Peter Singer on Religion & Poverty
Just watched an interesting doco on the ABC with Peter Singer on extreme poverty. The doco is very interesting, but what caught my attention the most (so far) is his critique of the world’s major religions (or more specifically, the leaders of the world’s major religions).
The interviewer points out that Singers attitudes and beliefs surrounding extreme poverty, and the need for humanity to address this problem, is often in line with major religions, and they point out Christianity and Judaism in particular. The interviewer then went on to ask whether he is trying to fill a void left by a decline in interest in religion.
Interestingly, Singer denies this. He instead points out the difference between the teachings of the world’s major religions, and the actions and attitudes that the leaders of these religions, and many of their adherents, have in response to extreme poverty and issues of justice. He points out the void between teaching and the reality of what these religions practice.
It’s a huge wake-up call for Christians, especially as this critique comes from a leading atheist philosopher and ethicist.
Food for thought!
24,000 a day
Numbers are impersonal things. Back in 2005, there was the now famous, and overly clichéd “Click” ad. It was the one where a celebrity would click their fingers every 3 seconds, signifying the fact that a child under 5 dies every three seconds due to treatable and utterly preventable causes.
In 2000, 30,000 children died every day. In 2007, that number had reduced to 27,000. In 2009, that number has now hit 24,000.
UNICEF today released figures backing up this claim, and to be fair, this is amazing news. According to UNICEF, data shows that the under-five mortality rate globally has dropped 28 per cent, from 90 deaths per 1000 births in 1990, to 65 deaths per 1000 births in 2008. In absolute numbers, child deaths have declined to 8.8 million in 2008 from 12.5 million in 1990.
In Malawi, under-five mortality has fallen from 225 deaths per 1000 births in 1990 to 100 per 1000 births in 2008. There have been massive gains and massive wins made worldwide, and countries like Malawi show these gains.
Yet it’s still unacceptable that 8.8 million children die every year before their 5th birthday. At current rates, this reduction will still not see the MDGs achieved in relation to child mortality.
But the worst thing about these numbers is how impersonal they can make the fight against poverty. Numbers as large as 24,000 children dying every day diminishes the effect this has. That is thousands upon thousands of families suffering every day. That is 24,000 individual stories of poverty. It is unacceptable. It is something that everyone should keep in mind. 24,000 is a big number, but it takes on a lot more meaning when you remember there are 24,000 stories behind these deaths, everyday.
Cadbury Dairy Milk goes Fairtrade!
This morning Cadbury Australia and New Zealand announced that their flagship Dairy Milk product line would be carrying the Fairtrade logo in time for Easter 2010 in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Combined with Britaina and Ireland, these five markets will quadruple the benefits of fair trade for cocoa farmers, particularly within Ghana.
According to Cadbury and Fairtrade, by 2010 one quarter of Cadbury Daily Milk global sales (350 million Dairy Milk bars) will be fair trade certified. 20,000 tonnes of chocolate from Ghana will be fairtrade certified through Cadbury’s decision by 2010.
Britain and Ireland’s Dairy Milk stock became fairtrade certified in July 2008, and already £500,000 has been transferred to Ghana to directly help local, sustainable farming communities. This added announcement will increase this amount significantly. By 2018, Cadbury hopes to have directly contributed to lifting 500,000 out of conditions of poverty through it’s fairtrade scheme.
This is massive news for the fairtrade movement and the movement aghainst poverty, and represent the continuing mainstreaming of fairtrade and trade justice issues into public consciousness.
Massive win! 
Needing Support! ActionAid’s Project TOTO
I stumbled upon an awesome project being run by ActionAid Australia the other day called Project TOTO. The aim of the project is, in the world’s of ActionAid, to;
“give poverty a voice by:
- travelling to a remote area of an ActionAid program country
- training locals to use tools such as Twitter and blogs to shine a light on social injustice and human rights abuses
- reporting on your experiences on your own blog”
ActionAid launched this project with Stilgherrian (www.stilgherrian.com) as their first Outreach Blogger for Project TOTO and now they are looking to continue the project, so have launched a nation-wide search for their next Outreach Blogger.
So I’ve decided to throw my name into the pile, and see what comes of it.
But with nominating myself, comes the much needed support. Check out the website at http://www.actionaid.org.au/index.php/Campaigns/project-toto.html and if you feel like it, please support my nomination by commenting at http://blogs.actionaid.org.au/toto/2009/07/01/hello-world/#more-1 – or of course you can nominate yourself!
The Rich and Famous: Madonna, Live8 & Cause Marketing
Madonna, Bono, Matt Damon, the guys from Fall Out Boy, Will Smith, Will.I.Am, and of course Brangelina. No, they haven’t all adopted a child (or two of three) from a developing nation. But they are the faces that crop up, among many others, when people start talking about doing something good with their lives. They are the faces of causes the world over, often referred to as “goodwill ambassadors,” travelling the world in aid of certain causes, issues and campaigns. Then there are the campaigns and issues themselves – which to choose from? From Malaria No More to Product (RED) to the ONE Campaign to Amnesty International to anti-landmine campaigns to PETA, it seems that the chic thing to do is be involved, to be a global citizen.
Yet celebrity engagement with issues and campaigns is not without its critics. There are many that claim that most celebrities only become involved because it furthers their status or careers. Others say that they may be forced by their management to improve their image after an incident (or a series of incident) that are less than great for the celebrity. Still others maintain that while these celebrities may have the best of intentions, the way they go about helping is less than satisfactory. Just think about the ongoing criticisms on Madonna and her adoptions. And there is of course the argument that the celebrity themselves takes away from the larger campaign or issue that they are trying to help, purely because of their celebrity status.
But let’s think about it for a minute. Celebrities are some of the most fortunate people in the world. They command the attention of millions, and when it comes to those celebrities that have attained the “people only need to refer to me with one name status,” such as the likes of Madonna, Bono, Kylie, Pink or the hybrid, two-in-one celebrity that is Brangelina, they are able to hold significant political clout as well. And I would like to have enough hope in humanity to believe that some celebrities, even when surrounded by boundless wealth and fame, still have a concern for those far less fortunate than themselves.
Think back to 2005 and to the Live8 events around the world. Along with the massive celebrity involvement with the Live8 initiative, itself organised by Bob Geldof, there was a mass of support for the UK-based Make Poverty History campaign which quickly spread worldwide. Then there was that famous, and now very much clichéd “Click” ad. You know the one. A person clicks their hand. “Every three seconds a child dies…” and then there is another click of persons hand. A simple ad, yet hauntingly effective when it was first launched. And what about the participants? They were celebrities. In the end, it’s what makes or breaks a great ad.
Some people may not agree with the fact that certain causes and issues need to be “marketed” to gain public opinion. And indeed, not all do. Yet when there is a movement,, whether it be that against poverty or against climate change or anything else, that needs to be sustained for extended periods, marketing is extremely important. And who else is better to use than the faces and profiles of celebrities to promote a cuase that, in the end, is to the benefit of humanity?
Sure, there are the Paris Hilton’s of the world who seemingly don’t care about the world around them (although I’m open to stand corrected on that one!). But if celebrities help promote and further a cause, and to date they have proven themselves to do so, why not use them as a way to promote causes? Surely it is better than promoting the usual. And hey, it makes things interesting!
Twitter, Facebook and changing the world
Something I’ve recently been thinking about is how the seemingly ever-expanding domain of social media, mobile apps and the ways in which people are using the web can have an impact on the world. With the rise of massive social networks (Facebook), microblogging (Twitter et al.), the older blogging platforms (WordPress, Blogspot, etc) and a vast array of smartphone apps (ranging from the extremely useful to the downright dumb), I’ve been thinking about ways in which the rise of this technology can have an impact upon the world, and if it is to have an impact, how it can be effective.
Lets get started with the web. Over the past few years, there has been a rise in the number of “activist” organisations primarily based online. Many of these take the form of political organisations – in Australia there is GetUp! while in the US there is MoveOn.org, with many other examples seen around the world. GetUp, describing themselves as “an independent, grass-roots community advocacy organisation giving everyday Australians opportunities to get involved and hold politicians accountable on important issues,” has (as of today) 327,323 members – more than any political party in Australia combined.
GetUp! campaigns on a huge range of issues, primarily from a progressive political viewpoint. Having so many members allows the organisations to mobilise vast numbers quickly and easily. Their primary unit of action is through email, whereby GetUp! sends members emails asking them to sign a petition in aid of a particular campaign or issue. On top of this base-level engagement (where GetUp! maintains its strength), the organisation also has on-the-ground campaigners around the country, helping in regards to particular issues, campaigns, or throughout election campaigns. MoveOn.org works in an extremely similar way.
Moving up to the international level, AVAAZ.org has an extremely similar structure to GetUp! and MoveOn.org. Avaaz describes themselves as “a new global web movement with a simple democratic mission: to close the gap between the world we have, and the world most people everywhere want.” They go on to describe their use of technology as follows:
Technology and the internet have allowed citizens to connect and mobilize like never before. The rise of a new model of internet-driven, people-powered politics is changing countries from Australia to the Philippines to the United States. Avaaz takes this model global, connecting people across borders to bring people powered politics to international decision-making. (http://www.avaaz.org/en/about.php)
Since being set up, the organisation has 12,952,635 actions taken, has made headlines surrounding some of the most important political summits of the past few years, and has over 3.5 million members from every nation in the world. And it has been around for less than 3 years.
All this action, up until now, has been taken through the forms of opt-in email alerts and similar means of engagement. However, with the rise of other social media technology, the spread and impact of online campaigning, in my opinion, can be increased exponentially.
Twitter recently saw the “revolution” that was #iranelection. For days, and then weeks, #iranelection remained within the 10 trending topics that every twitter user see’s when he or she logs onto the main Twitter site. With the availability and the continuing spread of mobile internet access, along with a huge array of 3rd party twitter clients, tweets regarding the Iranian election and post-election unrest stayed within twitter trending topics for weeks, only being knocked off the post with the death of Michael Jackson.
In the short time that Twitter has been around, political leaders have seen the use and importance of Twitter, with US presidential candidates using Twitter to update followers on their respective campaigns movements, news and events. Barack Obama utilise Twitter along with other social media technologies extremely well, while leaders such as Kevin Rudd still utilise Twitter, well after their election win. Twitter has quickly risen to be a tool for politics and also a tool for civic engagement.
The same thing can be said about Facebook. Leaders and NGO’s the world over have utilised the technology behind Facebook to their benefit, running campaigns, events, rallies and protests (or even the odd flash mob) through technologies developed within very recent memory.
However, This is not the extent of social media, nor is it the extent of new web-based technologies that could potentially be utilised by NGO’s and individuals the world over in efforts to enact change. In just one example, Amnesty International partnered with Google to provide Google Earth with the capability to zoom into the Darfur region of Sudan and enable individuals to see first hand the destruction that has taken place in these areas, along with with information about death tolls, injuries, and human rights abuses that have occured in the area, compiled by Amnesty International. The operability within Google Earth then allowed US individuals to send letters and emails to US representatives and Senators demanding action on the issues surrounding the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
In Australia, web-based technologies worked alongside mobile technologies to power the Face Up To Poverty campaign in 2007, where over 50,000 “photo petitions” were collected in support of the MDGs and for an increase in Australia’s development financing commitments to 0.7% of GNI. In a partnership with Optus making this possible, Make Poverty History ran this campaign to great success. Once photos were taken, they were divided into electorates, and local MP’s received a mass of photo’s of people from within their electorates asking for support of the MDGs.
These campaigns have made me ask myself how social media and other new technologies can apply to the global movement to end extreme poverty. Groups like the ONE Campaign have been implementing certain aspects of web campaigning, in a similar fashion to GetUp! and MoveOn.org, and have also made great use of resources such as YouTube and other video sharing sites. Yet something I have noticed is a lack of a central destination in regards to the social movement. Each nation has its national coalition, such as the ONE Campaign or Make Poverty History, and each of these national coalitions “do” online engagement differently, an to differing levels of success.
So what does this mean?
Bringing together social media, new technologies, on-the-ground activism and emerging ways of engaging with the public in a central place a number of different things in regards to poverty reduction and the movement against poverty:
1) Accountability of developed countries development commitments, along with the progress of developing countries of their implementation of the MDGs etc
2) Provides an avenue for the individual to take action – quickly, easily and with massive effect
3) Provides an educational avenue for individuals – to learn more, get more involved, get linked up with an existing NGO, and in general more involved with the movement against poverty
4) Provides a platform for resources to be distributed globally, quickly and easily.
5) As yet unforseen benefits of social media nd emerging technology
Social media is only just beginning to prove itself – yet its power in citizen-led campaigns, political and social change has already been proven. It’s time to strengthen the global anti-poverty movement’s involvement and engagement with social media and emerging technologies.
After all, why not put the iPhone to use and change the world with it. After all, it does everything except make a coffee!
Balibo
“Balibo,” the new Australian film starring Anthony Lapaglia and Oscar Isaac, is released in Australia August 13th. A few guy from the campaigns team of The Oaktree Foundation in NSW recently saw the film and they are absolutely amazed at the film. Yes, it’s that good. And it’s an Aussie film!
So, what exactly is Balibo about? In 1975, five Australian journalists were shot during Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor. Balibo is presented through the eyes of a sixth Aussie journalist, Roger East, who was lured to East Timor by the now President of East Timor, Jose Ramos-Horta, to investigate what the truth was behind the death of the five journalists. Official government policy said they were caught in cross-fire. Balibo tells a different and chilling story.
So with such a good film just around the corner, The Oaktree Foundation in conjunction with Palace Films is having a special opening night screening of Balibo. Details are:
Thursday 13th August
6:30pm
Palace Academy Twin
3a Oxford St, Paddington
Tickets are $20 each, with half the cost of all tickets sold going towards Oaktree’s funding of the Youth Livelihoods Project, run by Plan Timor-Leste, in the Aileu district of East Timor.
Below is the trailer for the film, and if you would like to come to Oaktree’s opening night screening, please head to our online giving page (http://www.onlinegiving.com.au/pages/balibo.aspx) to pay, and Oaktree hopes to see you there!
