Dear GKD Colleagues: You guys are great. Churning over your ideas, input and experience has given me so much to contemplate I wish we could have an e-conference in real time; this might prove quite transformative.
Tom Abeles, I loved your succint analysis of the issues. What field are you working in? Andy Lieberman, thanks for your discussion of the the conflicts between donor and project interests, and the benefits of building relationships with donors. I also appreciate the links to the websites that indeed bear similarities to what I was describing. Janice Brodman, best wishes for your work supporting soecio-economic development in Bosnia-Herzogovinia and thanks for sharing your insights there and in India. Arrigo, I hope to learn more details of what you see as a solution. Also, other comments below. My comments are the following: The primary reason given by USA for not increasing aid to Africa is the infrastructure isn't there. From all reports I hear, that is correct. The infastructure isn't there. But what infrastructure do industrialized countries want? They want the same infrastucture they have. But developing countries have learned from experience that this can be a dangerous thing. And so I think the issue is about funneling aid to developing countries who are trying to develop infrastructure at the localized level, according to their needs and values, not the needs and values of the donor countries. The issue of infrastructure doesn't apply to aid programs that are trying to provide emergency relief. Developing countries need food and water and I hope they gain more assistance through whatever means they can acquire it. But the means of acquiring emergency relief should not necessarily be transferred to the problem of long-term solutions. Hopefully, the new infrastructure(s) will be environmentally sustainable, socio-economically and gender just, most likely involving decentralized loci of control and decision making, not the centralized structure of industrialized countries. I genuinely believe that once these holistic, sustainable infrastructures take root in developing countries, they offer opportunity for quick growth and discovery, at a rate that surpasses what is possible in industrialized countries where a conflicting and pre-existing infrastructure intervenes. I personally believe that the reason existing monies are not channeled into such projects is not necessarily due to an ulterior motive. The fact is that there is a real problem in western-educated peoples believing that sustainable, organic agriculture, water treatment, traditional medicine, actually work. Indigenous science is multifactorial and process oriented. It involves different cognitive processes. Indeed, it is even hard for many people in developing countries to believe in sustainable technology, because they associate western technology with wealth and advancement. Sustainable methods do present challenges to be overcome. But comparing them to methods which have been developed with a vast amount of research money, commercial, social, and governmental support is a bit unfair. If as much collective energy went into developing sustainable knowledge, a new world would be possible. The purpose of the website I propose is not only to channel money into good causes; it is to serve as an educational tool for potential donors that when these types of projects are viewed as a comprehensive whole, they can present a highly functional infrastructure. Unlike the globalgiving website, sustainable projects would need to be gleaned from among the other emergency and high technology projects, that are also good, but can be addressed through existing paradigms. The project should also be geared to tap into a grassroots donor base, not the large foundations. I think more individuals would be inclined to donate $100.00, if they knew this $100.00 would not be swallowed up by administrative costs of a large foundation. Arrigo, you bring up a good concern about scamming, which had also occurred to me. Yes, there would be a potential for this, but you need to weigh it against how much money is being wasted through large bureaucratic infrastructures that are legitimate (besides the fact that these infrastructures are not immune to abuse either). Accountability in the terms of documentation costs a lot of money in and of itself. I am proposing that it be replaced by extreme transparency (posting pictures, contact info, physical address). If, for example, a church congregation were considering adopting a project and making large donations, such as to an orphange in Africa, they should be encouraged to send a few members of their congregation over there as scouts. This would still prove cheaper than them trying to run the orphanage themselves. It is also apparent that whether this manifests as a funding website is somewhat immaterial. What we really need to consider is a proliferation of projects --- educational, funding, research, practical application, etc. that manifest this alternative world view. My basic point in this communication is to emphasize that we are talking about establishing a functional alternative infrastructure, not just design a particular website idea. I do think website design can be extremely instrumental in this educational process, however, which is why I am posting to this List, and looking forward to your further input and dialogue. Best regards, Gena Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------ ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/>
