jimfruchterman - Jul 5, 2006 3:29 pm (#1 Total: 49)
Benetech


If there's more growth capital out there from big funds, it creates more space for funds that don't have the mega-funds to take more risks. If a successful social entrepreneur needs $1 million to get a specific project to the next stage, wouldn't it be better for that to come from a single large funder who has to look for $1 million deals rather than to hoover up ten, twenty or more smaller grants? Then those smaller dollars are out there for the smaller SEs to experiment and do their thing: whether it's to stay small or to bid for going to the next stage of growth...

gmeta - Jul 5, 2006 3:31 pm (#2 Total: 49)


"Change the way you look at the things and the things you look at change". Thought is an unbelievably powerful force to which few people ever pay any attention.

We need to think that this (Buffett and Gates) is a good thing and encourage (in the true sense of that word) more. Along with Bono, http://one.org and others Gates has already done immense good, more than most countries in the West have done, in fact.

There will always be more mouths to feed - we humans tend to see to that being the status quo so far. So to my way of thinking there will always be a place for any and all assistance, irrespective of size.

thanks. Gordon. http://gmeta.com

Mitch Gold - Jul 5, 2006 4:10 pm (#3 Total: 49)


what is necessary is that the individuals use their influence on corporations to tithe their income to community organizations / or a particular program that can "plan" effectively the utilization of large sums of money for the common good.

education / health / sustainable human behaviours

Putting out fires is not a bad thing to do, but benvolent funding is necessary to bring in to balance some of the obvious wrongs on the planet.

An Inconvenient Truth no doubt.!!!

consider the 1% solution as a vehicle for social change - much better than the merging of Gates and Buffett IMHO

caseycl - Jul 5, 2006 4:58 pm (#4 Total: 49)
Ph.D. Candidate, Public Policy Studies

I think Gates and Buffett have the power to influence other corporations to engage in real social change. They are naturally in the public eye and can use this to influence corporate leaders.  Perhaps they have the power to take "corporate responsibility" to a new level, beyond a mere community relations office and into day-to-day business operations. 

However, I do have concern that the work of the Gates Foundation could lead to problems, particularly if they focus too narrowly on one area of social need or one approach to change. The work of the Gates Foundation, as is true of many foundations, is focused on areas that are priorities for the foundation officers.  In essence, they allocate dollars to a cause or causes and/or approaches they believe will lead to social change. These are often based on their worldview, which may or may not be consistent with the reality of the situation, and may or may not recognize opposing viewpoints or solutions. As a result, with the power and money behind the foundation, they could potentially dwarf competing or opposing viewpoints, organizations or entrepreneurs.  With the power they will have, they will have more ability to fund selected viewpoints or preferred approaches and influence policy makers at many levels.  

I think the key is how it is structured and how they will make their funding decisions and set their priorities.  I think it is important for social entrepreneurs to work harder to increase attention to their issues and their solutions.  The more information that the Gates Foundation has, the greater the chances of using the money for real social change in all areas. 

lemger - Jul 5, 2006 5:23 pm (#5 Total: 49)

I can't believe you're talking about this & I can't believe I'm responding.

Yes, what Gates & Buffett are doing - is great!  D-uh!

Wouldn't we all think it was great if we were a part of it...

Get over yourselves & actually really want to help....

WendyJ67 - Jul 5, 2006 6:54 pm (#6 Total: 49)

I think they're doing great things. I cannot tell you the surge of pride that went through my body when I heard

what these (Gates and Buffett) men & women were doing

to help the world. There is so much to be ashamed of on

the large scale these days, that this adds some balance.

Hats off!

W.Jordan

Mark Lewis - Jul 5, 2006 9:19 pm (#7 Total: 49)
CEO/Executive Director; Strategic Business Intelligence Group

The question being asked here suggests an underlying fear that somehow this is about competition rather than serving the greater good.  It's not about that.

Three things stand out for me.

First, the Gates foundation does most of their work in a few areas, including world health, which when viewed through the lens of the staggering problems related to the spread of HIV and other deadly diseases in Africa and the underdeveloped world, it's obvious that very large investments managed from under a single umbrella are needed to help bring together the kind of synergy that's required to get a handl on these problems.  That's not an area where most smaller non profits or social entrepreneurs should be trying to "compete" anyway.  As I said...it's not about competition.

Second, how is this an event that impacts social entrepreneurs?  I continue to see people ignoring the issues of financial sustainability when discussing social entrepreneurship.  But sustainability is not merely a component of the movement; it IS the movement.  The whole point, in my view, of social entrepreneurship is that social visionaries must adopt business models that are self sustaining rather than relying on philanthropy or other externally generated revenue sources.  The issues most important here are empowerment and innovation; and philanthropy, while it enjoys a place in this movement as a bridging force that can sustain NPO's while they're looking to reach the level of sustainability that matches for profit models, can never replace those models as the ultimate destination of where social vision is headed.  To many people want to call anything that calls it self a non profit or stresses societal benefit "social entrepreneurship", when in fact there are relatively few true social entrepreneurs in this game.  True social entrepreneurs know that they'll always have a horse in the race because you can't kill innovation with competition.  If anything, innovation is driven to reach higher in response to market forces that intrude upon it or challenge it. 

Finally, it's the creativity and innovation from individuals and small organizations that drives bottom-up change in communities.  Speed, mobility, flexibility and the ability to respond instantaneously to need and change is where small organizations have their advantage at, and in this increasingly flat earth we're living on, the future belongs to such innovators and change agents.

I don't fear Gates/Buffett.  I realize they'll be doing things I can never do, which is fantastic, but I also don't look for the Gates foundation to move with the dexterity and responsiveness I can move with in the markets where I'm looking to create value. 

C Kirabo - Jul 6, 2006 12:01 am (#8 Total: 49)
Webbed Strategist, Life in Africa Foundation

Buffett, Gates, Omidyar, Skoll, Schwab and the rest of the New Philanthropists are the new kings of the earth. They possess the wealth of nations and are investing it in extremely interesting ways. I find it fascinating to watch the new Better World Building industry empires taking shape. I have faith that these emerging styles in transferring large and small amounts of private resource transfers will offer more than the Bretton Woods system ever did for global development.

People will always continue to talk about it and question whether it's right or wrong, and that's all as it should be. My concern is really not whether or not the money is all focused on one sector, but that the money is not diverted to undesirable activities like supplying guns, expired vaccines or misinformation. In that sense, we have a global responsibility to each other to watch carefully as these new empires continue to gain in strength and impact.

Tosin - Jul 6, 2006 4:21 am (#9 Total: 49)


Thats exactly the way I see it. Gates and Warren Buffett have made so much money and have seen the need to redisribute through Gate´s charity organisation.

Just bravo!!

Tosin Oyenusi Lagos, Nigeria

tutormentor - Jul 6, 2006 7:40 am (#10 Total: 49)
Cabrini Connections Tutor/Mentor Connection

On the home page of Social Edge is a Global Giving Index. It seems to include a list of places where small contributions have been sent. Below it is a world map.  I'd love to see Social Edge, or someone else, create a map that has layers of information, reflecting the major social issues in the world. 

I've pointed to the Boston Innovation Hub  ( http://www.tbf.org/indicatorsproject/hubofinnovation/innovation.asp ) in the past as a great web site because it illustrates the many inter connected social/economic issues important to people in the Boston region.

If this logic were used to track the focus areas of major foundations, such as Gates/Buffett, the world would have a tool to use to understand which issues, and which parts of the world,  have funding leaders like the Gates Foundation, and which have problems, but still need angels to take an interest in their problem, or their part of the world.

In this thinking, one layer of information would be health, and sub layers might be health issues like AIDS. Flags on the map would indicate which parts of the world, and which causes, a foundation like the Gates Foundation is addressing.

With this type of information, the world might see a broader distribution of wealth and generosity and social investing in all causes, and all countries where people need more help. There also might be more linking between one issue and another, since so  many problems are interrelated, as the Boston Innovation Hub suggests.

I would dream that others who want to make a difference in the world would use such an information portal to choose which causes to join, or which causes/areas they should adopt because no one else has taken the lead.

I'd like to see a thousand flags on such a map, recognizing many people like Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett and I hope their example inspires such actions.

 

jrclark - Jul 6, 2006 8:19 am (#11 Total: 49)

I completely agree with points made by contributor Mr. Mark Lewis.  As the Founder and ED of a new and relatively small nonprofit, I too feel there is a difference in approaches made by "real social entreprenuers" and those that operate from standard business-centered practices.  Sure, competition is a real factor in all the work we do, but real and effective social impact and change comes from innovative, progressive, and realistic approaches and models that are ahead of the curve in approach and practice.  Social entrepreneurs have a deep commitment to social change and therefore, their models look a bit different from standard-issue programming.  It is my hope that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will award these deserving and effective initiatives/models.      

My second and last comment concerns Buffett's "terms".  While we all can appreciate the desire to see funds quickly distributed and used every year - I hope that smaller, less known nonprofit organizations have the same access to these new funds.  The Foundation heads must be equip and ready to review the influx of proposals and make fair decisions that will award strong new program models, rather than meeting the terms simply by cutting larger checks to already-established (and usually already funded) organizations.  With this said, the scope of eligible/fundable program initiatives must be expanded to include other serious social change issues. 

  

Victor - Jul 6, 2006 11:53 am (#12 Total: 49)


You may want to read Dennis Whittle's post on his blog here. Dennis is CEO of Global Giving.

His point: This is all very good, "but the gift could be less than good news if it leads the already huge Gates Foundation to become ponderous, bureaucratic, and top-down. Large organizations and companies face major hurdles in retaining their nimbleness and creativity as they grow."

He adds: "For many years, I worked for the World Bank, which faced many of the same problems. The Bank grew rapidly in the 1970s. When I joined in the mid-1980s, it was filled with exceptionally smart people. But it had an increasingly sclerotic bureaucracy whose momentum kept it from innovating, and whose size and dominance in the sector led to arrogance and isolation from the real world in many cases."

Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Jul 6, 2006 1:24 pm (#13 Total: 49)
HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates


Mark:

I'm grateful for your post, but neither agree nor disagree with you totally.

The question being asked here suggests an underlying fear that somehow this is about competition rather than serving the greater good. It's not about that.

I'm the asker of the question, and I don't see it as being about competition or fear -- although those may come into the ways in which different people read it. Nor do I see it as a simple, open and shut question, with more money for philanthropy automatically equalling greater social good.

My question is about scale, more precisely about the patterns that obtain in the world at large, and how those patterns instantiate in regards to a significant arena I care about, that of social entrepreneurship. When you say:

I also don't look for the Gates foundation to move with the dexterity and responsiveness I can move with in the markets where I'm looking to create value

you're talking about the sort of concern I have here -- it's a concern that I embodied in my term capsize, the imagery being that of a large and powerful speedboat having a wake that troubles smaller craft.

Is there some dynamic, built into nature, such that the very large, because it is in some sense cumbersome (i.e. your lack of dexterity and responsiveness) automatically finds itself out of step with fast-changing realities -- and thus fails by virtue of its size?

What do you think?

I suspect there is something to this idea, but at the moment it's more a hunch than a theory, perhaps becoming a theory but certainly not yet an "obvious" truth with "obvious" correctives. FWIW, I believe this idea was at the heart of many of the brilliant critiques that Ivan Illich brought against contemporary society, not least in his crusade against iatrogenic disease.

Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Jul 6, 2006 1:33 pm (#14 Total: 49)
HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates


Dan:

Once again, I must applaud the speed with which you take us from a general problem to a genre of solutions -- in this case, the flagged map you propose.

If this logic were used to track the focus areas of major foundations, such as Gates/Buffett, the world would have a tool to use to understand which issues, and which parts of the world, have funding leaders like the Gates Foundation, and which have problems, but still need angels to take an interest in their problem, or their part of the world. [...] With this type of information, the world might see a broader distribution of wealth and generosity and social investing in all causes, and all countries where people need more help. There also might be more linking between one issue and another, since so many problems are interrelated, as the Boston Innovation Hub suggests.

This is practicality, grounded in a systemic / wholistic view of the situation, and applying cutting edge tech to real need. It doesn't in the least surprise me that it answers not only to my question about massive scale in phlianthropy, but also (as you point out) to the issue of the interrelatedness of many problems.

As always, my thanks!

Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Jul 6, 2006 1:39 pm (#15 Total: 49)
HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates


I just wanted to thank you all for the rapid and varied response to this issue. Victor's pointer to Dennis Whittle's post suggests that there is much to celebrate here and a certain amount to be concerned about: let's be aware of both!

And keep the conversation coming...

Victor - Jul 7, 2006 8:11 am (#16 Total: 49)


We all remember how much Microsoft reduced the level of creativity in Silicon Valley. Many startups couldn't attract VC funding because Microsoft would claim that they were working on a similar product...

Could this happen in social entrepreneurship as well? What if social entrepreneurs started working only on issues that will attract the Gates/Buffett's Foundation's attention --education in the US and global health? Could this huge entity have a monopoly on development ideas and models?

Carmencita Hernandez - Jul 7, 2006 6:34 pm (#17 Total: 49)

While sustainable agriculture may not be one of the issues that meet the current criteria of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, we are hopeful that they would recognize sustainable agriculture as a strategic alternative for poor farmers, communities and countries. SAGA is working towards the mainstreaming of organic rice and muscovado sugar and is also exploring possibilities of exporting Philippine organic product.

We just sincerely hope that grassroots people's organizations from developing countries would find a path to voice out and present their issues as well.

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to share our reflections.

Mark Lewis - Jul 7, 2006 10:16 pm (#18 Total: 49)
CEO/Executive Director; Strategic Business Intelligence Group

Thanks for your response Charles; let me comment on two points you made.

 

First this one:

 

"...you're talking about the sort of concern I have here -- it's a concern that I embodied in my term capsize, the imagery being that of a large and powerful speedboat having a wake that troubles smaller craft."

 

I think what I'm having trouble understanding is this idea that a "wake" exists from philanthropy that social entrepreneurs need to be careful of.  In Dallas, unlike Boston or San Francisco...I work in a city where social entrepreneurs are virtually unknown, but corporate and organizational philanthropy has a substantial footprint.  The Strategic Business Intelligence Group has to represent the financial sustainability aspect of a double bottom line business model with tremendous strength here for corporate leaders and strategic thinkers to take us seriously.

 

For this reason, we don't seek funding from philanthropic partners and we don't consider philanthropy, including something the size of Gates/Buffet to be our competitors, or something we consider a problem, because unlike all of the NPO's I've worked with and interacted with over the years, we're not looking to access external funding at all.  The reason we're not is because we believe the migration away from external funding towards complete self reliance and internally generated revenue is critical for social entrepreneurship to gain wide acceptance.  We need to break outside the political and economic stereotypes that have relegated the NP sector to second class citizens in the eyes of corporate America, and we're not going to do it with our hands out. 

 

In the Dallas market this is extremely important, and our business model makes SBIG unique here.   It's a strategic advantage that frequently gets me an audience with people I couldn't connect with apart from this way of approaching social mission.  It's tough for me to tout a financially sustainable model for doing business and then ask the Skoll foundation or Meadows to support us.  While that has it's disadvantages in the short run, it's enormously valuable to us in our long range plans.  I've been able to open doors with a sustainable model I couldn't open otherwise.

 

I feel as a social entrepreneur, it's my responsibility to create my own revenue through a financially viable business approach rather than access philanthropy or other external sources of funding to support our mission.  Because of that I don't see a conflict with philanthropy since we're basically playing in different arenas, and even if I did, the needs we're facing are far larger than any organization can satisfy alone, even one as large as the Gates foundation.  There will always be more challenges for social entrepreneurs to work on regardless of what philanthropy does. 

 

I guess my bottom line point is this; social visionaries who want to use the word "entrepreneur" in their business models should be prepared to compete against for profit business models rather than other NPO's or philanthropic resource suppliers when it comes to creating revenue to drive their social ventures...and by doing so we render the field of NPO’s seeking to work in the same space basically inconsequential as competitors.

 

 And second:

 

"Is there some dynamic, built into nature, such that the very large, because it is in some sense cumbersome (i.e. your lack of dexterity and responsiveness) automatically finds itself out of step with fast-changing realities -- and thus fails by virtue of its size?"  What do you think? 

I think it goes without saying.  If you've worked in corporate America or for the federal or state government, you see this on a daily basis.  This is why I designed SBIG around the idea that we are not concerned with organizational form as much as function.  I take Harvard researcher Jane Wei Skillern's study to heart on NPO's building capacity through bridging collaborative networks rather than taking the more traveled route of merely super-sizing organizational management with branching to create bigger operations.  Skillern's research concludes that NPO's achieve greater inpact without trying to merely get bigger, but rather by cooperating within the sector to focus on mission rather than brand...a lesson being learned now in corporate America as well. 

 

Since Gates is in the discussion here, take a look at former Microsoft senior executive and OneNorthwest's CEO Gideon Rosenblatt's views on NPO's in the environmental advocacy sector needing to focus on core mission values and outsourcing in order to survive the "speedboat" effect you're describing.  Rosenblatt points out that a lot of economic Darwinism permeates the environmental sector with people in the large organizations looking at smaller NPO's as merely nuisance factors soaking up resources that should rightfully go to them instead, and he concludes this is hindering impact.

 

I think he makes a valid point.  Gates/Buffet aside, the philanthropic pie is destined to ultimately shrink as the US workforce downsizes with the baby boomers retiring and the smaller Generations X and Y taking their place.  As the available resources shrink and the needs increase, fully financially sustainable models for social venture entrepreneurs are not just the wave of the future; they're the way we have to go now.  As I stated earlier, philanthropy can serve as a bridging force on the way to creating new economic and socially valuable business models, but philanthropy IMO isn't ultimately where social visionaries will find maximum value for innovation, creativity and the ability to respond to change with speed and flexibility.

 

The future belongs to social visionaries who pay their own way, create value where larger, more ponderous organizations cannot, and empower people from the bottom of the pyramid to springboard social vision into economic freedom...including their own.

 

Mark Lewis - Jul 7, 2006 11:07 pm (#19 Total: 49)
CEO/Executive Director; Strategic Business Intelligence Group

Victor wrote:

 

We all remember how much Microsoft reduced the level of creativity in Silicon Valley. Many startups couldn't attract VC funding because Microsoft would claim that they were working on a similar product...

Victor, I think I need to ask the question; "Would you even WANT to work on the same problems the Gates foundation is working on if it results in duplication?  Maybe if you're the SE equivalent of Steve Jobs...though I'm not suggesting that anyone working in world health or library development is necessarily going to overlap, but if an idea's being done and being funded at the level Gates/Buffet will be able to fund it, wouldn't it be more productive to innovate inside a niche where they're not present? 

I agree with Greg Dees' definition of entrepreneurs...and by extension the concept applying to the social variety as well...that we can call ourselves that if we're true innovators, developing new ideas, different markets, alternative approaches to solving existing problems or using technology in ways not done before...etc...and if anything, don't you see Gates/Buffet as a potential force to drive creativity since the size of the organization is likely to create the "speedboat" impact Charles spoke of?  If the philanthropy model appeals to you, which I'm assuming it does...don't you see an opportunity to differentiate your organization from the pack who don't respond to the challenge of Gates/Buffet?  I draw a similar comparison with regard to the collapse of dot coms in the '90's.  The market forces eventually weeded out the companies that built paper-based value from those that were great business ideas servicing legitimate needs and creating true market value and profit.  I'm thinking Gate's/Buffet may do the same thing in the NP sector.

Could this happen in social entrepreneurship as well? What if social entrepreneurs started working only on issues that will attract the Gates/Buffett’s Foundation's attention --education in the US and global health? Could this huge entity have a monopoly on development ideas and models?

 

By my previous definition supplied by Dees, why would SE practitioners do that?  I can see some trying to do it if their mission is highly personally motivated perhaps, but how can you forecast the possibility of social entrepreneurs "working ONLY on issues that attract the Gates/Buffet's foundation's attention"?  Even if you don't take the approach I do in terms of seeing pure financial sustainability and the need for innovation as defining characteristics of SE, market forces alone will preclude NPO's and social venture practitioners from trying to go head to head with Gates/Buffet.  I don't see their focus as something that can be easily replicated in the sector anyway.  Engaging issues like AIDS in Africa on a large scale is a huge undertaking well beyond the capacity of most social entrepreneurs or NPO's. 

 

In some ways, the Microsoft comparison might be more valid IMO if you take a Rosenblatt/Skillern approach to value creation and capacity building, meaning that some social entrepreneurs might develop 3rd party solutions to address needs that Gates/Buffet don't want to spend time and resources on.  That's been Microsoft's approach in the past...building the platform and focusing more on core programs like the OS and internet browser capability and search engine technology instead of trying to dominate in every niche market that offers add-on opportunity. 

 

I think Gates is an extremely smart guy, and since I doubt his philanthropic strategy is to "beat" anyone through his foundation like he clearly wanted to with Microsoft, my guess is he'll consider the opportunity to provide core value in the areas where they'll be primarily working as the way to go.  In fact, I think a lot of NPO's will develop cottage industries around feeding this big elephant. 

 

Victor - Jul 10, 2006 8:30 am (#20 Total: 49)


As I was reading the most recent issue of the Economist, with "Billanthrophy" on the cover, I noticed an interesting comment:

"For any organization a doubling of its activities is never easy. Several people close to the Gates Foundation say that it is already struggling to give away the 5% of its assets it is legally obliged to each year if it is to qualify for special tax treatment. "It is surprisingly hard to find groups able to take a $10 million grant and do something with it," says one consultant."

Victor - Jul 10, 2006 8:37 am (#21 Total: 49)


Another interesting quote in the same Economist article:

""It will be very challenging to increase their payout adequately, unless the foundation moves away from the sharp focus it has had, which has been one of its strengths," says Mark Kramer, of FSG Social Impact Advisors, a consultancy. [...] Yet this goes against a trend among the best of America's other foundations, which are becoming more specialised."

chrismacrae - Jul 12, 2006 12:16 am (#22 Total: 49)

I am concerned about billanthropy for a mix of reasons:

1 I strongly support social entrepreneurial revolution methods and mapping their sustainability exponentials through time- something my father argued for if humanity is to survice the unprecedented communications revolution that networks are systemising around the first local to global integrated generation (1984-2024). The changes to economics required were widely rehearsed in his Entrepreneurial Revolution trilogy 1976-1984 (parts 1 and 2 published in The Economist - part 3 the book that began the death of distance future history genre, now more popularly called World is Flat) http://normanmacrae.blogspot.com http://project30000.blogspot.com

 

2 we now have Gates as the most powerful man on earth:

-financially

-mediawise

-perhaps in futures of education and world-health waves

3 yet those who make interpersonal network maps have no evidence that powerful people interact through any more attentively diverse social nets than ordinary people (unless they develop innovative diffusion structures - oddly the college-structure of The Economist worked very well in my father's day because PR agencies and lobbies had no idea who decided which subject opinions as this global leadership media evolved) . Gates' could need to transfer their individual epicentre of budgeting selections to some sort of brand open space like "Global University of Poverty"  (but hosted  practice spaces not just ivory towers)

4 I am not questioning Buffett's valuation of the Gates' as ungodly bright people. But whether they have the width of social entrepreneur experiences which my 30 years of research into deep societal challenges suggests need investing in to change the world is unclear; if one is limited to what is on the Gates Foundations web to date one would have grounds for pessimism;conversely, optimism would rise if Gates is in the process of transforming his own world view of sustainability investments to development and philanthropy (one hope being his funding of the Africa Progress Panel which is anchored by Peter Eigen's transparency approaches to getting close to the millenial goals on time, and so linked in to most of the world champion entrepreneur nets). The Eigen window of opportunity depends on decisions patterned over the next 24 months as explianed in his 3 of 16 videos co-sponsored by skoll and ashoka http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3407997752764644269

  http://asinworld.blogspot.com/2001_09_01_asinworld_archive.html

5 anyone interested in joining as occasional contributor to http://billanthropy.blogspot.com  ?

C.M.Macrae.72@cantab.net  & N.A.Macrae.42@cantab.net ; dc tel 301 881 1655

Toby Beresford - Jul 12, 2006 6:01 am (#23 Total: 49)
MicroAid


Hats off to Messrs Buffet and Gates. I think if we each follow their example of putting our time and money where our mouths are we'll make a better planet after all.

You don't need to be a millionaire to help just one person. Being a millionaire just means that you help lots of people in one go.

And, from the point of view of the individual beneficiary it doesn't make a difference if the aid comes from one individual or from a large organisation - what matters is that the aid comes at all.

So there's no excuse - let each person help as much as they are able - if they can give a lot, give a lot, if they can give a little, give just a little...

Toby Beresford MicroAid

rmariagn - Jul 12, 2006 8:08 am (#24 Total: 49)
Rajendran mariagnanam

I personally feel that helping any one and the cause of helping by various means serves the purpose. It does not mean that we are competing with some billionair in their efforts.

As many of the views from the above its clear that one has to devise methods to be self sustainable to help as much as one can and see what ones mission is.

Let Not the aberation of being rich or the rich going to swallow us in our game is totally false.

The attitude of helping is the only cause of NGO or NPO.well lets all try and view that in particular.

Kerk - Jul 12, 2006 11:36 am (#25 Total: 49)
Kerk Burbank, Ph.D.

Just read Carmencita Hernandez's plea for Gates and other large foundations to remember agriculture and the poor. If you did not see it yet, Gates Foundation's website has a current request for proposals for work on agricultural value chains. Hope this helps.

Kerk 

Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Jul 12, 2006 11:45 am (#26 Total: 49)
HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates


Hi Chris:

I just wanted to drop by and say it's nice to see you posting here. I very much appreciate your input. It will probably take me a while to catch up with your post contents, which will involve some research on my part -- so this is just a greeting in passing, since it has been a while since I last read you...

Charles

Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Jul 12, 2006 11:47 am (#27 Total: 49)
HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates


Kerk --

Just a quick note to thank you for your post re Gates and agriculture.

Marguerite - Jul 12, 2006 1:39 pm (#28 Total: 49)

From my perspective, as the founder of an organization dedicated to

the evolution of human consciousness and in promoting sustainable

living communities on an international scale, I find the words of Mark

Lewis to  have great value.  Especially at this time when we are

faced with challenges unprecedented in human recorded history with

regard to global climate change and the end of cheap subsidized energy. 

 

For centuries, as the mass culture, we the people have been dependent

on government and other social structures to do our thinking for us, and

have thus become dependent on “someone else to do it”  --  giving up our

personal individual sense of response-ability and placing it in the hands

of a few who control the monetary system.  And look where it has gotten

us as the question arises with regard to whether or not we can meet the

challenges we face today and survive as the human family. 

 

My concern, in seeing such large amounts of money/power congregated

in the hands of either Mr. Gates and/or Mr. Buffet, and then placed into an

organization directed toward philanthropy, is that through the  power of

monetary accumulation,  Mr. Buffet and Mr. Gates automatically became

members of  “the Global Monetocracy System” which has an “agenda of

its own”. By its very nature, the interests of the GMS must be uppermost

to ensure its survival.  And in many instances, this guarantees its opposition

to the agenda of the people who form its labor force. A labor force which

is currently being disenfranchised by advancements in technology.

 

Since people are largely socialized or enculturated through the educational

system I am very much concerned with the influence this large of a

philanthropical organization may have on “who we are becoming”.  There

is an extremely important book recently out which should be of interest to

every human on the planet: “The Biology of Transcendence” by John Chilton

Pearce.  In it, Pearce takes on both the religious and the educational system

as he points out that the U.S. has the largest prison population in the world

as a result of what we call “education” today.  Instead of turning out healthy

people, with a love of living, we are turning out criminals. 

 

In contrast, Carla Hannaford, Ph.D. in “Smart Moves – Why Learning Is Not

All in Your Head”, points out that “In the Villages of Southern Africa, social

values and communal practices support early childhood development more

than does our  system”.  Studies of 10,000 children there assessed for learning readiness

prior to school entry in Kuazulu, the black rural children scored far higher on

three of fifty assessment tests than white urban children.  The black children

there exhibit  a higher level of learning proficiency, body/mind integration and a

strong motivation to learn which sets them apart due to social and cultural

integration processes which begin in utero.

 

Of grave concern must be technological advances which push us into dissociation

from the basic qualities of life that are our natural biological inheritance.  Research

shows that as we become dissociated from our basic qualities inherent at the

beginning of our social evolution, e.g., community, natural living, equality, belongingness,

and vitality, we are unable to handle the “emergent” qualities such

as technology, rational thinking and social organization (read Global Monetocracy

System) as they become the “drivers” of our enculturation process leading us

further and further into “artificial environments” which we are not biologically

prepared to handle.  As a consequence, learning ability tends to decrease and we

become  more and more prone to acts of violence and lean toward using brute force

as a means of survivorship rather than using intelligence.

 

Pearce’s writing is most interesting as he reveals how time and again nature tries

to bring intellect to the fore, but is foiled as the enculturation process utilized in the

U.S. and other industrialized countries today wins out over the natural socialization process demonstrated in South Africa, creating an “aberrant society”, more prone to

violence than to peace as described by David Ray Griffin in his introduction to Suny Series in Constructive Post Modern Thought included in Dr. Jay Earley’s book:  “Transforming Human Culture – Social Evolution and the Planetary Crisis”.  

 

What appears is that having been enculturated into the GMS, both Gates and Buffet

will continue on their “bigger is better” path and their philanthropical efforts will

promote practices which tend to better their financial position which cannot help

but be at odds with the majority of humanity. 

 

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to present to the government of Mexico

a proposal which could have turned that country into a model for sustainable

living for the world.  In so-doing, I came face to face with the realization that

presidents of countries (and people in places of power in general) have two faces.

One of those is as concerned husband and father with family and thus concern

for the human race as a whole --  then there is the person who has committed his

life to “the system” and the system always wins in this instance unless a profound

spiritual transformation takes place.  Even, so there is little chance of escape

from The System once it has been embraced.   

Today as never before we are in need of profound spiritual transformations which will allow us to move forward into the future in health and wholeness. We need to heal the pathologies of the collective consciousness and set ourselves free. Social psychologists can help find this path less traveled -- politicians can't and won't.   

with love and in peace

marguerite aka ecopilgrim - Turtle Island Institute

 

 

will.

Mark Lewis - Jul 12, 2006 6:09 pm (#29 Total: 49)
CEO/Executive Director; Strategic Business Intelligence Group

I think it's only inevitable that an exponential increase in the financial power of a foundation with the name "Gates" attached to it will invoke discussion within a macro political context from people invested in the process of social justice.  Obviously Gates is nothing if not a magnet for such dialogue, but I tend to view the political undercurrent engendered by issues of class struggle with respect to social entrepreneurship as somewhat counter productive. 

I consider myself an innovator, not a revolutionary. Having said that, there are certain advantages to carving out a niche in an intellectual landscape where the margins of only one political view have long dominated the flow of ideas.  If we're going to create true value in this sector in my view, we need to recognize the power of economically stable models that are self generating, self renewing, and self supporting.  For obvious reasons, I find these themes easier to disseminate when I'm not answering questions about Mao and Stalin at the same time. 

I'm more interested in trying to build new economic models for social visionaries rather that reworking ideas from the past.  This is one reason I enjoy working in Dallas, with a community of social change agents in this sector so few and so new to the process that ideas can be brought to bear on any singular issue without being held hostage to ideology.

Patrick O'Heffernan - Jul 12, 2006 10:02 pm (#30 Total: 49)


gates concentrates a lot of money on a big problem and gets results;. that works

chrismacrae - Jul 13, 2006 12:23 am (#31 Total: 49)

Gates has the money and a great brain but he does not have the 30 years of experience in developing a network of 2000 extraordinary local social entrepreneurs that Bill Drayton at http://www.ashoka.org has

The web is not ashoka's hot spot unless you find your own ways to search it; for quick intro: you can read Bornstein's book on how to change the world to understand the Einstein-Gandhian-style quality controls that Drayton has made in mapping literally 2000 of the deepest project entrepreneurs in poor places. The great challenge of the next decade (as forecast by by father and I back in 1984, and confimed annualy in feedback we've received from entrepreneurs) is to design a globalisation (and economics transformation) that integrates every global village's compound sustainability instead of externalising the 3 billion poorest in ever more compound destruction. A model that goes micro to inter to macro is vital. You can top down alone grassroots integration.

 So the big deal of valuing what Drayton is the world epicentre of is that if his network comprises 2000 micro franchises founded by people on particular social missions in life how do you cluster them to have large scale impact. At least 6 of the 2000 social entrepreneurs in Draytons' family have been working on that - eg Abed of Branc , Yunus of Grameen; Eigen of Transparency ; Grajew of corporate sustainability benchmarking syndicates and the world socila forum and questoiner of what world economics needs chnaging- all these macro social entrepreneur frameworks are in a DVD series co-sponsored by Skoll http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3321985461393888643

Now where this comes back to Gates is: is his Foundation aware of this series as the breakthrough fror micro-inter-macro sustainable development? It would be a shame to reinvent this wheel; in fact since networks like the transparency one cannot be reinvented in time for the tipping points involved, if the Gates foundation fails to integrate with all these 30 year learning curves it will have been a most extraordinary waste imo  , quite probably an inconveneint truth disaster

Scots know a wee bit about this since we have been studying entrepreneurial revolution for 30 years http://normanmacrae.blogspot.com or 150+ if you understand the founders purpose  of The Economist in 1840s http://er100.blogspot.com

Mark Lewis - Jul 13, 2006 9:50 am (#32 Total: 49)
CEO/Executive Director; Strategic Business Intelligence Group

Chris...not trying to be cute here...but I kind of doubt Bill is the one personally doing any of this.  He can hire an entire army of researchers if he wishes, which is undoubtedly what he will do.  In any case...I return to what I said earlier about SE vs philanthropy.  Gates is merely channeling resources to places where they'll be most effective, and I can't imagine something like Ashoka/Drayton escaping his attention.  Bill won't be running Google searches for SE contact info any more than he was hunched over a computer screen writing code for MS Office.  Let's wait and see what happens before we consign his efforts to waste and missmanagement.

Out of curiosity...are you a MAC guy?...Just kidding (grin)

tutormentor - Jul 13, 2006 2:55 pm (#33 Total: 49)
Cabrini Connections Tutor/Mentor Connection


Patrick, and others, by what measure will we, or historians, judge the whether or not Mr. Gates gets results from his foundation?

The last time I looked there was still a lot of poverty and suffering in Africa. Thus, what will we use as a measure of the impact of this $60 billion over the next decade, or the next century?

Will the bureacrats or the ancestors who carry on after the founder dies be driven by the same spririt of innovation and perserverance that led to the creation of such wealth in the first place?

Spending a lot of money does not automatcially mean getting a lot of results.

Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Jul 13, 2006 5:11 pm (#34 Total: 49)
HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates


Let me see if this makes sense...

Obviously, the Buffett donation to the Gates Foundation is a good thing. Non-obviously -- by which I mean, in terms of unintended consequences -- it may not be.

To me, the way that intended and unintended consequences, rules and their exceptions, obvious truths and unexpected twists of fate weave themselves together to create the fabric of the world is one of the great mysteries -- something which systems thinking and similar strategies are only just beginning to explore.

I saw Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett on Charlie Rose -- last night was it? Fascinating!

Marguerite - Jul 14, 2006 6:44 pm (#35 Total: 49)

My organization is associated with groups oriented toward relocalization efforts to ensure security in small communities, especially with regard to the end of cheap energy and global climate change.  Right now, the center of this group is The Post Carbon Institute which has inspired 90 communities to relocalize.  A question frequently asked of late within this group is: "Where can we best focus our energy to ensure our community's security for the future. Particularly with regard to food, water, shelter and medical care".  Creating self-reliance is of prime concern, and we're concerned also with creating organic community growing grounds, food coops, creating homeopathic medicinals, small enterprises to provide the necessities of life locally, along with taking care of the elderly and young. Education today doesn't provide for this kind of knowledge.  So, we're developing organic garden clubs, arts councils, awareness and multi-media groups, to create hands-on learning experiences which can be applied locally as knowledge is acquired through a co-learning process.  

As awareness of our current crisis deepens, more and more communities will see the need to turn to survival techniques rather than toward money-making enterprises. And lifestyles will dramatically change. 

Yet, at the same time as I contemplate this, I was confronted this morning with these statistics:  Of the world's 100 largest economies, 47 are nations, and 53 are corporations. So how are you going to deal with this individual called corporation who may or may not want you when you wake up tomorrow morning?    

Many in the past have make conscious choice to move into a life of "voluntary simplicity" -- with the crises we face today, many more will be forced to make the choice to move into sustainable living configurations or starve as food prices escalate expoentially with transportation costs. With the jet stream already having slowed by 30%, and no known way to reverse this trend, it will not be long until the largest migration in the history of the world takes place as those in Europe and the northeastern U.S. are forced to find liveable climates as the Little Ice Age takes its toll. 

Perhaps the questions to be asked of Gates and Buffet are as to their intentions in this regard.  Will their philanthropic efforts be directed toward mitigating the circumstances associated with this "unprecedented in human recorded history event", or will they be directed toward "business as usual" and promoting the same kind of educational programs that serve that end.

There is no doubt that massive funds will be needed to mitigate the suffering associated with global climate change and the end of cheap energy which Al Gore has assured us we will see in "his lifetime".  Perhaps we should begin by asking Gates and Buffet of their intent in this regard.

Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Jul 15, 2006 6:50 am (#36 Total: 49)
HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates


Hi Marguerite:

Thanks for your post. You write:

With the jet stream already having slowed by 30%, and no known way to reverse this trend, it will not be long until the largest migration in the history of the world takes place as those in Europe and the northeastern U.S. are forced to find liveable climates as the Little Ice Age takes its toll.

That puts you squarely in the camp of those who believe massive change is upon us, and that as you say

As awareness of our current crisis deepens, more and more communities will see the need to turn to survival techniques rather than toward money-making enterprises.

That’s not the “business as usual” scenario, which I think dominates most of our future thinking, nor is it just a “blindsided by a low probability high impact event” scenario as one branch of a possibility tree, which is the kind of thing I invite people to consider when doing their planning – you are putting forth the view that we are already effectively on a branch of the scenario tree that incorporates a particular high impact event, with little or no chance of going back, right?

I would like to see a somewhat fuller presentation of this scenario, and perhaps some references to specific arguments that point towards it. What does the map look like, ten, twenty, thirty, fifty years from now in your estimation?

Scenarios of this sort – with a specific massive change already past its tipping point and fully “on its way” down the pike towards us – are very tricky to handle. Like the cry of “wolf” they can easily be terrifying to the point of paralysis, and just as easily ignored. Making a rational evaluation of the probabilities is therefore very difficult – something I have come to appreciate after some years monitoring all manner of apocalyptic scenarios for the Center for Millennial Studies.

Even scientifically-based scenarios of this sort often fail to take into account the vast resilience of our world – I’m thinking of some early Erlich prognostications about population and food here, though I don’t have anything in particular to quote – so I like to temper my reading of such things, howsoever persuasive, with a recognition that we overstate the case as easily as we ignore it.

In your own mind, is the scenario you’re thinking of certain, likely, plausible, or a worst case scenario?

How should large and potentially alert players factor “high impact low probability” scenarios (if that’s what this might be) in with other scenarios that imply less abrupt transitions?

Marguerite - Jul 17, 2006 12:22 pm (#37 Total: 49)

Hi Charles,

You make some very good points here. By way of answering, I'm reposting a newsletter from Mr. Jan Lundberg who was formerly an "oil insider" and now rides a bicycle and takes his guitar on the road with his message. Jan has been involved with the group that made the movie End of Suburbia, e.g., James Howard Kuntsler, Richard Heinberg (author of Power Down & the Party's Over), Julian Darley, Founder of the Post Carbon Institute; Michael Ruppert, webhost; and others who have been and are continuing to hold seminars on "peak oil" and the effect it is having and will continue to have on our economy and our lifestyle. 

In addition to the information provide here, I feel we truly must look at that provided by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth".  We're way beyond "scientific hypothesis and scenarios" and into visual proof that something out of the ordinary is happening when you take into consideration the measurements of the jet stream and the revealment that scientists don't always know what they are doing when you learn that a glacier thought to be around for the next 100 years by scientists is found 35 days later to be "obviously disintegrating".  Considering all of the information I've had cross my desktop in almost six years of facilitating a "co-learner's list" in which 300 or so of us have shared information daily on topics critical to our well-being, things don't look good.  And, I feel when Al Gore says that "these changes will take place in his lifetime" people need to sit up and pay attention.

When you write of "the vast resilience of our world" Charles, perhaps these periods of Ice Ages alternating with milder conditions are part of the plan that keeps the Earth as as system always moving toward health and wellness -- perhaps it is an essential part of achieving balance in terms of planetary health and renewal. And, if this is true, how do we as a "sub-system" handle this?  Do we try to foil its self-preserving movement? 

Apologies for some of my garbled sentences here -- I find it difficult to write in this box.   

But, since this is getting long, let's see what Jan has to say, and perhsps we'll elicit more comments on this from others.            

The subject matter here is also the basis of the new NBC television special report narrated by Tom Brokaw, "Global Warming: What You Need to Know."  The difference between Brokaw's approach and the following report is that NBC says there is a centuries-long process, such that there is time to get our act together; whereas, Bates points out that sea level rise of several feet can happen in one season - a sudden, catastrophic change.  This article is being printed in the next issue of The Permaculture Activist magazine,