PHILANTHROPY THE SUSTAINABLE WAY

Many people believe that tithing and giving will bring them more wealth. However, I think we need to redefine that wealth. What if we lived simpler lives and consumed less so that we didn’t need millions of dollars? What if we valued our ecosystem services enough to put a dollar value on that?

If we changed our priorities to value true health, wealth and happiness, we could live in a way that didn’t do the damage and harm to people, animals and ecosystems and we wouldn’t need so many non-profit organizations to put a band-aid on the symptoms while the problems persist.  

As a society, we tend to focus on creating mass amounts of monetary wealth, while polluting and exploiting local and global communities and ecosystems, and then we call ourselves good citizens for our philanthropy and tithing. We need to break this cycle. Now, don’t get me wrong, I do believe in donating and volunteering with good non-profits, but if we truly value the mission of these organizations, then why don’t we focus on changing our behaviors first to prevent or reduce many of the problems associated with our high rates of consumption, and then we can supplement with charitable giving for those things that we cannot impact by our lifestyle choices?

Trying to treat the symptoms interdependently without solving the systemic problem is not sustainable. The first step is to reduce the impact, then supplement with better alternatives.  

It is simpler than you think to make these choices and it will optimize your health, wealth and happiness. Who wouldn’t want that?

Here are some examples:

-          If you are concerned about poverty and foreign conflict, buy local or buy fair trade.

-          If you are concerned about children getting asthma, focus on reducing air pollution by minimizing trash generation (even recycling), driving less and curtailing your energy consumption.

-          If you are worried about childhood and adult cancers, don’t buy products with chemicals.

If you must consume, research and understand the life cycle of that consumer product from extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal. So, once you are aware of the life cycle of a product, then buy responsibly, buy (use) less, and buy local or fair trade.

Even 'green' products such as solar panels have a negative life cycle impact on communities and the environment, but they are better than fossil fuels, so reduce energy use first, then supplement with alternatives.

Remember that consumer decisions that encourage and support health, wealth and happiness for others will bring better results for lifelong content. That is real philanthropy. That is sustainable philanthropy.

Some further suggestions for sustainable best philanthropic practices:

- Pick up trash while on a walk or run.

- Help out an elderly, sick, disabled or underprivileged community member.

- Ditch the puppy mills and breeders and adopt a pet. 

- Support local and sustainable farming.

- Use less plastic.

- Drive less.

- Fly less.

Suggested reading: Life's Operating Manual, by Tom Shadyac; Slow Money, by Woody Tasch

An Engineer’s Epiphany

I am an engineer by degree. I love math and science and all things numbers, but I also like the arts and philosophy. I read a book recently titled “How the Hippies Saved Physics”, by David Kaiser, and it is a very important story that I see mimicking the sustainability movement. In a very brief summary, this story is about how most physicists in the early days were also philosophers. They spent time reflecting and pondering many different ideas. Einstein called it ‘daydreaming’. This was really the only way to understand the most complicated of scientific processes, such as quantum physics. Well, once the two world wars were over and we were going into the cold war era, the U.S. government decided that having more trained physicists available would provide the best defense against future enemies. So naturally, they wanted to churn out as many physicists as possible. There is a chapter titled, “shut up and calculate” to mean that the students were not encouraged to spend time in reflection, but rather that all their time was spent learning calculations. Well, the results were that the students did not fully grasp the strange nature of quantum physics and were failing at very high rates.

I see this happening now in sustainability. This push for “faster” is not always better. We want to rush to find the latest “innovation” that will save us from a doomed planet, but we are not willing to change our behaviors. We are not focusing on the systemic problems with this approach, but rather just mask the symptoms.

“Don’t let today’s solutions be tomorrow’s problems” – Michael Pollan.

As engineers, we need to be responsible and be true problem solvers. We need to focus on solving the systemic problems and not just focus on the symptoms independently. Otherwise, we will never see true progress in sustainability, and could even see things get worse if we don’t look at our problems interdependently.

Case in point: Is it really a good idea to focus just on fuel efficiency of cars, when we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic spiraling out of control? What about the fact that we are damaging ecosystems and habitats at an unprecedented rate due to road construction and sprawl? What about those who can’t afford a car or those who wish to drive less, but are living in an area where the infrastructure favors cars? Can’t we shift our engineering focus from increasing miles to the gallon to creating environments that allow us to reduce miles driven?

“Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted” – Einstein.

As a previous sustainability program manager, we were burdened with so many metrics and constant reporting that we didn’t have much time left to focus on the activities that would be much more impactful like discussion based meetings and learning sessions. This is a typical number cruncher mindset of engineers and business managers don’t always want to understand the real issues, but rather see the ‘trend’ in numbers.

I think it is important to measure and understand the amount of Green House Gases (GHGs) we are spewing into the atmosphere, however, many of the things that will make each of our lives more fulfilling and meaningful will automatically reduce our GHGs. Doesn’t this sound like a better solution? A real solution? A sustainable solution?

If we value community and contentment in our lives, we will naturally drive less, live in smaller dwellings and support farmers markets, all of which would make us healthier, save us money and increase security.  It is good to count GHGs, but it is sustainable to focus on resiliency.  

Sometimes us engineers need to slow down and ponder what really needs to happen to achieve a truly sustainable world. This slower paced society would far outweigh what technology can provide for us and it would provide an instant cost savings (in addition to increased happiness) rather than a hefty price to implement. But more importantly, we can do it now, we can do it immediately and we can all participate, not just the technically trained. 

I’m not saying we shouldn’t invest in cleaner technology, but technology alone won’t solve our problems, especially when we try to manipulate natural processes. We first need to make behavioral changes and then supplement with technology. The technology may help reduce GHGs, but it won’t benefit the health, wealth and happiness of the general society.