s set, or even because he managed to do so much without allegations of major recruiting violations (unlike many of his contemporaries). I feel so strongly about K because I think despite these larger-than-life accomplishments, he has managed to retain his humanity.

Over the years, I have read many stories illustrating just how great of a man Coach K is, but I’ll share one specific example that comes to mind. In 1997, Krzyzewski helped coach at Michael Jordan’s Flight School – a basketball camp for adults. Attendees of the camp had no future in college and professional basketball. They just wanted the opportunity to be coached by the best. One camper – Ross Deutsch – was one of many campers to develop a relationship with Krzyzewski at the camp. For him, the experience must have been a dream-come-true. As a 36 year old man, he was receiving coaching from the same men who coached the best college and professional basketball coaches in the world. But this high didn’t last long. Soon after the camp ended, Deutsch’s 7-year old son died from a brain tumor.

A heartbreaking loss like this can be crippling for a parent. Deutsch, quite understandably, was quite upset. Coach K, having to juggle the responsibilities of being a head basketball coach of a premiere program in the country, could easily have been too busy to help out a friend in need. But as I said earlier, K is a special man. K reached out to Deutsch, a man he had just gotten to know over the course of a few days the previous year, and helped get him through this difficult time. In an ESPN article, Deutsch recalled being so shaken after his son’s death that he refused to talk to anyone. But one day, Coach K called and changed his perspective. K told Deutsch: “Ross, in basketball we define success by winning and losing, but with Rory, with this sickness, you don’t define it with a cure or no cure. The definition will be how you handle it. You have handled the most horrific illness as winners.”

So moved was Deutsch by K’s words that the very next day, he and his wife founded the Rory David Deutsch Foundation for brain tumor research. Since the inception of the foundation, Deutsch and Krzyzewski have worked together on fundraisers and raised over $7 million.

This story is just one of many examples of Krzyzewski making the time to do what he thinks is right, even if it wasn’t the best allocation of time for the success of his basketball career. If you are Continue reading

Share

Nov 15

Granjas verticales

Read this post in English

¿La nueva revolución verde sucederá en las ciudades?

Existen dos principales razones para explicar el creciente interés en la agricultura urbana. Una de ellas es la creciente preocupación que muchos individuos sienten sobre los impactos en la salud y en el medio ambiente de la agricultura industrial. La agricultura urbana también está creciendo porque se está convirtiendo en una estrategia de adaptación al cambio climático y una medida necesaria para la asegurar la provisión de alimentos a nivel global. Los proyectos de agricultura urbana se están reproduciendo en el mundo entero, ya que también ofrecen una alternativa para el crecimiento económico y el empleo (por ejemplo, Kenia).

En los Estados Unidos, la agricultura urbana toma diferentes formas. La manera más creativa de agricultura urbana que he leído es la “granja vertical“, que se basa en métodos hidropónicos para cultivar. La hidroponía es un método de cultivo usando soluciones minerales que contienen nutrientes en el agua, y no necesita tierra.

A medida que la población urbana crece y las tazas de deforestación aumentan como consecuencia de la expansión agrícola, la hidroponía se presenta como una alternativa atractiva para resolver los problemas ambientales. Los cultivos hidropónicos ofrecen dos principales ventajas. La primera es que no necesitan de tierra, por lo tanto disminuye los incentivos que se tienen para la expansión agrícola. La segunda ventaja es que ya que se debe de cultivar en casa de invernadero, se logra mantener la misma temperatura durante todo el año. Esto podría estabilizar la producción y por ende estabilizar precios. La hidroponía reduce la necesidad de usar tierra para cultivar en un 75% o más, y el uso del agua en un 90%. Los nutrientes que se usan para los cultivos se reciclan, por lo tanto la contaminación disminuye mucho. El uso de herbicidas es inexistente y pesticidas requeridos son los aerosoles naturales vegetales y las barreras (ver referencia).

El microbiólogo Dr. Dickson Despommier, de la Universidad de Columbia, es uno de los principales desarrolladores y promotores de la idea de “granjas verticales”. Las granjas verticales no existen todavía, porque necesitan de una inversión inicial muy alta (el diseño del edificio, con nuevas tecnologías y su mantenimiento tiene un gran costo). Despommier estima que una granja costaría de $ 20 millones a $ 30 millones, pero no hay ninguna investigación oficial sobre el tema (su estimación es probablemente menor que el costo real).

Los partidarios de la agricultura vertical declaran que los beneficios de esta tecnología en el medio ambiente y la economía son muy importantes. Una ventaja de las granjas verticales es que reducen los costos de transporte de alimentos, ayudando a reducir la contaminación. Sin embargo, la reducción de los costos de transporte muy importante. Más que nada, no ayudará a compensar la contaminación y el costo del mantenimiento que necesita una granja vertical. El mantenimiento de temperaturas y condiciones favorables de luz durante todo el año require mucho energía. Es probable que esta energía emita cantidades más grandes de gases de a efecto invernadero.

Otra de las ventajas que los partidarios de la agricultura vertical reclaman es centralizando la producción agrícola en las ciudades permitirá que la demanda de tierra para cultivar disminuya. Las selvas tropicales y los ecosistemas naturales que están siendo talados para la agricultura disminuirá y muchos de los ecosistemas serán restaurados. Sin embargo, en los EE.UU y en otros países la mayor parte de la superficie agrícola está dedicada a la producción masiva de unos cuantos granos (como el maíz y el trigo), las granjas verticales no son una gran competencia y por ende no reducirán significativamente la deforestación en los países desarrollados o en desarrollo.

La creación de un huerto hidropónico puede ser una herramienta muy útil para aumentar la seguridad alimentaria, ya que no depende de las condiciones climáticas. Además, sólo hace uso de agua y de plástico. Creo que las ventajas del huerto hidropónico aumentarán a medida que el cambio climático empeore la productividad en el campo. Si la fertilidad de los suelos sigue empeorando y las temperaturas cambian de una manera muy radical, la agricultura hidropónica se convertirá en la mejor alternativa.

La granja vertical es un ejemplo interesante de alternativas a la agricultura tradicional. Como se mencionó anteriormente, el proyecto de granja vertical podría representar algunas ventajas para el medio ambiente, pero están siendo exageradas por sus partidarios (como la reducción de los costos de transporte y de la deforestación) ya que no analizan los grandes problemas de nuestro sistema alimentario. Los impactos positivos de la agricultura vertical en la ciudad dependerá también de lo que está sucediendo afuera de las ciudades, en las zonas agrícolas rurales. Si la mayor parte de las tierra de nuestro país se cultivan de manera insostenible, el impacto positivo de las granjas verticales no será tan grande. A pesar de que nuestro conocimiento tecnológico nos permitirá ser menos dependientes de los cambios de clima, para aprovechar al máximo de los beneficios de las granjas urbanas es importante pensar también en lo que está sucediendo en el conjunto del sistema alimentario.

Julia Naime (@julianasah) es Asistente a la Investigación y Programas del SISGI Group. Es estudiante de Economía en New York University. Durante su pasantía en el SISGI Group, investigará sobre Desarollo rural, Problemas ambientales y Economía internacional 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share

Nov 14

The Math and Science Curse

Thousands of children, when they are young, play dress up as doctors, engineers or even researchers.  Young future doctors dream of curing their ailing patients of far-fetched imaginary illnesses while future engineers dream of designing innovative trains, planes, and everything in between.  Unfortunately, these youthful dreamers grow up, attend college as math and science majors, and a large percentage of them end up either dropping out or changing their majors to something completely un-science related.  The math and science “curse” has become a great source of worry for the United States ever since it became apparent that the U.S. lags behind other nations in those two fields.  For America, a lack of doctors and engineers can spell disaster since it means that sometime in the future the U.S. will fall behind other nations when it comes to creating new, cutting-edge technology.

As a once upon a time student of science, I too try to decipher the reasoning behind why I changed my major from genetics to history my sophomore year of college.  According to one engineering professor, many science oriented students change their majors because they find their own to be too difficult, realize other majors are easier to complete, and find their classes to be based on memorization and theory and not on practical, hands-on work.  A combination of these factors, and many others, has caused science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors to leave their fields in pursuit of others.  However, if STEM students are resilient enough to continue on with their majors, many of them end up spending longer than four years in school.  A 2010 University of California Los Angeles research study revealed that STEM majors usually take up to five or six years to complete their degrees because of the degree of difficulty of classes, taking classes over again, and a plethora of other reasons.

Unfortunately, STEM majors are something that the United States is desperately in need of at this time.  In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama declared that the future of the U.S. would be in the hands of STEM students, and that education reform was necessary to help the students achieve success.  President Obama is most definitely correct in saying that education reform is imperative for making sure STEM students remain in the math and science fields.  Sylvia Hurtado, one of the UCLA research conductors, said that many high school students are unprepared for college level science classes.  In other words, high schoolers lack the basic foundations and rigorous teaching needed to help them excel in math and science classes taught at a university level.  Not only do students lack a strong foundation, they also lack resources to keep them interested in their classes and help them when they are struggling.  Since math and science courses are meant to weed out students who are not interested in pursuing engineering or medical fields in the future, there is a sink or swim tendency to teaching such classes.  Such a method of teaching is unsuited for many students who become overwhelmed by their classes, and thus end up switching their majors or dropping out of school.

Personally, I believe that there is a major problem in the U.S. with the STEM majors as well as science and math classes at a high school level.  University classes are incredibly difficult, and math and science classes can drag an honors student’s GPA through the mud which can lead students to feel anxious and unprepared for their classes.  Realistically, students are unprepared for college level STEM classes because they are nothing like what they have studied in high school.  In order to keep undergraduates interested and motivated in science and math fields, high school level classes must be restructured and thought over.  College is a difficult environment to adapt to for a first year student, and can become overwhelming if the classes are horrifyingly difficult.  For that reason, college STEM classes need to be more supportive towards their students and create a more hands-on environment that allows students to put their knowledge to test in practical situations.  If changes on an educational level do not take place sometime soon, more STEM students will continue leaving their majors and the U.S. will be producing less doctors, engineers, and innovators.

Share

Nov 11

Vertical farms

Is the next “green revolution” going to happen in cities?

There are two main reasons that explain the increased interest in urban agriculture in the recent years. One of them is the increasing concerns about health and environmental impacts of large-scale industrial agriculture. On the other hand, urban agriculture is growing because it is becoming a necessary step for the adaptation to climate change and a necessary measure for food security. Projects of urban agriculture are happening in developed as well as developing world because they offer an alternative for jobs and growth (Kenya’s example).

In the United States, urban agriculture can have different forms. The most creative I’ve read about is the “vertical farm” project, which is based on hydroponic methods of cultivation. Hydroponics is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions in water, without soil.

Photo Source - The Economist

As urban population grows and deforestation increases as a consequence of the agricultural expansion, hydroponics is an attractive alternative. It offers two main advantages. The first is that it doesn’t require soil –therefore it decreases the incentives for agricultural expansion- and the second is that it the greenhouse must maintain the same temperature throughout the year -which can help stabilize food production in a climate-changing world. The technology reduces land requirements for crops by 75% or more, and water use by 90%. Crop nutrients are contained and recycled so no residual salts are lost to environment. Herbicide use is non-existent and pesticides required are natural vegetable sprays and barriers (see reference).

Microbiologist Dr. Dickson Despommier, from Columbia University, is one of the main developers and promoters of the idea of “vertical farms”. Vertical farms don’t exist yet because the initial investment is really high (designing the building, bringing the new technologies and maintaining the vertical farm is very expensive). Despommier estimates that a farm would cost from $20 million to $30 million but there is no official research on the subject yet (his estimation is probably lower than the real cost).

Supporters of hydroponic vertical farming claim that the benefits of vertical farming on the environment and on the economy will be very significant. An advantage of vertical farms is that they reduce transportation costs of food and decrease pollution. But the reduction of transportation costs is not likely to offset the pollution and the cost that a vertical farm would require. Indeed, maintaining favorable temperatures and light conditions throughout the year is likely to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases.

Another advantage that supporters of hydroponic vertical farming claim is that by centralizing agricultural production there will be less demand for agricultural land. The rainforests and natural ecosystems that are being cleared for agriculture will be able to stop and ecosystems will be restored. However, because in the U. S the largest part of the agricultural land is dedicated to massive production of a few crops, vertical farming would give no competition to these large agricultural productions and it could not significantly reduce deforestation in developed or developing nations.

Hydroponic gardening could be a really useful tool to increase food security because it doesn’t depend on the climate conditions. Furthermore, it only uses water and plastic. I think that the importance of hydroponic gardening will only increase as the climate change worsens agricultural production. If the fertility of the soils and the climate temperatures change in very radical ways, hydroponic agriculture will become the best available option.

The vertical farm project is an interesting example of alternative forms of agriculture. As discussed above, the vertical farm project could represent some advantages to the environment but they are being overstated (such as reduction of transportation costs and deforestation) because it is neglecting the larger problems of our food system. The positive impacts of vertical farming will depend on what is happening outside the cities too, in the rural agricultural areas. If most of our land is still cultivated in unsustainable ways, the positive impact of vertical farms will not be as important. Even though our technological knowledge will allow us to become less dependent on climate variability, in order to have larger benefits from urban farms it is important to focus on what is happening in the whole of the food system.

 Julia Naime (@julianasah) is a research intern at the SISGI Group. She is a senior at New York University majoring in Economics. During her internship, she is researching rural and international development and environmental policies. To learn more about the SISGI Group, please visit www.sisgigroup.org. 
Share

Nov 11

¿Cuántos Esclavos Trabajan Para Usted?

Read this Post in English

¿Sabe dónde está hecha su ropa? Que manos recogieron los tomates que usted come? ¿Cómo los cosas que usa a diario se fabricaron? Su respuesta probablemente es no, y la verdad es que la mayoría de nosotros no tomamos el tiempo para averiguarlo. Podemos leer la etiqueta cosida en nuestra camisa o mirar la pequeña etiqueta colocada en nuestras manzanas para ver donde se cultivo, pero no lo hacemos. Casi siempre rápidamente cambiamos nuestro enfoque a otra cosa.

¿Por qué es importante esto?

Una pregunta más. ¿Se le antoja el chocolate? ¿Sabía usted que decenas de miles de niños y niñas trabajan en plantaciones de cacao en África Occidental, donde son maltratados, explotados y encarcelados? Esto es importante porque la mitad del chocolate que consumimos proviene de esta región, y mucho se está haciendo por niños esclavos.

Si pensamos que los bienes que consumimos no son hechos por mano de obra esclava, entonces estamos muy equivocados. La verdad es que un gran porcentaje de los bienes que consumimos y usamos a diario son realizados por mano de obra esclava. El Departamento de Trabajo de Estados Unidos calcula que doce millones de personas en cincuenta y ocho países de todo el mundo se ven obligados a trabajar en condiciones inhumanas, y donde le quitan su voluntad.  Estas doce millones de personas en todo el mundo son responsables de mucha de la ropa que vestimos, de un gran porcentaje de los alimentos que comemos y de la creación de los productos que usamos todos los días.

Hay una fina línea entre la mano de obra barata y la trata de seres humanos. Aunque pensamos que los artículos fabricados en el extranjero se hacen a bajo costo debido a la mano de obra barata, muchas veces en realidad se debe a trabajo forzado o las personas que son forzadas a la trabajar contra su voluntad.

Incluso si hay algo que se fabrica en los Estados Unidos, no está libre de estas violaciones. En 2011, el caso más grande de tráfico humano en la historia del país fue descubierto cuando se alegó que las empresas de café, piña, y productos frescos estaban forzando a hombres y mujeres a trabajar en sus granjas. En Florida, mi estado natal,  ha habido siete casos de esclavitud en la última década en los campos agrícolas. Esto es interesante teniendo en cuenta que durante los meses de invierno, Florida provee la mayoría de los productos para el este del país.

De acuerdo con un estudio del Departamento de Trabajo, los estadounidenses no quieren usar productos que se hicieron con trabajo forzado. El problema radica en que la población no está bien informada sobre el proceso en cómo sus bienes son adquiridos. Por lo tanto, no toman buenas decisiones en sus compras.

Para empezar a arreglar esta situación, el gobierno de Estados Unidos, específicamente, la Oficina del Departamento de Estado que Vigila y Combate la Trata de Personas se asoció con el Fair Trade Fund,  una organización no gubernamental en California. Estos crearon y pusieron en marcha una iniciativa para crear conciencia sobre esta situación. Se llama la “huella de la esclavitud”, y permite que el público pueda generar un cálculo de su huella de la esclavitud. Este número le dice a la persona el número de esclavos que contribuyeron a la creación de los productos y mercancías que utilizan a diario.

Cada persona puede participar en la encuesta donde se hacen preguntas sobre su elección de alimentos y vivienda, si son propietarios de casa, lo grande que es, cuántos hijos tienen, cuántos coches tienen, y qué bienes han adquirido. En promedio, del puntaje es de 55, sin embargo, en los países desarrollados puede ser mucho mayor. Por ejemplo, si usted es de 20 años de edad, soltero, alquila su casa, posee una computadora, una bicicleta y varios pares de zapatos la huella de la esclavitud es, probablemente, 100.  También hay una aplicación que ayuda a los consumidores calcular su puntaje mientras hace sus compras. Pruebe la encuesta!

Entonces, ¿Cuántos esclavos trabajan para usted?

Para saber más sobre el tema de la responsabilidad del consumidor, por favor, lea el articulo de mi colega Julia Naime titulado Información y Consumo.

Regina Bernadin es una estudiante de doctorado en Nova southeastern University enfocándose en análisis y resolución de conflictos. Como pasante del SISGI Group, su principal área de interés es la resolución de conflictos, derechos humans y problemas políticos, economicos y culturales de América Latina. Su interés en los derechos humanos en el extranjero la han llevado a diferentes países latino americanos, incluyendo Colombia, Ecuador y Suriname.
Share

Nov 10

No Shortcuts to Friendship

The world is shrinking. That’s not shocking news to anyone, I know. Mail used to travel via the Pony Express. Explorers had to take ships across oceans. Communication between two people in distant places was often limited to telegrams.

It’s amazing how far we’ve come in such a short time. In just over a century, “snail mail” is approaching extinction, as e-mail has become such a prominent way to exchange information. People who travel in ships are now usually college kids who want to play poker, drink cocktails, and visit Atlantis. Planes are a much safer and efficient way to travel long distances. Our explorers visit space. And rather than learning Morse code, people call, text, or better yet, Skype their friends who are far away.

The ability to communicate with peers has especially skyrocketed over the past 20 years. With increased prevalence of mobile phones, the birth of high speed internet, and rapid development of social networking, our ability to keep in touch with old friends has skyrocketed.

But has technological growth actually brought us all closer together? Matthew Brashears, a sociologist at Cornell University, recently published a study claiming that although we now have many more acquaintances, we don’t have as many close friends as we used to.

It seems puzzling to me that fewer friendships develop into very close relationships than in the past, given that there are now so many easier ways to keep in touch. But perhaps this is part of the problem. We’re now so reliant on such high speed communication with so many different people at the same time that we avoid making the effort to meet with our friends, talk in person, or call.

Brashears does claim in his study that while Americans do no longer have as many close confidantes as they had in the past, Americans are not necessarily more lonely. Rather, they are just less willing to trust as many people as they did in the past.  But this claim seems strange. If we have allowed our lives to become more and more public by publishing content about it so freely online, why are we so much more guarded around the people who know us best? It is nice to have a lot of friends and contacts, and as Brashears noted, this expanded network can prevent people from becoming lonely. But nonetheless, it is often critical for people to have close friends. Often, these friends are the only people that someone can talk to about a death, an insecurity, or a passion. Without these deep connections, it may become difficult for people to conquer their grief, face their fears, or maximize their potential. Thus, people need to make sure that convenient social networking and communication do not get in the way of close friendships.

The development of technology allowing faster-speed communication has certainly had huge benefits, and I definitely do not advocate eliminating them from our lives. We should use Facebook and Twitter to keep up with old friends, and use LinkedIn to network with potential colleagues. I certainly plan to after I graduate from college. But it’s important for us not to take friendships for granted and to make the effort to develop stronger relationships with our closest friends.

Shaunak Varma is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

Nov 10

Is Happiness a Good Measure of Development?

A few weeks ago I wrote a post about the possibility of including factors besides GDP as measures of development, so I thought today it might be interesting to do a sort of case study on a country that has done just that.  I’m sure many of you have heard that Bhutan, that small kingdom between India and China, decided to scrap GDP (well, not entirely—GDP and GNP are still factors, but not major ones) in the 70s and focus on GNH, or Gross National Happiness, as its measure of development.  Bhutan is still the only country to measure happiness and take that measure into consideration when developing policy, though the idea has gained in popularity in recent decades.  The UN now includes happiness in its millennium development goals (MDGs), and many countries are looking at the Bhutan model with interest.  So, is the GNH approach actually working?  Or is it merely utopian dreaming?

Well, the evidence seems to be mixed, and mostly depends on whether or not you agree with the statements that GNH is more important than GNP and that traditions and trust are as important as the pursuit of material gain.  Bhutan is a heavily isolated Buddhist kingdom—the first car arrived in 1960, and television was not allowed until 1999—and the government is trying very hard to balance modern capitalist consumerism with the traditional Buddhist lifestyle.  The government recognizes that a certain level of material comfort is necessary for people to be happy but discourages the ruthless pursuit of profit, preferring instead a more holistic approach to development.

Thanks in large part to this holistic approach to development, Bhutan is currently on track to reach the UN Millennium Development Goals by 2015.  The kingdom has already reached numerous targets, including reducing malnutrition among children, halving those without access to safe drinking water, and reducing the proportion of people living below the poverty line.  Quite a feat given that until fairly recently Bhutan was living in a medieval, feudal bubble.  Many believe that this rapid progress is due mainly to the similarities between the GNH approach to development and the MDGs.  Though the MDGs do not explicitly focus on happiness, both systems are guided by the ideals of freedom, equality, tolerance, respect for nature, and shared responsibilities.  Many of the GNH indicators the kingdoms policy-makers use correspond almost directly with the MDGs, such as education, health, and economic standard of living.

Though the GNH system has helped to greatly improve the Bhutanese socio-economic status, it is not without its flaws.  For one, it aims to preserve Bhutan’s ancient Buddhist culture at the expense of the kingdoms Hindu and Christian population.  Thousands of Hindu Bhutanese Nepalis are currently living in refugee camps after violent protests sparked by the government’s attempts to force out “illegal” immigrants, as well as the imposition of a traditional Bhutanese dress code and the Bhutanese language being made compulsory, all under the guise of preserving Bhutanese culture from foreign influence.  Also, many complain that the government has no right to decide what makes a person happy.  Happiness is subjective; economic development is at least more objective and measurable.  One person might be happy living a traditional Buddhist lifestyle, while another might be happy living a mostly capitalist lifestyle.

So, the GNH approach clearly has some benefits, as many Bhutanese are much better off now than they were 35-odd years ago when GNH became the country’s philosophy, but it has its flaws too.  Several thousand Bhutanese are not currently living in the country to experience the happiness, and many of those within the kingdom chafe under the government’s declarations on what should make them happy.  And the western, consumerist world is approaching rapidly, especially now that television is legal.  As I said before, your evaluation of the GNH approach likely depends on your own personal evaluation of the importance of wealth, trust, and tradition.  So what do you think?  Should more countries adopt their own GNH system, or a modified GNH system not so focused on preserving traditional culture, or continue to focus mainly on GDP/GNP as indicators of development?

Michelle Bovée is a SISGI Group Program and Research Intern focused on international affairs, economic development, and responsible tourism. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org

Share

Nov 09

Is America in Decline?

Have you ever thought about a declining American culture? To think that a “culture” or a way of life can systematically change or decline is not something that average citizens typically thinks about. Yes, we have heard the “When I was your age” tales reminiscing over the past, but do these actually bear any weight on a larger scale? Political scholars such as Niall Ferguson are starting to take notice that there are recurring themes to these stories, and may be symptomatic of large scale cultural changes.

Last week, CNN World’s website ran an article regarding the west loosing out to the rest. Niall Ferguson was presenting his new philosophy about how the “great divergence” is coming to an end. In his TED talk Ferguson states, “the most impressive thing to happen in the last 600 years is the divergence of the west from the rest.” This divergence is explained as being the rise in living standards that increased exponentially in western cultures over the living conditions in the rest of the world. In his blog, Ferguson approached this discussion in a modern-techie way explaining “the six killer apps” (applications) of prosperity. He argues that institutional innovations (or societies’ character traits) have given rise to our elevated living standard as compared to the rest of the world.

A few examples of these “apps” are Competition, where a society is divided within itself creating an innovative rivalry, leading to new ideas and creation. Rule of Law is another, where a society is based on laws, property rights, and democratic elections. A third is Work Ethic, where intensive labor leads to savings and wealth accumulation, both of which are viewed as desirable. While there are three others, essentially these are the six characteristics explaining the complex set of institutions that have given rise to such accelerated development. After the technicalities, his argument is clear: America is no longer expanding our competitive edge and our status in the world is declining in comparison to other societies. He believes that other countries are adopting these apps as we simultaneously move away and neglect them. These other cultures are learning from our mistakes while elevating their standards of living and expanding international influence around the world.

Is this the reality of America’s future? Do actually we need to fear an impending decline? I must first stop to ask what “decline” inherently means. What is this decline in relation to? Is it the success of other countries? Similarly, if we accept that the divergence is over, does this inevitably lead to a decline or simply a leveling out of productivity? These are thoughts that I have for our philosophers in the field of politics today.

While it may be a reality that the rest of the world is making strides in a number of developmental categories, I don’t believe that it will be at the expense of America. Fundamentally, a principle based in being unsupportive or wary of another countries successes is disastrous. And believing that it comes at our expense is counterproductive.

As a wealthy nation we must foster the development of those nations not as fortunate. While it is true that America returned low scores on the dimensions that Ferguson has focused (such as consumer societies, scientific breakthroughs, and work ethic), he does not focus on the strengths we still exhibit such as universal participation and multiculturalism. However, who is to say that what smaller nations have to share with the world is any less important? We do not necessarily need to continually use wealth disparities as a comparative measure anymore.

Ferguson believes that to resituate ourselves on top of the world again, we must restructure where our society has become complacent and return to our founding ethics immediately. Some of his suggestions are worth listening to on the premise that it will fundamentally improve economic standings such as reinvestment in hard sciences and technological innovation.

I don’t think that we must worry too much about what the future of America holds in relation to other nations. If we are able to harness our human potential in a constructive way, we will continue with our status as being a nation with clout in the international realm; stifling the underlying fear of loosing sway around the world.

Share

Nov 08

Escapándose del cambio ambiental

Read this post in English

Cada invierno, los habitantes de Florida ven un aumento de “snowbirds” en sus comunidades. Los “Snowbirds” son norteños que migran al Sur durante el verano. Su migración es debida a los duros inviernos del Norte y su búsqueda de calor en el estado con Rayos de Sol. A pesar de que su migración es debida a climas muy difíciles, es muy diferente de los 50 millones de personas que deben migrar porque han sido forzados a abandonar sus casas por el cambio climático.
Hoy en día se les llama “refugiados ambientales”, así como “migrantes ambientales”, “refugiados”, o “persona desplazada por el ambiente”. El fenómeno es un problema reciente para los investigadores y para los científicos ya que todavía no entienden muchas de las causas. Sin embargo, todos estos términos son usados para referirse a gente que esta siendo forzada de abandonar su casa debido a un cambio del medio ambiente súbito o de largo plazo. Estos son problemas como la sequedad, alza del nivel del mar, y cambios en las estaciones que afectan la agricultura. Existen tres tipos de migrantes ambientales:

Migrantes por emergencia ambiental: es la gente que huye temporalmente debido a un desastre ambiental o un evento climático inesperado (por ejemplo: alguien que tiene que abandonar su casa debido a un huracán, tsunami, terremoto, etc.). Aquí hay un ejemplo:

Mahe Noor abandonó su pueblo en el sur de Bangladesh después de un ciclón aplastó la casa de su familia y su negocio en el 2007. Sin trabajo y sin casa, ella y su marido migraron a la capital, con la esperanza de poder regresar a casa pronto.

Migrantes forzados: es la gente que tiene que abandonar su casa debido a la deterioración de las condiciones ambientales (por ejemplo, alguien que esta obligado a abandonar debido a la deterioración del suelo o la desaparición de su río).

Migrantes motivados por el medio ambiente: gente que escoje abandonar respectivos lugares para evitar posibles problemasen el futuro, por ejemplo:
Mukhles Rahman y su hermano Mohammad abandonaron su pueblo hace ocho años debido a la sequedad de su río. La familia cultivaba arroz, caña de azúcar, y rábano en sus 10 hectáreas. En un periodo de décadas, el rio local se secó y se llevó la siembra y la casa. Hoy en día, los dos hermanos viven en una pequeña cabaña. “Estamos tratando de encontrar otro lugar a donde ir, porque todo el suelo se está trasformando” dice Mukhles, que ahora trabaja como guardia de seguridad en una tienda de ropa.

A diferencia de los refugiados que abandonan sus casa debido a persecuciones, los más vulnerables al cambio climático son los que tienen la menor probabilidad de mudar porque son ellos los más pobres. Estos refugiados se reubican localmente, simplemente porque les hacen falta los recursos para mudarse internacionalmente.

Los refugiados ambientales no están incluidos en la convención de Ginebra, que define legalmente quien esta en la categoría de refugiados. La gente que migra para escapar cambios del medio ambiente no se identifican con la definición. Actualmente, un refugiado es definido como un individuo que esta forzado a abandonar su país de originan por amenazas a causa de raza, religión, nacionalidad o participación en un grupo en particular. Por no estar reconocidos formalmente por el gobierno, los migrantes no son elegibles para obtener asistencia reconstruyendo sus vidas y los mismo servicios que los que se definen tradicionalmente como refugiados. Por ende solo encuentran manera de mudarse fuera de su casa temporalmente para escapar las condiciones climáticas, pero permanecen lo suficientemente cerca que es inevitable que estén afectados en un futuro por el cambio ambiental.

Que es lo que tu crees? Son realmente refugiados? La definición legal debería de cambiar para incluir migrantes ambientales? Como se puede ayudar a 50 millones de individuos, quien debería de hacerlo? Muchas preguntas que responder. Todavía es muy temprano para decir cuales van a ser los impactos a largo plazo que va a traer el problema a nuestra comunidad y a los individuos.

Regina Bernadin es una estudiante de doctorado en Nova southeastern University enfocándose en análisis y resolución de conflictos. Como pasante del SISGI Group, su principal área de interés es  la resolución de conflictos, derechos humans y problemas políticos, economicos y culturales de América Latina. Su interés en los derechos humanos en el extranjero la han llevado a diferentes países latino americanos, incluyendo Colombia, Ecuador y Suriname.
Translated by SISGI intern Julia Naime
Share