(I)
If you chance upon the unspent hour, and turn to thinking of the future, you might ask yourself where to begin?
A series of questions: Where? What? Who? How? Why?
How to structure your efforts to build happiness and virtue?
(II)
I would like to make the argument that the first question should be - where? - because I think it of much importance that, sometimes and in some cases, especially now, we put world first, but before arguing this case I think it proper to put down the different possibilities. In terms of scope, simply, there is global, regional or continental, national and then local. In theory, in terms of application, I suppose it is best for all of us to have an appreciation of all these scopes, to be comprehensive, inclusive and understanding, each in their place, according to the situation, but I am also happy with the idea that we prioritise for ourselves according to individual preferences, positioning and capabilities. I am fine with Mr Local sticking to his allotment and community club, and I can just about imagine being fine with Mr National and Mr Global. More dubious is the view that there is an objectively correct priority for all of us, globalism, nationalism, localism…
Our collective investments are made for the most part at a national level. Certainly this is true in terms of social structure, and even if becoming more global, I think still also true in terms of business. Our experience as individuals sits largely somewhere between the local and the national, and so then too does our shared social experience, and therefore our emotional bond, mutual appreciation, for culture, for each other.
Historically we can see the dynamic of enlargening scope, localism shifting towards nationalism with technological development, and nationalism towards globalism. There are both positive and negative effects of such enlargement, excessive and counter-productive competition occurring between countries over an ever-wider area being one of the main downsides.
One's feeling for nation, as has recently been seen, takes on a different light where applied to mature economies, or declining parts of them, compared to that invested in strong growth.
That we prevent excessive competition is of course one of the main reasons for our global structure. That we leverage the value to co-operation is the other. Whilst competition can bring an edge, and lead forwards, most of doing sits within co-operation, individuals co-operating. Where we are constructive, where we are productive, where we are educative, we are co-operative.
One case for world first is that to be at our most constructive, or at our best, we need global co-operation. In part this is because of the interdependence of geographies and areas of potential, peace comes before prosperity, but too there is the logic of more rather than less finding fulfillment at the level of whole, in terms of efficiency, output, stability, well-being… World is not only our best but our base, our platform for progress. Structure is of primary importance in construction.
Regionalism then is an advanced level of co-operation, which ideally feeds into globalism, nation then into region and locale into nation. The quality of the structure might be viewed in terms of its efficiency, or sustainability, with for example short supply chains via localism having a value for the world.
Our structure may be deemed as inefficient where there is excess investment, for example the misalignment between feeling for nation and the recent low growth of mature economies, which results in negative emotion and aggressive activity. One question we must answer then is how to shift some of the energy away from negative return, persuading towards positive development at a local, national, regional or global level.
Part of the solution might come through education and experience, emotion then being reallocated.
Education might consist of the value to global development and humanitarian efforts: reducing the number of people that live on less than a dollar per day; that peace and prosperity would lead to lower migration levels; the importance of international growth to that of the nations; the value of international culture.
I don't know how feasible it is but I like the idea of increasing engagement in global development by building a connection between the individual and the area of potential, whether through pension schemes, or taxation and a central budget, or shared local government investment certificates, or otherwise.
Another part of the solution might come through further support for localism: community regeneration; environment and well-being; industries of provenance…
Sadly, we see the stoking of nationalist fervour, hostility in international relations, and the idea that declining industries in mature countries can be revitalised through increased protectionism.
Just as the over-investment of positive feeling for home might be seen as an inefficiency, misaligning notions of the good with areas of low structural success, so might too the allocation of negative feeling for other countries. The geographic segmentation of our global structure is dangerous when it comes to blame. Whereas governmental responsibility is to some degree a question of nation, morality and culpability are best considered at the level of the individual, across one or many countries. Punishment is of course another question, and an alternative might be selected if accounting for the declensions of cause - that much is first historical, or perhaps first general to our species, and then contextual or environmental.
(III)
Then there is the question of what? Here I would make a segmentation between the focus of the activity, thinking that the benefit might be direct or indirect, the type of activity, whether its objectives are concerned with business or social development, and then the level of the activity, from reading and sharing to driving out there and doing.
Direct is concerned with investing in an area of potential, for example education in Africa. Indirect is concerned with generating a benefit for others as a side effect of the main activity, through economic opportunity or taxation.
Beginning with the indirect, perhaps there is another major area of inefficiency in stock emotional attitudes to private and public sector activity, or in other words capitalism and government.
The systemic value to economic activity and public spending might be more appreciated. If only a penny in the pound, global development might be worth at least as much in motivation. In any case it is on the lighter side of the mix.
This indirect perspective is as important as any other. Productivity in mature countries has been much hampered by a structure that has aimed at primacy in power, damaging the quantity and quality of output. Re-establishing positive domestic structures is a priority in improving the development cycle from mature to emerging markets.
Looking at direct, if considered as need, the extent is heartbreaking, if considered as potential then delimiting, with freedom found in the aspiration to improve upon the present. It is humbling to begin with the idea that we must first meet basic needs for millions upon millions of people, food and clean water, before proceeding to fulfill our potential, at least with such populations, and it shows how little we can afford war.
The structure however from need to potential is a useful perspective, where we should consider not only how to increase productivity and living standards for the poorest, but too how to be at our best in mature economies, knowing that industrialisation and consumerism can detract from individual capacity, in terms of spirit, motivation and creativity, but too in terms of time and resources.
If with rather than without, the types of thing needed, or types of thing to develop potential, stretch as far as you might imagine, whatever exists. Whether education or agricultural productivity, communications technology or transport infrastructure, well-being or business and trade, it is nice to think that more and more of us will help in the future, but the question remains, being so far removed, what can we do?
So then there is the level of activity, where some things are easily done at distance: funding and fundraising; investing; advising; reading, writing, sharing…
To support the things that can only be done locally: digging, planting, delivering, building…
I suppose that we are only at an early stage in the growth of this flow between type of activity, what we need, and level of activity, from at-distance support to local implementation.
Where some wish to direct negative effects, they must be held accountable.
(IV)
In asking questions, we might observe that answers come from the self, and then think of our formation, the structure that has been built that gives us rights and opportunities, and how much the improvements of the past mean to us. From a position of equality and security, we have access to education, encouragement and inspiration to advance, and through ensuing levels of ability, well-being and motivation we now set ourselves such objectives, applying ourselves to them, or working at a certain rate.
Putting people first might then be the most rewarding perspective, as it sits behind do or don't, can or can't. Taking only gender equality as an example, half the population, at a certain quantity and quality of better wherever we are successful, and one can easily think of potential, but too there are education rates among children, racial discrimination, those most in need of help, or those most willing to develop, and beyond these more obvious concerns, our aspect in general.
(V)
Whether just starting or already successful you might consider developing a model for your activity, or supporting others where they employ a model that you particularly admire. First then the basic structure, the set-up, size and scope, for example from SMEs to large corporations, but also covering the type of organisation, the nature of the co-operation between its constituent parts, loose collaboration on the internet or a founding charter for a registered charity. Then comes mode for both doing (activity) and done (product), here thinking of variables such as quality over quantity, positive compared to negative approaches, the manner of conduct, the spirit of enterprise, the way things are carried out and the value(s) contained within the end-result. All of this sits across the complete flow (of activity) from conception to delivery, which should be mapped out to show locations, channels, stakeholders, partners and beneficiaries. With the structure, mode and flow of your model established, the financial implications should then be clear, for you to consider the level of input required for the benefit aimed at.
One aspect of mode to set apart is sustainability, because of the importance of environment to species, and because it is intrinsic to development, continuity a key factor in success. A useful structure then is to consider the different aspects of which sustainable development consists, looking at where to aim improvement. The very simplest is to take only two, (1) economic output at (2) a level of resource utilisation, where the improvement is to increase output at increasing efficiency of utilisation. Better however is to take four, (1) quality of life at (2) economic output at (3) resource utilisation at (4) resource sustainability, to which correspond four major areas for improvement.
One, increase quality of life without further resource utilisation, or with only a limited increase.
Two, understand economic output as a question of added value to raw materials, and optimise the nature of the value added, for increased utility and efficiency, or benefits to quality of life, rather than otherwise.
Three, increase or decrease resource utilisation according to this understanding of value added: increasing development, quality of life, economic utility…; decreasing otherwise.
Four, increase sustainability, from linear consumption towards a circular model.
Other segmentations might be applied to bring focus to the above, for example, in terms of sector (consumption, production, construction, residence, energy…) or value chain (investment, regulation, corporation, consumer…) or approach (bottom-up versus top-down or personal versus cultural) or type of improvement (ease, relevance, growth trajectory or development stage).
For sustainability, it is important to consider environment separately, as an objective in its own right, seeking to prevent harm, improve in its management and grow its natural part, wherever, however, as well as possible.
(VI)
As to why, the argument to make is that for the value of investment, improvement, development, things bringing growth, actions fruitful rather than fruitless, as compared to other types of activity, for example consumption or working towards a change in share through the acquisition or the negation of another. Growth is to be valued in that it is the nature of more rather than less, for us all rather than for one over another, in terms of both quantity and quality. It is also to be valued for increasing efficiency, through which we are able to do more with less.
It is inherently mutual, because the inputs to growth are common, fundamental, and because the outputs, the proceeds of growth, will be shared.
(VII)
To allocate more towards actions with a positive return is key in strengthening our structure for success, but the benefit for the self, in terms of present being and future horizons, should not be overlooked. The benefit exists in self-definition in relation to other over time, raising the individual, in a world in which some would have you trapped in the dreariness of today, so that you may experience with a positive outlook.
Humanity will be better off in a hundred years time. I will it and I work towards it. I am going to have a good year. Today is going to be a good day.
Then you are doing, and time disappears.
Plant an acorn and confer a benefit that lasts for a thousand years, and then you can say, at least I treed.