Promoting Self-Reliance

When I was growing up, it wasn't uncommon for my family to spend a spare afternoon at the nursing home, where we would visit one of my dad's favorite clients. Dorothy Towne was a kind, warm lady, and we considered her to be a dear family friend. She led a very successful life, and had quite a bit of money and assets to her name. When she passed away she appointed my dad to be the trustee of her estate. In the years since, in accordance with her wishes, my parents have created a thriving charitable foundation that does a lot of good for the people of Reno.

Given this background, I'm considering minoring in non-profit management, and going on to play a part in the growth and management of the Dorothy Towne Foundation. Something that my parents and I are very concerned with is the focus (or lack thereof) on promoting self-reliance when doing charitable or philanthropic work. It seems that all too often charity is a fleeting and temporary solution to a permanent problem. Fortunately though, we can look to the Church for a prime example of philanthropy in its most ideal form. I recently read an article in the Deseret News that highlights the influence of the Church's work on philanthropic organizations around the world.

The ability to work for something is a blessing often overlooked. As the above article noted, people can't always pay for the materials to build a well, but they can mix the cement and dig the hole, and that's enough to promote a sense of pride and accomplishment that can inspire future growth.

When Europeans began colonizing the Americas in the 17th century, their friends back home saw a perfect opportunity for philanthropy in its truest sense. They saw the opportunity to give resources to the struggling pioneers, so that they could create a whole new world. Today we have opportunities to reach a new generation of struggling pioneers. There are a whole lot of people out there looking to build a better life for their families and countrymen, but lack the resources to do so. By engaging in a tried and true method of self-reliance based philanthropy, we can give a leg up to those modern pioneers who, like so many before them, are looking to create a whole new world.

Jamestown: Cultures Collide for Better or Worse

I've been trying to look into life at Jamestown a bit, and I watched this video on the History Channel's website:

Anybody else feeling a little LOST de ja vu?  I mean these settlers get to this strange new world, land on the beach, and get attacked by a totally bizarre group of people that live in the forest. But that's not really the point. In fact, I'm not sure I've come to a conclusion of where I want to go with this yet, but here are some ideas:

First of all, there is clearly a foundation of antagonism between cultures that's being laid here. But what about the befits they'll reap from learning from each other's peculiar practices? I'm still looking for some solid connections, but I think the Internet is a nice medium for culture convergence today. Like Hannah Stebar mentioned, widespread information creates a number of opportunities for students in underdeveloped countries. I'll be interested to see though whether there have been any negative effects on relationships between cultures and nations as a whole.

Perhaps one example would be public perception of Muslim-Americans due to media coverage of international relations with Middle Eastern countries. I also wonder if anyone that has had any experience outside of the U.S. has seen any examples of the "American Elitist" attitude spreading over to the Internet. This really has no basis. I'm just spitballing. I'll keep looking in to it and if anybody has any input it would be much appreciated! 

Overcoming the Fool's Ultimatum

In my last post, I talked a bit about the crippling polarity we see in our culture today. Thanks to some ideas from a couple of books that have been on my radar lately (Crucial Conversations by Kerry Patterson, and The 3rd Alternative by Stephen R. Covey), this idea has been on my mind for a couple of weeks now.

First of all, I need to explain exactly what I mean by the fool's ultimatum. I'm referring to the plague of 2-way thinking that is instilled in all of us from the time we start kindergarten. Take for example the classic classroom debates. You take a group of kids, divide them up according to position on a particular issue, and have them adamantly and passionately defend their point. In these forums, there's no such thing as compromise. Now don't get me wrong, debating skills are a great thing to develop, but they also instill a deep sense of 2-way thinking during the most formative years. In my experience I have found that compromise and innovation are becoming increasingly hard to come by. This can be seen in the public school systems, in the political arena, and even in personal relationships. Take for example a couple that is having relationship issues. They might each be thinking that there are only two options: either suck it up, or talk about their issues and hurt their partner. But maybe that isn't always the case. Maybe that's a fool's ultimatum. Maybe there is another way.

During his college years, Martin Luther King Jr. was known for his aptitude for "3rd alternative" thinking. His teachers noted that he had an uncanny ability to develop a thesis, counter it with an antithesis, come to a synthesis, further counter that synthesis with an antithesis, and so on until he reached an entirely new conclusion. This willingness to stray from the conventional, and understand the opposition enabled King to become one of the most influential figures of the 20th century. This kind of thinking produces a kind of synergistic result that rises above the standard solutions presented by unoriginal and unyielding minds.

Right now, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is sponsoring a project that embodies this synergistic thinking, and is working a product that will change millions of lives. The project is made up of a coalition of specialists in a number varied and diverse fields, who came together to come up with a solution to a big problem: malaria. As the group began to brainstorm ideas, one of the rocket scientists in the group playfully suggested that they shoot infested mosquitos out of the sky with lasers. But what began as a laughable suggestion became the crux of the project. The team combined their specialties to design a laser that can literally shoot the mosquitos out of the sky. If these lasers were to be mounted on fences, they could line the perimeters of villages across Africa, saving countless lives. Surely this is something to strive for. The idea was an unconventional and almost humorous one, but this unique group of individuals gave it serious consideration, and made it work.

So what does this mean for us? Well, aren't we all a group of diverse individuals using digital tools to convene and build on each other's unique ideas? We have the power to attain this synergy. We can release early and release often; we can develop thesis, antithesis, and synthesis for as long as it takes to come up with something sound and worthwhile. We can share information at no personal cost, and, better yet, we can acquire information at no personal cost. So I'd like to suggest that we try to tackle the urge to stand by the same old ideas, and instead try to create something new using the tools and the power that have been given to us by the synergistic thinkers that came before us.

Too Much of a Good Thing

In 1682, John Locke went in to exile in Holland after expressing views regarding freedom of religion and the rights of citizens, which were contrary to the beliefs and aims of the King. A number of more prominent revolutionaries were executed for similar, yet admittedly more outspoken, views. The idea of exile and execution for expressing views contrary to authority is something that is quite foreign to us. In fact, it's downright troubling.

Over 300 years later, we have run in to a different problem. As a junior in high school, I remember being openly mocked by a few unsavory classmates for faithfully standing and saying the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. What's worse, defense of and loyalty to then-president George W. Bush was often met with a great deal of scorn. Fast forward a few years and I find myself doing the same thing to the Democrats. Of course I think I have a bit more tact, and I try to focus more on policy differences than personal attacks, but I still have a hard time accepting the ideas of those on the other side of the debate.

Let me clarify: by no means do I think the right to question our political leaders is a bad thing. On the contrary, it's what makes America work. However, I fear that we may be taking a good thing too far. Since the 17th century, civilization has gradually allowed more freedom to share ideas that extend farther and farther toward the end of the spectrum. There has become little or no grey area; instead we have all been compelled to chose between black and white, right or left. What's more, people are passionate and unyielding. The paradoxical and hypocritical nature of our culture is staggering and frightening. Extremist groups such as the Tea-Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements are garnering more and more support from those who once stood on neutral or moderate ground. The art of compromise is quickly dying, but the art of war is heating up.

So what do I suggest? Well, maybe we should censor the Internet. I don't know. Or maybe we just need to regain a little bit of our humanity. Although we can't compel others to follow our lead, we can at least set the example by putting Christ first in our lives and remembering to love everyone (even those who express views contrary to our own). Our freedom of speech and thought is precious; let's not abuse it.

Go About Doing Good

In church yesterday we had a high councilman and his wife visit our ward. Their topic: going about doing good. Sister Thueson spoke about service success stories and the like, but Brother Thueson took a slightly different approach. For the majority of his talk he outlined the history of smallpox. Smallpox was once one of the deadliest diseases on the earth. It called almost everyone it came in contact with, but if you were lucky enough to survive it, you almost always went blind. The disease became a problem in the western hemisphere in the beginning of the 17th century, and early treatments left quite a bit to be desired. Noted English doctor Thomas Sydenham developed a treatment for the disease that one of his patients, Thomas Dover, describes in shocking detail:

“Whilst I lived in Dr Sydenham’s house, I had myself the Small Pox, and fell ill on the Twelfth Day. In the beginning I lost twenty two Ounces of Blood [from bloodletting]. He gave me a Vomit, but I find by Experience Purging much better. I went abroad, by his Direction, till I was blind, and then took to my Bed. I had no Fire allowed in my Room, my Windows were constantly open, my Bed-Clothes were ordered to be laid no higher than my Waste. He made me take twelve Bottles of Small Beer, acidulated with Spirit of Vitriol, every twenty Four hours. I had of this Anomalous Kind [of smallpox] to a very great Degree, yet never lost my Senses one Moment.”

So the best they could do was make the patients uncomfortable and give them beer to dull the pain. Fortunately, the practice of variolation eventually took hold. In early 18th century Turkey, the practice was already in full swing. Lady Mary Wortley Mantague wrote to a friend about the practice after having her six-year-old son variolated:

 

“…I am going to tell you a thing that I am sure will make you wish yourself here. The small-pox, so fatal, and so general amongst us, is here entirely harmless by the invention of ingrafting, which is the term they give it. There is a set of old women who make it their business to perform the operation every autumn…. The old woman comes with a nut-shell full of the matter of the best sort of smallpox, and asks what veins you please to have opened…. She immediately rips open that you offer her with a large needle … and puts into the vein as much venom as can lie upon the head of her needle…. Every year thousands undergo this operation…. There is no example of any one that has died in it; and you may believe I am well satisfied of the safety of the experiment…. I am patriot enough to take pains to bring this useful invention into fashion in England; and I should not fail to write to some of our doctors very particularly about it, if I knew any one of them that I thought had virtue enough to destroy such a considerable branch of their revenue for the good of mankind.”

Throughout the 18th century the practice began to spread and take hold in the colonies, and eventually the disease was entirely eradicated from the earth. The point of the story? Somebody did good. Somebody had a crazy idea, and saved a whole bunch of lives.

Well, even though small pox is gone, the world still has problems, just like it always has. The thing is, we are already so advanced that it seems like there isn't a lot of room for improvement. But we can't get discouraged. It's on us to do something good. Maybe someday people will look back on us and have a laugh about the way we treated cancer, or the way we dealt with natural disasters. Who knows what will happen in the future. But let's make it good. 

Pushing the Envelope

The 16th and 17th centuries made up a time of discovery and exploration. Philosophers became scientists, astrologists became astronomists, and quite a few Europeans took the first steps toward becoming Americans. That kind of change takes courage, no question, and aren't we all the better for it? Right now we are in the digital age and it is changing rapidly. So I guess my question is: what will I become? Will I adapt and survive? Taking advantage of digital resources can be intimidating. Even more intimidating--the idea that our world is forever changing right before our eyes.

The digital concepts and practices that are emerging have the capacity to make quite an impact on the way our economy and our society functions, and it makes me wonder if there won't be a form of digital darwinism that spreads beyond the business world and into the lives of everyday people. All it takes is a moment of indifference and you've already fallen behind. Keeping up with the digital world will be challenging, especially for our generation, but won't we all be better for it?

How digitally civilized am I?

I've never been very technology oriented, but I've taken a couple of computer science classes at BYU and I'm applying to the ISys program, so I guess that makes me relatively civilized. As far as social media goes, I pretty much stick to facebook. I'm pretty new to blogging and google+, but I bet they'll be good tools to have for this class. It seems like this class will be a good way to broaden my digital range and depth, so I'm looking forward to it!