Self interest is why we should help, and why people will.

To continue the class discussion, and further debate why should we help slum dwellers and improve living conditions in slums.

In his book Planet of Slums, Mike Davis proposes that slums are one of the roots of terrorism, and that the scale of economic exclusion that occurs when slums are formed will inevitably lead into violence, drug taking and smuggling, as well as other forms of illegal activities. I for one cannot accept that slums are the only cause of these issues nor that by getting rid of Favelas we will win this so call “war” on terrorism. After all Osama Bin Laden didn’t grow up in a slum, nor was his family poor (on the contrary). However I can believe that slums provide a more productive breeding ground for those who want to recruit and train people to join extremist causes, or simply into drug trafficking or prostitution.

To follow the line of thought that was voiced on Tuesday that these illegal activities are a cause of slums, and that we should accept it as a natural consequence until “mother earth” sorts it out with some sort of mud slide or perhaps even bubonic plague is highly dangerous. It would be like saying, let the heroin addicts do there thing, I’m sure HIV will wipe them out eventually. Furthermore to suggest that we should spend the money on relief funds for when the terrorist attack/ armed robbery/ drug trafficking/ prostitution ring reveals its ugly outcome is naïve. This would clearly be a false economy, as the price of dealing with these outcomes will inevitably rise as the slums continue to grow. Far cheaper would it be in the long run to attempt to find a solution to the causes.

It is easy to get carried away in this line of thought and start believing that all slum dwellers are prone to becoming involved in illegal activities, that all slum dwellers live in total squalor, surrounded by pollution, excrement and decay- and this is simply not true. There are many people who live in shantytowns who work in the public sector, and are reasonably happy with their situation. However this is further reason why we should help improve infrastructure, sanitation, schooling etc…

I will concede that by continuously offering to “improve” slums the international community (donor countries, NGOs and multilateral agencies) run the risk of wanting (and trying) to impose a way of life, aspirations and rules of social behaviour on people, that are inappropriate, unwanted and maybe not needed. This should be avoided at all costs and it is exactly this criticism that has been raised against the World Bank institutions, international donors and NGOs in relation to many of the grand scale ideas and projects that have been promoted and financed over the years. It is not up to the “international community” (whoever they may be) to impose a way of life on people; it is up to those people to create one for themselves. I see the giving of a Noble prize to the founder of the movement for “micro-finance” and the growth of and support given to this form of very basic financing for individuals and communities who are otherwise cut off from the capital they need to self-improve as a sign that there is a recognition that we need to do things differently.

I recognise the moral obligation to at least attempt to ensure that no person should have to go without basic amenities (such as clean water and sewerage) or live and sleep in total squalor under the fear that things could get a lot worse tomorrow. If by doing this and improving the worst slums, we by result help reduce crime, terrorism and other forms of extremist antisocial behaviour, then that should be supported and encouraged. The moral obligation then becomes a matter of self-interest and self-interest usually motivates people more than their morals.

Massive Change; A New Type Of Design.

“The twentieth century will be chiefly remembered by future generations not as an era of political conflicts or technical inventions, but as an age which human society dared to think of the welfare of the whole human race as a practical objective.” (Arnold J. Toynbee, 1889-1975).

It was clear in Tuesday’s lecture that this was not a notion shared by most. Personally, I believe that design is everywhere; it can concern anyone and anything. Most of the individuals referenced below do not consider themselves as designers, but they speak of “designing systems, designing organisations, designing organisms, designing programs. We must admire and participate in the efforts of these thought-leaders or risk losing them.”

“Most of the time we live our lives within invisible systems, blissfully unaware of the artificial life, the intensely designed infrastructures that support them.”

“Accidents, disasters, crises. When systems fail we become temporarily conscious of the extraordinary force and power of design, and the effects that it generates. Every accident provides a brief moment of awareness of real life, what is actually happening, and our dependence on the underlying systems of design.”

In considering alternative housing for slum-dwellers, Katy suggested the need for affordable design that is also appealing. Carol Burns of Taylor and Burns Architects also maintains a similar position and argues that “it’s true that manufactured housing too often has looked cheap and has been stigmatized in various locations because of it. But I believe that good design need not cost more than poor or inattentive design.”

Currently, a solution to the ‘slum problem’ seems impossible, especially when the Third World consists of “entrepreneurs who struggle to build informal urban environment by hand. What if we were to design a property system that supports this?” Individuals such as Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian economist who redesigns property law to grant property rights to the poor, show that problems like these can be solved.

It has become a common misconception that “if people have a roof, they have shelter.” De Soto argues that “people need more than a roof. You need that roof in the system.” Olivier mentioned a project in Shanghai that aimed to eliminate slums. Unfortunately, the solution considered the province of Shanghai in separatist terms; the system should have been implemented throughout the whole country to create a full effect, and not just in one provincial area. Instead of “isolated parcels of land…it’s now a matter of considering an entire city infrastructure and its connected environs.” Architects tend to build pieces of city without regarding their relationship to the whole. Perhaps change is required in the design practice and in the thinking (of designers) before global change itself can be realised?

As far as the issue of money is concerned, “we now bare witness to an emergence of social entrepreneurs with ethics as powerful as their conviction to do the greatest good for all.” In 1999, Slovakia saw an increase from 10 to over 10,200 citizen groups in 10 years, whilst Brazil increased its citizen groups from under 5,000 to over 1,000,000. There are many citizen groups, nongovernmental organisations and non-profit associations (such as Bill Drayton’s Ashoka) that share the same goal.

Poverty reduction through design rejects the binary notion of the client/designer relationship, and observes current events. Problems are adopted everywhere, whilst ideas are developed and tested against other solutions. The effect of this is “to imagine a future for design that is both more modest and more ambitious. It is critical that the discussions go beyond the design fields themselves and reach out to the broadest audience” i.e. to those directly affected by the work of designers. Only then can we bring about Massive Change.


References and Further Reading:

• Massive Change by Bruce Mau and the Institute Without Boundaries, especially the Urban Economies and Wealth & Politics chapters.
• Taylor and Burns Architects, Carol Burns.
• The Institute for Liberty and Democracy (Lima, Peru), Hernando de Soto.
• Ashoka, Bill Drayton.
• It's Not How Good You Are, It's How Good You Want To Be by Paul Arden.
• Planet of Slums by Mike Davis.

Change one thing!

As you may know, with the powers of persuasion and regulation the Aussie Government have recently introduced a ban on incandescent light bulbs, persuading the public to switch to fluorescent bulbs which use less energy and omit less green house gases. In incandescent light bulbs, electricity flows through a filament to create light, but much of the energy is wasted in the form of heat.

Australian Prime Minister, John Howard’s approach is to unite Australia in this potentially huge global change to the environment, this seems like an obvious route to take, but its a first to create a ban on light bulbs, something seemingly so trivial.
Howard’s been quoted as saying “Here’s something practical that everybody will participate in”
This statement enforces a feeling of ‘follow the leader’.
When it comes to making a change in the environment, it has usually taken a minority of environmentalists to test the water to induce a change.
But it now seems a ‘trend’ for being eco-friendly has been born! No longer is it a stereotyped job for ‘hippies’ to fight for change on behalf of the environment, now the average Joe can join in, and be respected for his contributions too!
Many of us Brits have already jumped on the ‘eco- friendly’ band wagon, but the English “I don’t care, I won’t be around when that happens” approach still feels like we have too much choice, there should be more pressure from our government, to crack down on this climate problem.
And could we feel more climate-self-assured if Tony Blair followed in Howard’s footsteps? Blair has swapped his light bulb above No.10 to a florescent one! Surely he can promote the importance of changing to florescent bulbs nationally, by contributing to the incandescent bulb ban.

However, Australia still refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol; an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC)
The Kyoto Protocol covers more than 160 countries globally, including the UK.
Isn’t it rather embarrassing that a country as un-green as Australia is showing up Britain?
It is said that Australia’s switch to fluorescent bulbs could prevent 4 million tons of carbon emissions being pumped into the atmosphere, and would cut household power bills by 66%, by 2012.
If this turned into a global fashion 16 Billion tons of gases would also be prevented from harming our environment.

Cuba had launched the same scheme, two years ago, but more so to prevent electrical blackouts around the island. California is now considering a similar ban on the light bulbs, hopefully the remaining states of America could consider this too!
By changing this one simple element in the household has Australia created an international panic button?
And although florescent bulbs are slightly more expensive than standard bulbs, it seems a small price to pay on our part! Change your light bulb and help save the world!!

www.msnbc.msn.com
The Guardian