N. Kristof @ NY Times—re: new humanitarian aid model

Reblog from allowthenow:

I’m grateful that my friend Alissa shared this great NYT article written by Nicholas Kristof that, in effect, talks about the need for a new humanitarian aid model…

———————————————

Here was my message to him:

Dear Mr. Kristof,

I’m writing in response to your article, “How Can We Help the World’s Poor?”

I just recently returned from a humanitarian trip to Rwanda, Africa where I was part of a team that worked with several hundred orphaned survivors of the ‘94 genocide suffering from complex PTSD.

All details, including lots of photos and videos are on my blog:http://mtpglobal.blogspot.com/search/label/mtpRwanda.

What I want to say here is that the more we can work on the internal needs (psychological/emotional) the easier external solutions (to issues such as poverty, homelessness, etc.) will be found.

I think the biggest problem with humanitarian aid is that most humanitarian organizations/ventures are working on the level of “symptom” and not addressing the level where the real problems reside—which invariably is the level of human consciousness.

If we want change, then it is on the level of consciousness we must look. This is true for the United States as well. Einstein’s, “Problems are not solved on the level of consciousness that created them” comes to mind.

I’d be happy to talk about this further, if you were interested.

Thank you.

Christopher Lowman

Love or cosmic imbalance?

“What would be my, how should I call it, spontaneous attitude towards the universe? It’s a very dark one. The first one, the first thesis would have been: a kind of total vanity. There is nothing, basically. I mean it quite literally. Like, ultimately there are just some fragments, some vanishing things, if you look at the universe it’s one big void. But then how do things emerge? Here, I feel a kind of spontaneous affinity with quantum physics. Where, you know, the idea there is that the universe is kind of a void, but a positively charged void. But then particular things appear when the balance of the void is disturbed, and I like this idea spontaneously very much. The fact that it’s not just nothing, things are out there, it means something went terribly wrong. That what we call creation is a kind of a cosmic imbalance, cosmic catastrophe. That things exist by mistake. And I’m even ready to go to the end and to claim that the only way to counteract it is to assume the mistake and go to the end, and we have a name for this; it’s called love. Isn’t love precisely this kind of a cosmic imbalance? I was always amused with this notion of “I love the world”, “universal love”. I don’t like the world, I don’t know how I—uh—I’m basically somewhere in between “I hate the world” and “I’m indifferent towards it”. But the whole of reality, it’s just it, it is stupid, it’s out there, I don’t care about it. Love for me is an extremely violent act. Love is not “I love you all”. Love means, I pick out something and—it’s again this structure of imbalance. Even if this something is just a small detail, a fragile individual person, I say, “I love you more than anything else.” In this quite formal sense, love is evil.”

Slavoj Zizek (Senior researcher, Institute of Sociology, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and Professor at European Graduate School.)

-werewolf

Letter to Jessica, our current and leaving Network Coordinator (National Board) of Climate Chance

Dear Jessica, my dearest partner:

Been facilitating a series of discussions since the 350 Rally, from Antarctica Sharing, Film Screening, Network Briefing, Media to Vision-Building and lunch buffet, as well as representing India at the Climate Simulation (all within this past month!). We now have about 30 membership and 20 volunteer applications.

There is a lot to be learned during this process.  Especially from the feedback that “Serena is the president,” or “do not argue, but negotiate!” or “Can you initiate the meeting for me?”

3 of my personal purposes -all failed.

1- to make sure we have space for inquiry and dialogue (rather than argument or negotiation)

2 - to make sure there is no identifiable leader or person in charge, and

3- to make sure people feel powerful to initiate their own meetings.

Then i looked back and see how I try to do all these things and by making sure these things happen, I am already trying to control or manage them assuming that they would not have made a better choice otherwise.

So I took sometime to read through some of the books about conversations which lead to the paradigm shift: I wish to share with you  the notes from Peter Block,  Community: The Structure of Belonging - which i finished reading in 2 days (feel free to borrow the book). The book is highly recommended by my trainers and facilitators of Interactive Institution for Social Change and provides practical guides for how we act as “leaders”:

Conversations which create a community of accountability and belonging:
1-    Intimate and authentic relatedness is experienced
2-   World is shifted through invitation rather than mandate
3-   The focus is on the communal possibility
4-    There is a shift in ownership of this place,
5-.    Diversity of thinking and dissent are given space
6-    Commitments are made without barter
7-    The gifts of each person and our community are acknowledged and valued.

Click above links for examples

He also mentioned examples of Conversation which traps us in the same place:
1-    Telling the history of how we got here  - we did that!
2-    Giving explanations and opinions - we did that!
3-    Blaming and complaining - we did that!
4-    Making reports and descriptions - I tried to make people do that. You stopped me.
5-    Carefully defining terms and conditions- I did that!
6-    Retelling your story again and again- I did that!
7-    Seeking quick action -We are always tempted to do that!

I will put up the notes for each of these elements in separate posts later.

All the best, thank you for being here, always!

Love, and grateful,

In joy,

S

Convergence: How Five Trends Will Reshape the Social Sector - high recommanded!

If you are interested in the future of social change, I highly recommend that you read it.

It is not possible in the allotted space I have here to capture everything the report highlights as propositions for us to consider.  But I will flag a few things that were deeply resonant and interesting:

• Going forward, the driving question will be “what do we want to accomplish?”, with corporate form (whether nonprofit, for-profit, hybrid, network) following from this goal.  Younger generations are less tied to particular organizational forms (and the rush to form 501(c)3s).  They are most interested in tapping the best tools that help get the job done, including social media.  Sector-agnosticism is in!
• Increasingly, the communication emanating from organizations and initiatives will need to be continuous, personalized, and come from multiple sources.  Anything that smacks of being overly “marketed,” or trumpeted only by an expert/celebrity, will not be well received.  Authenticity is in!
• A new kind of ROI is on the rise, thanks in part to collaborative tools such as Twitter – not Return on Investment, but Return on Insight.  Listening and learning are in!
• Navigating the convergence of all five trends will mean that organizations need to abandon overtly and overly hierarchical structures and become much more collaboration and network-savvy.
• Furthermore, we are all being called upon to become futurists of sorts who acknowledge that with the existing rates of change, what is so today will not necessarily be so tomorrow.  It behooves us to tune into our surroundings and take careful note of the shifts and to adapt!

There is much more to say, and I will leave it to you now.  What do you think?  What do you see as the future of the social sector and our work?

Serena

Re-blog from http://interactioninstitute.org/blog/2009/11/12/were-all-futurists-now/#more-1669

Means and Ends - R-P-R Triangle- Result, Process and Relationship

One of the core design models of Climate Chance (as well as other partners like IISC)’s practice (for both our training and consulting work) is something we call the R-P-R Triangle, which basically makes the case that success in collaborative efforts is a multi-dimensional affair, not solely defined by “results” (goal or task accomplished), but also by “process” (the way or spirit in which work is carried out) and “relationship” (the quality of the connections between the people engaged in the work).

It is “the spine of collaboration,” because if we are not thinking in terms of all dimensions, we are not really serious about seeking win-win solutions with others.  And indeed experience really proves that these dimensions are intimately linked and dependent upon one another when diverse stakeholders come together to realize a shared vision.

However, so far, what we have experienced is that process and relationships are always at risk of being more subservient. Despite the fact that we know that in the daily business of reaching our desired results, egos gets stroked, compliments extended, comments overlooked in the formation of relationships and a process that works towards the intended goal.   How does this model account for this reality?

This question is reminiscent of an ongoing internal conversation about collaboration at IISC and Interaction Associates.  Is it a means or an end in and of itself?   The same goes for a rigorous dialogue about networks.  Are they a route to social change or are they the destination?

As is often the case these days, the answer to these questions seems to be a resounding and perplexing, “Yes!”  Results are important, and … .  Simply viewing people, or process for that matter, as means to an end can be problematic, not just in terms of failing to respect others’ humanity (harkening back to Kantian ethics), but also in failing to deeply tap the potential that is ripe for our complexity-ridden times.

In this day and age we hear more about, and many experience, the importance of invitation, conversation, hosting, space, trust, and connection, not just as precursors to making something happen, but as being an embodiment of change. And so the challenge becomes holding on to both truths – results matter, and they don’t, or not in the ways that we often imagine.

In the pursuit of systemic transformation, the results we ultimately desire to achieve and sustain, the processes we must master, and the relationships we must cultivate, are generally accretive, or gradually attained. In the end, it comes down to what we pay attention to, why we come together, what cause are we serving, what vision we try to create.

The qestion then becomes, how can we embody the change we seek, every second, with each other?

Reflection on today’s Antarctica Sharing

Today, due to overwhelming demands, we held a second Antarctica Sharing. The group dynamic is quite an interesting contrast to the last sharing session, as people coming here are more knowledgeable and passionate and were eager to share.

But i could not help to notice what i was able to express got considerably more limited, as i feel nervous, and my body tensed up as the way people put forth their idea as to what “should” be done is very closed for challenge. It is like a debate or the UNFCCC Negotiation, where countries bring their position paper, put it on table, take it or leave it. And inside of me, i hear myself crying.

This is when I realised that the biggest lesson i learned from the Antarctica Expedition is how ignorant I was. How the very idea of thinking i “knew” could prevent me from LISTENING and be genuinely curious about finding out more.

And when Roger Burton, as the program designer dismantle the set schedule, any structure, but gave us the free space to determine our own course, responsibility for our actions becomes not something which needs to be imposed, but something you see growing from you inherently, by giving the choice to determine HOW you wish to discuss things, take actions, move in spaces, and ultimately, live.

He said no more than - Listen to how you listen.

He did no more than being fully present, listening to you with full attention.

He assumed no more than positive intents.

And here it is, the entire Climate Chance Network born and dedicated to enact paradigm shift.

And here it is, my whole life turned upside down - i feel i live more freely, wholly, lightly, than ever, completely dedicated to the idea of being in service.

An old friend of mine replied to my email signiture:

What if climate change is only symptomatic of a structure based on extraction and manipulation and centralization of natural resources? A structure which assumes nature and human beings are objects. If “success” and “progress” are defined by your ability to objectify and manipulate self and others, how do you define “achievement” for your life?

In answer to your quotation above, I’d say a person should have two non-correlated metrics for life success.

Tim Ferriss, one of my favorite authors, lists his as

1. Rate of new skill acquisition and

2. Number of people I help overcome their fears.

I couldn’t help but smile.

How can we live a life where every second you let go any desire to cling to anything? How does it feel, letting life lives through you……to me, an access to eternity and infinite thankfulness,

Anyhow, here is some sides which shows the applicaiton process and some of the “containers” for collaborative discussions which we talked about today  - for those who wish to dig more. It does not have substansive contents of the ANtarctica Sharing (photos, stories of Robert Swan)

Antarctica Expedition (Short) Climate Chance(2) View more presentations from Serenagao.

For friends and families, wish to share this photography book made by my fellow Antarctica Expedition teammate, Joe Little

http://www.blurb.com/books/811590

The Design of Experience: Fun

Check out this clip from The Fun Theory, an initiative of Volkswagen, that aims to show that fun is one of the best ways to change behavior for the better.

It times beautifully with a lot of thinking, writing, and experimenting we’ve been been trying to do here at Climate Chance about/with the power of design, and specifically the design of experiences that can change behavior and bring out the best in individuals and groups.

Serena

Industrial Era Assumptions

From Roger Burton

The industrial era can be understood as:

• A particular distortion of the ‘western canon’ enacted and amplified over the past several centuries.  This can be understood as a subject-object world view or paradigm and all the implications of that.

As a paradigm it can be considered to have several basic qualities:

• A fundamental separative activity and enactment of objectification;

1. Objectification of the planet
2. Objectification of one another
3. Objectification of the self

• Extraction of the then apparent resources and value

• For the sake of consumption where consumption has become conflated with the notion of happiness or reduction of suffering  (consumer-ego)

• In order to maximize and consolidate profit in a reinforcing dynamic with the above.

There are some other components and historical considerations, but this is the heart of it. All of this would be consistent and make sense in a scarcity based world of competition.  The increased ability to manipulate objects, and indeed one another as objects, makes perfect sense as a useful survival advantage in that sort of world.  Our modern economics are based on these assumptions of scarcity and competition (as well as being abstracted from a conscious
relationship to the biosphere). 

We, all of us, in so far as we are in any way associated or self-identifying with and participating in this system of objectification and separative activity, have some form of these choices available to us, personally and collectively.  This last case of transition is difficult.

For example, because there is increased volatility in the system it is likely to look like ‘economic stimulus’ is working, when in fact it is only contributing to the volatility and creating ‘recovery bubbles.’  If one is looking at those bubbles there is no reason to change anything.  In fact it will seem like it is necessary to do more of what we are already doing since it will appear to be working.  Hence, you get the sort of insane thinking that has us attempt to stimulate consumption in order to
address the current condition.

Of course, these “bubbles” also provide a very real opportunity if we can remain awake.  The case of transition is also difficult because these institutions, which represent not only a ‘moral’ obligation to maximize and consolidate profit, but power as well, are deeply identified with the historic paradigm of the industrial era, its precedent and underlying structure.

In so far as we are identified with such institutions change then looks and feels like a threat to our survival.  This is a confusion between literal and metaphorical survival.  Our enactment of and investment in these institutions represents a literal threat to our human survival as a whole, both in what we are doing and not doing to keep them in existence.  To the extent  that we are self-identified with such institutions change represents a metaphorical threat to our survival as ‘consumer ego’s.’  Finally the case for transition is difficult because in so far as we are self identified with the ‘way of life’ produced by the industrial era, all of our change models and ways of considering transition are embedded within the historic paradigm and so likely to
amplify the conditions we currently experience as problems.

This is true not only for the entire system, but for its components and the individuals and communities enacting it on a moment to moment basis.  This means at least two things.

• The dynamics, ‘theories’ and habits of change itself are a product of the same system that  generated and is expressed by the industrial era.  Of course this means that efforts to  change are likely to reinforce the system.  This is the kind of thing that leads people considering climate change to consider carpeting the poles with insulation or surrounding the earth with reflective mirrors, but has many much more immediate expressions in the moment as well.

• To the extent we ourselves are identified with this system we are identified with a systemof objectification.  The product of objectification is enslavement - of the planet, each ther and ourselves.  Indeed much of the public dialogue bears a striking resemblance to that of the slave owners in the US before and during the US Civil War.

Excerpt from letter to Institute for Ethical Matrix of Human Habitat. Ethical Matrix

Diary of our Coversation with Roger Burton

A series of conversations which led to the birth of Climate Chance and an entire new experience with life and the infinite possibilities reality offers.

(documented by Serena)

Summery
On June 20th, Roger flew to Hong Kong in the midnight to meet members of HKCCC for a day before he had to catch a flight later at night. There was no agenda, no plan as to what we are supposed to talk about.  As soon as we arrived at the Long Zhou Island, Jessica and Willis tried to book a room for us to stay overnight. When we arrived, sat around the table by the sea and embarked on an unusual conversation, following by experiments with our lives (followed up with Skype Phone Conference Calls). There are four documented conversations all together.

Roger Burton?
As a side-note, Roger Burton is the “designer” for the BP Antarctica Expedition in which I took part. Roger Burton is a collaborative change agent and management consultant (a system thinker, philosopher) for many of the world’s corporations -Shell, BMW, BP etc. (Including help giving birth to BP Renewable).

During the Antarctica Expedition, his designing involved deconstructs design by dismantling any “structure” or “agenda.” In so doing, he gave us the “choice” to decide on our own agenda and the opportunity to really examine our own mental models as people fruitless tried to impose structures onto others. It was an experimental experience in a sense that nobody tried to put knowledge into each other’s vault; it was for you to discover what lies to be learned. As we feel the burden of the choice, we also feel how each of us can only be responsible for our own action.  There, as we tried to navigate through the lack of structure, the empty space around us emerged this realization from within.

1st meeting – Hong Kong – June 20th

Participant: Roger, Kartiyeka (Founder and Director of IYCN-Indian Youth Climate Network), Jessica Yuan (President of HKCCC) Mart van de Ven, Peter Chapman, Willis So, Adeel, Serena (members of HKCCC)

• Part I – Looking at the whole system

Roger started by speaking of a story of cow shit. How an NGO who dealt with the middle logistic ended up taking up the debt created from unsustainable producer and buyer of the cow shit, when both were sustainable in appearance. He then drew analogy to our own group’s dynamic – the emotional pain Jessica felt as she had to run around bargain for the room, while the room turned out to be horrific, nobody showed signs of appreciation for her effort.  Jessica was silent since then.

I think Roger’s point is that the issue of sustainability involves looking at the bigger system, while at the same time, it comes down to a level of detail as small as someone’s pain within a small group of people (as result of our omission?) We as a system, was responsible to Jessica’s “pain.” By discovering it, addressing it, naming it explicitly, we at least would not just assume it. By drawing parallel from our group interaction and a case, each of us became the microcosm of a system. The notion that we embody the system, especially the very system we seeks to change is very profound personally as it would seem that I no longer has the “authority” to tell others to follow me.

• Part II – Warning – mastering the Art of Persuasion

This part is best to be set out in the format of a dialogue:

R: what are the solutions we are promoting for climate change?
Adeel (A): …. We need to change people’s mindset.
R: what is mindset?
A: A belief of incentive to do something…

R:  It seems to assume one has it is a set of value system. that I have a better set of values than you. How would you feel if I come to tell you that you need to change your mindset because I have better values than you?

A: I will feel OK because I would only analyze what you say and learn from you. R: I disagree. I think people will not be willing to accept whatever you propose.  If idenxzxtity is a buddle of value I identify ourselves with, then I would more likely retract and defense my view because it is threatening of my identity. In fact, as I was speaking of all these, this may be happening now.

A: But I still see that I will not retract, rather, I will analyze it and try to accept your point of view and learn from that….

R: are you feeling I am actually intentionally saying something to change what you think? (repeated)
…
Later on, we examined deeper this formula that we tend to apply – that “we” need to change “their” mindset.

R:  Who are “we” when we have the notion that we need to change somebody’s mindset? But everything is always changing..

From my point of view, it would seem that the opposite effect (to their intended result) is created when either of them try to persuade a point, and are made firmer in their own belief as a result.
Adeel comment– I assume people will analzyse information like I do – in an ideal dialogue – people will be open-minded, but in real world – these assumptions may not be true.

• Part III –Dialogues- Roger’s mental model

Dialogue is the guts of mental model – sadly I have a model of dialogue
I have re-read Plato and talk about it
David Bone a physician – He suggested that there are structures underlies our way of perceiving reality which can be discovered by dialogue.

4 phases to conversation

1. Polite Talk

• no possibility for differences to arise,
• culturally based machinery ( we are wired)
• allow us to survive and be useful

2. Sustainable Differences

• how does difference arise? It is our interpretation of our experience of reality
• Most people would go into a loop from politeness to sustainable level of differences then back to politeness when difference become too much.

3. Inquiry

• Genuinely curious (not strategically curious)

• Recognizes your point of view →Suspend it

• Place oneself in the other person’s reality

• Aware of my own pair of sunglasses

4. Dialogue

• Involve recognition of multiple views of reality

• This is when vision can happen, emergence, forms an arise

• To me, dialogue is an active experience of participating in something much larger than you are, not separate, but exists because of your exercise

• Dialogue reaches the implicit order, the deeper structure

• In a dialogue, when you hear someone else saying what you were saying →it is beautiful

• Reveal some kind of system →this is when actions happens

• There is no aim, no goal

• When we want to manipulate things to get things done, we cannot wait →we are already listening, but the question is, what are you listening to

There are four qualities to a genuine dialogue
i.    Suspension  →name the mental model which is acting on you
ii.    Respect
iii.    Voice – ability to express
iv.    Listening
All of these are ways for you to manage your intention

Part IV – Fear based Action vs Love-based Action

Mart- but it would seem that we have to make a choice.  we have to prioritise to come to have dialogue, to make sure we can learn most. We could have used this opportunity to do anything else rather then coming to this island.
R:
You seem to be making 4 assumptions:
1- scarcity of time + prioriality   (the model is based on 1 day-according to mart)
2- Need to have coping mechanism
3- need to made value based choices
Te assumption is that there is something to get out of life.
But what if there is nothing to get out of life?
Time is a concept of mortality which is a very ego-based concept
We begin to hear assertions we make as if they are true
Imagine for a moment, you live in a world just as real, but life is fully abundant, there is no scarcity.
We live in a world where “scarcity of time” is so real that it is herasy to say it is only an assumption
Lots of time →boredom →fear of?
Imagine what if all the problems in this world are solved ? then what do we do ? we start creating problems (Mart)
Recognize the obligation to act and have no expectation of return
Maybe a reality we participate in that is prior to time.

Q of fear as source of action → can it be a defense against our own impermanence?
It only lasts as long as fear is there.
Fear based action is useful particularly when you have a tiger
-    it is like opium, wired into us
-    but it is useful as long as there is a tiger
-    can it be we are addicted to this, and we assume there is a tiger in order to “solve the problem”?
-    are there any alternative source of action? Love?

Mart – love is suspension of the fear state and before meaning is made

<Recommended reading -
<Pedagogy of the oppressed- Paul Freire>

Part V - Bridge

Now the question is that of a bridge
Start with assumption of loveliness,
What is the emerging world we are living →bridge the current reality when you keep the direction in mind.
Feel the tension between the fear based action and love

M – identity our act with physical body?
R – what if our nature of state is prior to distinction? We are just part of things we actively participate

If the proposition – we know how to be happy anytime –is correct
Then it implies that we are “making” unhappiness

Happiness is…
1-    Freedom from material ambition
2-    Freedom from internal ambition
a.    i.e. to have experience
i.    American men who  have mid-life crisis tend to have young girls to reclaim experience of youth once they realized that they have spent their youth all on acquiring materials (money) which had not worked for the – not happy
b.    to not to have ambition
c.    to be free
3-    Responsible for what we know
Nowadays, we seem to assume that if we have things, we will be happy.
But where is happiness?  The value in things →missing
If you have a system, you try to change it without questioning its assumption, you amplify it.

Now, think of a problem, and feel it.  (the sensation)
Now, think of something you are committed to. Feel it.
Now, hold them at the same time
– funny? uncertain? laugh – one way to release the tension
We can develop the capacity to be committed to your vision (everyone working towards rebuilding a healthy climate) and at the same time, stay intact with the reality in your conscious state. (one alternative to our “coping mechanism”?)

There is no desirability of happiness
What is livelihood for creativity ? Should we get compensation for creativity?
Is it how it should be?
Suspend my own belief – internalize it and make it your own
Nature of practice – failure in it.

Conclusion

Thus, I think, the entire conversation was really about this— If you have a system, you try to change it without questioning its assumption, you may even amplify it.  And to question its assumption, we may need to examine our own mental model, model of change, interaction and decision-making, which may well be a product of the very institutions we tried to change. This is hugely relevant to our work as the climate change coalition as we try to create a climate for change to pursuit our vision of a sustainable world.
The proposed model is to not to ask people to do what we think they should do (which falls closer to the model of manipulation), but rather to engage people in dialogue by accepting their values and views as their experience of reality, to respect their difference in view and listen genuinely without intending to change their view.

The Experiment we started just before Roger left

Think of a problem you have now.

Would would it make possible if it is solved?

Keep asking yourself

Would would it make possible if it is solved?

Then, when it comes to the picture at the end. Hold on to it.

During the next two week: follow these three rules

1- Try your best to solve the problem

2- Do nothing

3- Pay attention to the image at the end.

e.g. Willis said her problem was that her parents won’t give her the freedom to go travel around the world herself.

If they allow it, she will be able to go to Antarctica etc. and make many friends.

If she make many friends she will….if..she will die a happy old woman.

Bringing Honesty Back

Serena

Have to confess my own inability to hold immense gratitude for the actions of people around us and at the same time, being critical of their long-term and overall impacts, the assumptions on which the actions were based on - which may reinforce old pattern of thinking.

At the same time i observe how the tension arising from holding these two feeling and thought and how i dealt with it (avoid face-to-face honesty)  is rooted in my use of the measurement method and standard of the “old industrial model” rather than in line with the emergent world. Thanks Adeel for reminding me of this!

Here I wish to share another insightful short blog on how SOCIAL and STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION starts with our own deeply embedded beliefs - this time, our view on FALURES

Bringing Honesty Back

One of the issues with the current funding system is that it tends to invite dishonesty from organizations seeking grants.  And perhaps we should not say dishonesty, but the system certainly makes it easy to fall into the temptation of overstating the case, of presenting an aspirational goal as an established reality.  This pattern is detrimental to everyone involved.  It hurts the funders who will not be able to meet their goals even if they believe they are funding with purpose.  It hurts those being served, organized or mobilized, and it certainly hurts the organizations who get caught in the game.

Part of the problem with the normalization of this often subtle dishonesty is that it actually keeps organizations from staring their own reality in the face.  As a consultant to all kinds of organizations, from foundations to the grassroots, I experience this insidious state of non-truth as a serious obstacle to my own work.  We can’t help an organization move if the organization can not be honest about where it is. The situation forces us to spend a lot energy surfacing the truth, but if we were starting from truth then we would be able to use that energy to hit the ground running.

There are many systemic reasons for this problem, and one of them is our habit of seeing failure as failure rather than seeing failure as learning.  When I think about my own life, I look back at the most important and transformative lessons I have learned and I realize I learned them through the painful process of failing.  And I mean real failing, not just coming up short on a project, but coming up short as a human being.  As I ponder what it would take to bring back honesty, I think that it would mean increasing our capacity to see failure as learning, and to do so as both foundations and funded organizations.

There certainly is more here, and as is often the case, there is a lot more than could be covered in a single blog post.  But if I had to offer a teaser for yet another way to bring honesty back, I think it would imply taking a harder look at what is measurable and what isn’t measurable and to find a way to come to terms with the fact that a lot of the highest leverage acts of transformation are not easily measurable with our current tools. We need to measure.  Let us get our heads together in order to find the measuring tools that would bring honesty back.

Our Story (Climate Chance) Text Version

About Climate Change

What interests us is not whether climate change is really happening, or human-induced. Because, firstly, we are students, not professors, secondly, the scientists may well be wrong. But what is interesting is the reality highlighted by how human beings have responded upon accepting this “assumption.”

What does this assumption imply?

Assuming that scientists are correct, that climate change is human induced, this would have two implications, firstly, the impact resulting from actions of human beings are equivalent to a geological force of the planet.

Secondly, this would mean that the feedback loop of a system of such a scale is usually longer than human beings are able to comprehend, at least until the system reaches a tipping point.

It is like blowing a candle, if one exerts a force smaller than the system, the system will only flicker, but if equal to or greater to the system itself, it will fundamentally alter— The candle will turn into smoke.

Translate to climate science, the tipping point means 2 degrees temperature rise.
How much time do we have under this assumption? The scientists says that from 2007, the earth’s average temperature has risen by 0.74 degrees in the period from 1906 to 2005.

The latest science allows 1000 billion CO2 emission from 2000 to 2050 if the temperature is kept at 2 degree. From 2000-2009, we have used 1/3 of the quota.

The Reality of Human Response

Here is what is interesting, for those who accepted the above assumption of climate change and acted on it, the way they did so was to reduce green house gases (GHG), such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, i.e. CDM emission trading, carbon capture and storage technological developments or citizens driving less.
Much of the discussions and of the United Nations international negotiations are framed under this approach, so are many NGO’s campaigns targeting individuals’ low-carbon lifestyle.

But the funny thing is Carbon dioxide is a a product of every living creature’s breathing. Plants absorbing carbon dioxide in the air, and when they die, some of the carbon become trapped and turn into fossil fuels buried under the ground. Unfortunately, most of our energy comes from burning these fossil fuels, turning millions of years’ accumulation into a sudden pulse of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, quicker than the living plants are able to absorb.

Looking closer at the previous graph, the planet has been self-balancing itself for the at least the past 8000,000 years.

We cannot solve problems with the same mindset that created them - ALBERT EINSTEIN

To be continued….

Climate Chance
A paradigm shift

HAPPYYYY!!! :)

I have just got invitation from DGS that we can go for a talk there about 350 collage on 21st or 28th (monday) from 12:30-12:55p.m.

We will probably share the one-hour timeslot with HIF (humanity in focus) because they also want to go for talk and the school wants to merge us on the same day due to similarity between us - global and non-academic issues.

Please state your availability in the following doodle link:

http://www.doodle.com/fxdx3yesekznphtkty7dscqa/admin

We really need people to come and present with us to show our unity and also DGS girls, I have to admit, are quite smart haha. They have high standards and expectations that we have to be careful with our presentation to make sure that it’s of high-quality and not boring! or else they will get slept haha :P

I have been thinking and thinking again on the incentives.

I understand that the rationale behind not awarding photos or no competition is that we don’t want students to take photos because of the material awards. Yet it is actually just based on the assumption that the awards are monetary.

After a very brief discussion with Jessica, I suggest that we can actually merge it with our pledge talks. the photographers of those photos chosen by us to post on flickr can go to our talks and panels of the pledge activity and join the “make their own pledge” activity afterwards.

is it anyway a good idea?

PLEASE GIVE ME COMMENTS! :)

love you all,

stephanie

Conversation of Paradigm Shift III- Ownership

Ask the single most important question:

How have I contributed to creating the current reality?

Why?

Confusion, blame, waiting for someone else are defences against ownership and personal power. A subtle denial of ownership is innocence and indifference “it does not matter to me –whatever you want to do is fine” – a lie or a polite way of avoiding the difficult conversation around ownership”

Every conventional gathering begins with the unspoken belief that whoever called the meeting has something in mind for us. We are inundated with the world trying to sell us something. So much so we cannot imagine that this time will be different. This is why so much talk is about others not in the room.

2-Examples of Early questions (small group discussion, remind not give advice or be helpful)

-    How valuable an experience (project, community) do you plan for this to be?
-    How much risk are you willing to take?
-    How participative do you plan to be?
-    To what extent are you invested in the well-being of the whole?

The Guilt Question- late stage when people feel connected

-    What have I done to contribute to the very thing I complain about or want to change?

Stories…

By naming the stories we hold, we can take the limiting power out of it, allow it to stay in the past and creates an opening to move foreword.

Part III of the elements of Conversations of Paradigm Shifts
1-    Invitation
2-    Possibility
3-    Ownership
4-    Dissent
5-    Commitment
6-    Gifts