Humanly Possible Part I: Questions and AFGEs

It has been a while since I posted, as I have been working on several interrelated ideas.  In an effort to start moving those thoughts from my head and into the cyber-world, I am using this post as an introduction to the experiences and questions that I have been chewing on over the past couple of months.  Just for clarification, this post is not meant to be a metaphysical quandary about what we can achieve if we simply visualize a better world or life; but, rather, is intended as a jumping off point for a more practical dialogue. Subsequent posts in this series will be written in a more concrete and less philosophical vein, and will share external resources and solutions that I have come across while mulling over the contemplations you will read below.  

 

'We gain strength, and courage, and confidence by each experience in which we really stop to look fear in the face... we must do that which we think we cannot.'  - Eleanor Roosevelt

'Only one who devotes himself to a cause with his whole strength and soul can be a true master. For this reason mastery demands all of a person.' - Albert Einstein

Earlier this year, I went to watch an acrobatic and dance performance with a dear friend.  It was breath-taking; and as we discussed the routines post-show, we wondered about how it could be “humanly possible” to do what these performers did.  They had practiced, refined, developed and adapted to be able to use their bodies in a manner that most of us have trouble conceptualizing.  About a month after this performance, I watched another show that came into town, the mighty storm Sandy.   New Yorkers now talk frequently about Sandra - the unexpected power of the wind and water, and the residual and insidious effects of stress on individuals and communities. We also discuss the surprising responses to the storm, for good and for bad - the government entities and communities that rose to the challenge in truly inspiring ways, but also fell far short in other ways.  Over that past year, I also experienced a personal crisis that has reframed much of how I think about public and social policy; and given me a heightened sensitivity to pain, struggle, and possibility in the world around me. As I healed from my hurts, I discovered that my personal strength and resources were deeper and more responsive than I had imagined.  I also re-learned that developing some strength is directly correlated with an active acknowledgement of current limitations.

Which leads me to these questions: What is humanly possible?  How do we effectively access our potential, while recognizing our restrictions?  How do we move past apathy, complexity, and pain to meet the major challenges in our world?

When someone in our family is going through a difficult time, we comfort each other with the wisdom of my grandfather: “You are so much stronger than you think or know you are.”   It may not seem like the most comforting thing to say, but it is very supportive.  The support comes in the acknowledgement that the burden being carried is scary, heavy and difficult and that no one else can truly carry your burden for you.  This support is an encouragement that, even if you need to stop and gather your strength, the strength and resources are already there to utilize. It is a way of calling out resiliency with a simple statement.  It is like the deep, directed breath that an athlete takes in, to remind the body that it is an interconnected system with oxygen and blood available to build and catalyze the muscle and stamina for the current challenge.  We have another saying in my family during times of struggle, a code word of sorts, AFGE (Another Fucking Growth Experience).  We say it to each other to avoid taking things too seriously; but also to focus on the lessons to be gained and not the problem alone.  So, how can we take this same approach to acknowledge societal challenges, and activate our shared strengths and resources to meet those challenges? How do we utilize our societal AFGEs to move forward and achieve more?

In the arenas of social policy, public health, and international development, we essentially focus on how to make the world a “better” place (trite and corny as that may look): more equitable, safer, more productive, with more liberty, more justice, etc.  Yet, we fall short of our aspirations - we move slower than we anticipated, we miscalculate interrelated dynamics, we are unprepared for events that derail our progress, we inefficiently allocate resources and we create unnecessary obstacles. It is essential to acknowledge our struggles and limitations in order to move past them; but there is also a danger that we might use this acknowledgement as an excuse for complacency and inaction. 
In short, we are limited, but we can do so much more with the resources we already have – History has shown evidence of this capacity; we are stronger and better than we think we are. 

Here are some of the limitations to effective social policy that I hope to address in subsequent posts, as we consider how to leverage our collective strengths to more fully meet the challenges in front of us:

o   Imagination and innovation – Seeing beyond what currently exists

o   Physical laws – Real barriers like hurricanes, climate change, and disease do exist

o   Big picture perspective – Humans have limited capacity to see all the variables at play and how they interrelate at any given moment

o   Personal needs – People are motivated and hindered by complex individual realities: financial, emotional, psychological, familial, ego needs

o   Coordinating resources– There are many efforts and resources that could be used and coordinated more efficiently if the time and resources existed to coordinate them  (now that is a conundrum!)

What are your thoughts?  I’d love to hear them!

Goldilocks and the Three Government Interventions: Looking for policy size that is “just right”

 

“Since we live in a moving world and change with our interaction in it, every act produces a new perspective that demands a new exercise of preference.” – John Dewey

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." –John Stuart Mill

Frodo: “I wish none of this had happened."

Gandalf: “So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.” 

 – Lord of the Rings

Soda, Oil, Ivory….What do they all have in common?  Well, they have all been major headlines in the news over the past month, but they also represent a critical debate about the role of government as we work to negotiate our social contract with our political leaders.  Additoinally, they all represent a theme of supply, demand, and the consequences of over-consumption.   For soda, a ban might be too much; for ivory, a ban seems appropriate, but not enough; for oil, more restrictions are certainly needed.

On September 13, 2012, the NYC Board of Health voted to accept and implement a ban on the sale of large sodas at food preparation venues under the city’s regulation.  This ban has been framed as a step in the fight against obesity, but it was also viewed as a paternalistic over-stretch of government power. Further, public debate on the issue was severely limited, as was the opportunity for health education that could have been facilitated through such debate.  The evidence that such a ban on the sale of large sodas in a limited set of venues will have the intended goal of decreasing the number of over-weight and obese individuals living in NYC is quite equivocal. Beyond this, though, is the question of how much the government should intervene in the private food choices of the populace. Where do we draw the line?

In May of 2012, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs held hearings on a dramatically increasing trend of elephant slaughter in sub-Saharan Africa, fueled by the global demand for ivory.  In 1989, the world implemented a ban on the ivory trade in a, largely effective, attempt to protect these magnificent creatures from a brutal slaughter.  This resurgence is not only disturbing for those of us who feel empathic pain for elephant families, and who want to protect the elephants for our own happiness  and for future generations.  As pointed out in a blog by a colleague I studied with, the politics surrounding this slaughter have dramatic implications for the humans and communities who are quite literally caught in the cross fire; and there are deeply rooted economic, cultural and religious motivations at play. The policy solutions here will not be simple to construct or implement. 

In November of 2012, the U.S.A will elect or re-elect its next president. The rhetoric of the public debates leading up to this election tell a dramatic story about how corporations dictate our democratic process, and the way we conceptualize individual rights and our collective responsibility to protect the environment and the world in which we live. Sadly, as outlined in a recent NY Times article, the debate about energy policy in the mass media has turned in the favor of fossil fuel consumption and the protection of the oil industry. This, despite all the evidence regarding fossil fuel consumption in relation to the present and impending climate change. How much power does the corporation really have in relation to the individual and collective voice of the citizenry?

The truth is that the lines of appropriate government intervention are very, very grey and paradoxes abound. The ability of democratic governments and policy makers to design and pull the right levers at the right time for a positive, synchronized impact has been historically inconsistent at best. There is a time and place for direct government regulation and enforcement in the market, a time for public education and behavior change interventions, and a time for restricting the influence of powerful stakeholders in order to create a more open and honest discourse.  The consequences and benefits of these actions varies greatly and is sometimes unpredictable, but we will all feel the impact of these government policies. There simply is no one-size-fits-all policy model for every policy problem – it is a delicate balance. In these three examples, however, it is clear that we have not achieved the healthy and appropriate balance of government intervention and public debate at the local, national or international levels.

For myself, I have never been a soda-drinker, but I am a resident of NYC and a public health professional.  In a limited resource environment, the question for me has become – Why are we spending this kind of time, money, and energy creating and enforcing this soda ban when the city of New York has much bigger issues to tackle, with strategies that could be much more effective?  For example, more resources could go to the improvement of public education and equitable access to safe and high quality schools throughout the city. I am not convinced this is the right political process, intervention, time or place for this type of government action.  Perhaps, if managed strategically, this will ignite a broader debate on a national- and international-scale about the food industry as a whole, which would be a good thing.

I love elephants and can’t imagine a world without them and cry every time I read an article about this slaughter.  However, I also care very much about the impact of political instability, human rights, and fair and equitable justice as a part of law enforcement when protecting elephants.  This is a problem that requires discourse with local communities in both Asia and Africa to address demand and suppliers, alongside global cooperation for the strategic policy construction and training for appropriate enforcement at local, national and international levels. This is both a security and environmental problem that is context-specific. As with the oil industry and the food industry, it is clear that no singularly-designed intervention is enough and that sustainable solutions will always require concerted diligence and creativity.

I am very concerned about the environment and the climate change we are seeing.  I believe the regulation of the energy industry is essential and is the appropriate role of government.  This is a crisis. In many ways the clock has already run out and we don’t have time for a prolonged capitalist vs. socialist debate.  The type of so-called paternalism seen with the Bloomberg soda-ban might be appropriate when it comes to protecting the environment and more intensively regulating the fossil fuel industry. 

What the intersection of these three issues demonstrates, for me, is that policy discourse remains very much dependent on the underlying philosophical perspectives, and egos, of the discussants (I know…SHOCKER!); and, less so, on the specifics of the policy issue and the available, pertinent knowledge to assist in addressing the issue.  Which leads me to explicitly state my biased philosophical perspective: We are all very much interconnected by an intricately woven natural, economic and political environment. Thus, we should remove the “us” vs. “them” discourse from our social contract negotiations with the government if we want to see real progress.  Let’s embrace our freedom to demand, through our words and actions, policies that are effective in achieving healthier and more productive outcomes for society and individuals; regardless of how these policies fit into the prescribed packages of “right and wrong”, “liberal or conservative”, “progressive or traditional”, “capitalist or socialist”.