Questions OCT 13

 PH -147 People; Presentation-Conor

1. Should we be teaching manaakitanga? 116

2. Is indigeneity compatible with cosmopolitanism? 117

3. Why do you think language diversity correlates with biodiversity? 118

4. Might the 30 by 30 movement be a success even if it fails to achieve its stated objective? 119

5. Why haven't we heard more about Lake Chad and other scenes of rapid climate change? 121

6. What's your favorite part of Nemonte Nenquimo's letter? 122-3

7. What would Wendell say about that soil core from Kentucky? 125

8. Were you taught in grade school that "human beings are meant to be a keystone species"? 126 What were you taught about our relation to the rest of living nature?

9. Is it a coincidence that extractive agriculture has been male-dominated? 129 In general, do you think women have a more community-oriented approach? (And if so, how do we account for the political success of so many women who evidently do not?)

10. Do you think the Soul Fire Farm project can be an effective model for cities across the nation, in ending "food apartheid"? 132

Farming While Black

11. Are you surprised by the impact of clean cookstoves? 134 Should we all be moving toward cleaner electrical cookstoves? 

12. Is it shocking that educating girls and women is still such a battle? 136-7 Is that finally going to change in most places around the world (considering, for instance, the present ferment in Iran)?

13. Will you declare an ARK in your yard? 138f.

14. What does it mean to you to call the human component of work the most important? 143

15. Do we rely too heavily on the beneficence of philanthropists? 144f. Should we be against philanthropy when it supplants social responsibility more generally? *

16. Can the divestment movement succeed?

 

* Would the World Be Better Off Without Philanthropists?
Critics say that big-time donors wield too much power over their fellow-citizens and perpetuate social inequality. But don’t cancel Lady Bountiful just yet.

Organized philanthropy, like most things, looks different on the inside than it does from the outside. “Philanthropy” comes from the Greek for “love of humanity,” and public perceptions of it have usually centered on donors and how humanity-loving they really are. The good guys are generous rich people who give to causes we all approve of, like combatting climate change; the bad guys give in order to launder their reputations (like the opioid-promoting Sackler family) or to advance unsavory goals (like the anti-environmentalist Kochs). Either way, the salient questions about philanthropy, for most people, have to do with the size and the quality of a donor’s heart and soul.

In real life, the interaction between big-money philanthropy and philanthropy-reliant institutions like universities, charities, and museums is more of a business negotiation than a morality play. Philanthropists rarely make the large, unrestricted gifts that the receiving institutions really want, and so the two parties bargain: over the purpose and the control of a gift, over the form of credit, over how much the institution has to raise from other sources as a condition of the gift’s being made. In the world of philanthropy, all this is just another day at the office. Yale recently formed a committee to study its relations with donors. That came after the director of its celebrated “grand strategy” program resigned in protest when two major donors tried to exercise what appeared to be a contractual right to create an advisory board for the program. It would be a mistake to view this case as evidence that such requests are rare, or that universities rarely agree to them... (continues)