What I Learned From "How To Change The World" (A Course Offered by Wesleyan University via Coursera.org)

Poster for Creek Clean Up by author

I thought the course, How To Change The World*, had an audacious ring to it. That was why I took it. I wanted to find out if it was possible for me to make a difference, wherever I happened to be in my life. I’m so glad I took the course, despite some hesitation (and distractions) at the start, because I ended the class with an actual project that will make a difference in my immediate community.

It directed my focus on action

The course was divided into six weeks, with the fourth week serving as “rest” week so students could catch up with the readings (which were voluminous!). These were the topics, in order, that covered the first, second, third, fifth, and sixth weeks:

• social goods and the commons (resources belonging to a whole community, or even the whole world),
• poverty and development,
• climate change and sustainability,
• disease and global health care and,
• women, education and social change.

It was a broad coverage but it pretty much captured the biggest issues we face as human beings. I liked how the whole course started with the premise that we human beings share a commons, whether it is our biology, our planet, or our systems. It was a good springboard and context for tackling everything else. With every topic, the main questions that we were asked as students were:

What do I know?
Why should I care?
What can I do?

The course was not theoretical though it did not lack in theory. We were challenged to read the facts (I confess that I was really not able to finish all the PDFs and papers that were presented in the syllabus) but beyond that, we were challenged to take action. This, I believe, is where knowledge matters most: when it is put into practice. All the knowledge in the world will not be able to make positive changes. After learning new insights, new methods, new approaches, it makes sense to apply it immediately to one’s life. This was the value I saw in taking up the course. It was designed for application. At one point, I realized that I made a mistake in submitting a multimedia presentation for peer review. It meant that I would not get extra credit. I complained on the forum and one TA (teaching assistant) reminded me that doing the work counted more than the grade. What a wake-up call. Because I’m such a nerd, I wanted that “with distinction” certificate. But the certificate won’t matter if my participation won’t create any actual change in my community. I drew the line and, from then on, I focused on the quality of my work, whether or not I got a good grade.

I looked around with new lenses

All the topics were very relevant to me, coming from a developing country that seems to face all of the issues presented in the syllabus. While the course directed me where to look, what became clear to me were immediate opportunities in my own neighborhood. In the first week (when the commons was the topic), I was able to zero in on a polluted creek across the condominium where I live. I started contacting people I never thought to contact before: a foundation that helps rehabilitate rivers and creeks, the kagawad (local officials) in my barangay (smallest local government unit in the Philippines), and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

I was pleasantly surprised by the reaction from my local government. They were very willing to work with me to organize a clean up. This initiative snowballed with the DPWH volunteering a crew, despite the fact that they work on a national and not on a local level, and a small business offering to donate effective microorganism (EM) solution to be applied to the creek. I was amazed at what actually could be done in my own neighborhood. Citizen action didn’t seem like such an overwhelming task anymore. My barangay eventually got in touch with a company that does corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, Li & Fung Ltd., a multinational supply chain management supplier, and, all of a sudden, we got 20 more volunteers for the creek clean up plus food donations. All in all, the project that will be implemented on August 16, 2014 will have 55 volunteers coming from both government and private sectors.

I appreciated the beauty and necessity of the grassroots and “the small”

In the course of taking up How To Change The World, a friend of mine (who also happens to be one of the volunteers for the creek clean up) introduced me to a book, Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered by E.F. Schumacher. I immediately felt an affinity with the book. Schumacher believes that using economics as a measure for development or progress is a mistake. There must be better ways for measuring wellbeing. Also, these measures must take sustainability into account. This book was published in 1973 but I find that it is very relevant today. It pointed me to the answer to “how to change the world.” The answer is: one village/ neighborhood at a time. While sweeping movements do make a difference, touching hearts is very essential in creating lasting change for the better. This can only be done at close quarters. Modern technology favors the “mega,” the “big,” and “scale” but going back to the “small,” the intimate, the community-based is actually what will make the difference in creating a sustainable structure that favors actual people and our environment.

I now see that it’s time to change our measures

It made sense that the last topic that we took up in the course focused on gender equality. Empowering women and girls not only improves the lives of everyone but it gives women the opportunity to contribute from positions of leadership (either in private business or in government). They call attention to things like child care and the environment. From this topic, I discovered the work of Marilyn Waring, New Zealand feminist, politician and author of If Women Counted, a feminist analysis of modern economics. She advocates changing our measures for progress.

In business parlance, there is a saying that “what doesn’t get measured doesn’t get done.” Even in matters of development, I believe the same thing also applies. However, our tools for measurement reflect the kind of societies we want to build. If we measure for economic factors only, we will not take into account such things as wellbeing and sustainability. I believe it’s time for human societies to change their measures. And once again, we do this one community at a time, until it becomes the model that we use for larger structures like countries and regions.  And so, to close, if you ask me: how do you change the world? My answer is: one community, one village at a time. It takes focus, it takes really seeing and observing what will make a difference to people in my immediate neighborhood, and it takes work at the grassroots. It takes you and me doing something about the things that matter to us most. When it comes to changes we want to see in the world, it will not be about GDP (gross domestic product) but about our wellbeing and the wellbeing of our kids, our planet.

Go take the next course and see how *you* can change the world. 

*Note: I took up a course boldly called How To Change The World offered for free by Wesleyan University (via Coursera.org) from June 21 to August 14, 2014.  The course was taught by Michael S. Roth, Wesleyan University President. It tackled major issues facing humanity and it was based on discussions brought up during the 2013 Social Good Summit in New York. There will be a 2015 version of the course based on the upcoming 2014 Social Good Summit.

Sustainability # 8: Handprints, An Empowering Context, and Deserving To Inherit The Earth

My Sustainability posts spring from my forum posts in the free Sustainability Course, offered by the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, which I am participating in.

After watching Jared Diamond's talk on TED, I was struck by his observation that the short term goals or views of the prevailing leadership of a society greatly impacts the long term survival of that society. Most of these societies did not see their coming demise because they (or their leaders, in particular), had horse blinders on and were focused on their short term goals. I see the same thing in my immediate environment. Most Filipinos have a vague sense that there is something wrong. This is why we have frequent floods in cities (more than in the past). We are starting to get a sense that the seasons have changed drastically, affecting our farmers and their patterns of planting and harvesting. But many of us go on with business as usual because we lack the education about sustainability and we lack alternatives. Sometimes, it's structural: not all cities practice waste segregation and recycling. Sometimes, it's prioritization. With all the bills that need to be addressed by the government...fish catch shares and proper implementation of automotive emissions are not at the top of the list. Overall, despite the Philippines being one of countries low on the list of GHG contributors, there is no sense of urgency in addressing sustainability.

It's easy to have a pessimistic view of our sustainability. There seems to be a mixed view: developed countries are lowering emissions, use of energy and consumption...but will they lower it to the right point at the time needed? Will developing countries also follow suit at a quicker timeline as well? It's also easy to see it as contentious: why should developing countries be forced to comply with new standards when it was the developed countries that created all the consumption and waste that has resulted in climate change? But neither pessism nor contention will get the job done. What is needed is an empowering context.

I go back to my first question when I started with this Sustainability course: Do we deserve to inherit this earth? There is no right or wrong answer. But the only answer that counts is the one that leads to action. So, for me, this earth is a blessing that neither I nor my children and my children's children deserve....it is not deserved but it is a gift worth preserving. I look at my children and I know that I will do everything within my power to leave them an earth where they will be healthy, happy and productive.

Which leads me to handprints. There actually is a website and a movement called handprinter.org. The idea of handprints was started by Gregory Norris, a lecturer from Harvard School of Public Health. He noticed that when his students learned about their footprints they started thinking negatively: they wished they were never born. This kind of thinking is self-defeating (and scarily self-fulfilling) which led Norris to start handprints...measuring our positive contribution to the earth vs. just measuring our rate of destruction. This is the kind of thinking that I want to propagate with my children and my own community: we can do something to preserve the earth (and ourselves) and we can do it NOW.

image from danswin.files.wordpress.com

Sustainability # 7: No More Plastic Bags in Some Philippine Cities But Education Needed

My Sustainability posts spring from my forum posts in the free Sustainability Course, offered by the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, which I am participating in.

Last year, the Philippine House of Representatives passed the Plastic Regulation Act. Local ordinances have since been implementing bans on the use of plastic bags and styrofoam, especially in malls and supermarkets. It took a while to implement because I only noticed it while doing the groceries several months ago. There were several signages that indicated that plastic bags would no longer be used in the supermarket and that consumers needed to use re-usable bags or be charged for using plastic bags. In another city, I noticed that the supermarket went around the ordinance by issuing out paper bags whenever consumers didn't use re-usable bags. Using paper bags is just as damaging to the environment.

I asked one of the employees of the supermarket if she agreed with the ordinance and she said yes, mentioning how plastic bags had a big role to play in clogging local waterways and causing more damage during recent floods. While I'm glad that she agrees with less use of non-biodegradable plastic...I'm not sure she knows that there were many factors that cause flooding and not just the use of plastic bags.

While we still have a long way to go in terms of formulating and implementing environmental policies, I think this is a good start. The implementation isn't perfect. Most of the eateries in the mall that implemented bans on the use of plastic bags and styrofoam are still using these materials. Apparently, the ban was being enforced only in the supermarket and not the eateries adjacent to the supermarket. As an individual, I've started bringing my own re-usable plastic container and metal utensils whenever I buy food from the eatery. Hopefully, more people will start getting present to the social cost that comes with using disposables. I've also been more vocal in discussing the impact of using disposables (from plastics to diapers and feminine napkins) and what we don't see in the long term in exchange for the convenience in the short term.

As expected, the industry opposed the ban on plastic bags, stating that they preferred regulation over a total ban. Personally, I think it's about time that we start looking for alternatives to the use of disposable and non-biodegradable plastic bags. However, I do agree that industries need time to adjust and shouldn't be "shocked" into compliance without alternatives or a transition period. Not only that, there should be an evaluation of what really needs to be addressed first as well as widespread awareness/ education on recycling and proper waste disposal (trash segregation) that should go hand in hand with the policies on plastic such as this ban.

Sustainability #6: GMOs, IRRI, Responsibility and Action

My Sustainability posts spring from my forum posts in the free Sustainability Course, offered by the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, which I am participating in.

The last video lecture by Jonathan Tomkin for week 6 of the Sustainability course was eye opening. We *are* already living in the age of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). Ever since the Green Revolution was introduced in the late 60s, we've already benefited from it. Specifically for my country, the Philippines, one particular example of this is the success of the IRRI (International Rice Research Institute), which has helped breed better varieties of rice and improved yield...especially in Asia where rice is a staple food. It is a cutting edge research facility which also applies its findings and helps farmers use more sustainable methods of farming. One great example is the climate-change-ready rice they are developing: rice that is submergence-tolerant, drought-tolerant and heat or cold tolerant. Both Bangladesh and the Philippines are cooperating to produce Golden Rice, a variety that includes Vitamin A.

Yes, there are risks. As stated in WHO's Q&A about GMOs, the following are what people are most concerned about: allergenicity (provoking allergic reactions), gene transfer (transfer of genes from GM food to the body or bacteria) and outcrossing (transfer of GM genes to conventional seeds). Studies have shown the low probability of these. Maybe there are unknowns in the equation the way that CFCs were regarded as harmless during the industrial revolution but were found to cause damage to our ozone layer in the future.

The point is...inaction results in as much damage as action. We are running out of agricultural land and ground water will be hard to replace at the rate that we pump it out. We need to look at this situation as a whole human race, as humanity. The time has come for human beings to take responsibility and to find solutions together.

We can't leave this to the scientists. This is an urgent human question. Will we have enough food to feed our 9 billion in 2040 or 2050? At our current rate, we cannot. We need to improve yields even further (and that's like a miracle because we've already increased our yields by a tenfold since the 70s). We need to do this together: from different fields, different countries. I like the idea of Jonathan Foley's "terraculture." We answer the question as a human race. And while we are at it...we need to see it from total responsibility for the planet. We aren't the only ones who need to eat.

Let's go for responsible GMO, let's go for more efficient use of ground water, let's go for inter-country solutions, let's go for individual actions aligning with global actions: a humanity that eats more grain, fruit and vegetation (the way our bodies were designed) and acts in harmony with the planet.

Sustainability #5: Resilience in Communities, Our Way Towards A World Without Fossil Fuel

My Sustainability posts spring from my forum posts in the free Sustainability Course, offered by the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, which I am participating in.

I was particularly struck by Stewart Brand's talk on environmental heresies. He brought up controversial issues like the legitimate use of nuclear power, he talks about the kinds of wars we will have in the future (over resources like water) and he makes a case for geo-engineering. He looks the issues squarely in the face and he challenges people to go beyond political correctness and just address whatever is urgent. The urban poor and where they will take the world in a few decades was a really interesting topic for me. It occurs to me that the urban poor question is hopeless. It's too big, too overwhelming and I don't know how in the world there will ever be a solution for it. And yet, it it is this sector that is shaping the future of our climate. It is the developing countries and the needs of the urban poor (who form the majority in the cities) that will shape where we will go with renewable energy.

I take this realization with the case made by Rob Hopkins on resilience. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my husband about "The Invisible Hand" and how everything will turn out all right in the end because people will adjust. While I disagreed with him that we should leave things to chance (or to whatever circumstances come our way), I do see the wisdom of going back to smaller and smaller circles to address the requirements of future generations.

If cities will be the habitat of future developing populations...we need to see this landscape in a different light. I see the following scenarios: working close to home to remove the need for frequent transport (and emission of carbon dioxide), creating more means of public transport (rather than providing more vehicles) to the population, creating urban gardens (for planting our own food), buying entirely fresh and local (instead of relying on faraway and large-carbon-footprint imports), organizing around local requirements, education about the commons, using less energy when we can use natural light and natural means of cooling (or heating), re-using plastic, removing disposables. These are all factors that are entirely possible with enough support from the ground up.

Only action will get us will get to where we need to go. No matter how much we are aware or no matter how much we discuss...it is still action that will spell the difference. Small actions...like ones made in resilient communities are steps we can all take. We can start there. 

The video above is from TED talks, it's the video of Stewart Brand talking about environmental heresies. 

Sustainability #4: Geo-engineering, The Marikina River Janitor Fish and the Nature of Human Problems

My Sustainability posts spring from my forum posts in the free Sustainability Course, offered by the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, which I am participating in.

In David Keith's TED talk on geo-engineering, he asks the right question: when presented with a solution to our climate change problem (an absurdly cheap solution, at that) what do we do as human beings? In another thread by a Sustainability student, Fedor Ovchinnikov, talks about another "cheap, effective, shocking solution" that caused the death by starvation of 30 million Chinese citizens. When presented with an option, some organizations or governments act on it quickly (such as Mao Zedong and the case of sparrow killing in China in the 1950s). Keith requests that we think through the option and engage in debates involving not just scientists but a cross-section of society before we implement a solution with long term effects like geo-engineering. It's a wise piece of advice. At some point, we will have to act. But it is worth our time to really understand the problem that we are facing.

Closer to home, in the late 1990s janitor fish was introduced into the Marikina River in the Philippines to help solve the problem of pollution. The fish was supposed to clean up the river similar to the way ornamental fish clean up an aquarium. Little did the government know that the fish ended up being a pest, an invasive species that didn't have any natural predators, spawning uncontrolled in the river and affecting the biodiversity in the river. Now, the local government is trying to rid the river of this fish. Such is the nature of solutions like janitor fish in the Marikina river...and the sparrow killing in China.

Problems will never end for human beings. When we solve one problem, another one will crop up. What needs careful consideration is the kind of problems we will face when we solve a problem. As human beings, we need to start looking at the long term versus the short term. Most of our modern day conveniences are the culprits behind global warming: burning of fossil fuel for electricity and transportation, production of excess methane from modern farming practices, bigger carbon footprints from consumption of meat, particularly beef. What are the costs of our modern day conveniences? What are the costs of anything that human beings "engineer?" It costs us our planet.

The question I go back to is one that I asked in the first week of the Sustainability course: Why do we deserve to inherit this earth? There are a multitude of answers. It is a question that we answer on behalf of future generations of human beings. Why do we think we should be the stewards of the earth when we abuse it so much? What kind of planet will our children and our children's children inherit from us? What conveniences are we willing to let go off so that future generations will still have a planet to live in? Not only that. We answer the question for the rest of the species, whether plant or animal, on this earth. Our actions have resulted in the mass extinction of several species already.

Keith refers to "moral hazard" when discussing the problem of what to do with a solution. A question of right and wrong can raise the hackles of any human being. Perhaps we can reduce it further to a problem of workability. What will work such human beings continue to exist and live in harmony with their environment? This is not something that can be given a quick fix. I agree with Keith, this requires the discipline of working on the real problem and it will require participation and tangible changes in the way we live.

Image of the Marikina River from Wikimedia Commons.

Sustainability #3: The Tragedy of Our Philippine Coral Reefs and the Need for External Governance

My Sustainability posts spring from my forum posts in the free Sustainability Course, offered by the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, which I am participating in.

Our coral reefs in the Philippines is a common not only locally but one that we share with the world given that they form part of our planet's coral triangle, one of the most biodiverse, if not the most biodiverse, area in our ocean.

Our reefs are getting degraded at an alarming rate. Read more about it in this link. I recently visited Dumaguete where my sister-in-law comes from and I thought it was still pristine compared to Manila. But then I read this article. Not many people seem to be alarmed by the situation. We have a lot of pressing problems as a developing country. We are in the midst of shaking off corruption, we are debating on the much contested RH (reproductive health) bill. But if we don't address problems like the loss of coral reef cover we are headed towards an unsustainable future, not just for the Philippines but for the world. Even our plans for attracting tourists to our country is affected by this lack of awareness and education on sustainable practices. What good would it be to us to attract tourists if we don't plan ahead to keep our natural resources safe and well for generations to come? It may be more fun in the Philippines today...but will it still be that way in the future?

I think this situation is well beyond the sphere of individual action. I think it is even beyond the scope of community action and dialog among fishermen because of the great divide between poor individual fishermen and the big fishing companies. What is required here is intervention by the government. We have a Republic Act on Philippine fisheries and aquatic resources known as RA 8550. But is it enforced? That's the crucial question. Ironically, as pointed out in the Sustainability lectures I've been exposed to...for external governance to be effective we need a government that is NOT corrupt and RELIABLE. Unfortunately, the Philippine government, in its current state, does not yet fit the bill.

So what can be done in the meantime? I go back to individual and community action. The Philippines has a healthy social media community made up of middle class citizens. Perhaps awareness and education on what to do with our commons and the unsustainable practices we currently engage in can be discussed there first. Like Nobel Peace Prize winner Elinor Ostrom, I don't believe the human is hopeless. I'm a stand for a transformed country...and that includes preparing our country for a sustainable future.

The illustration above is from Wikimedia Commons. Source:Benutzer:Devil_m25. Original uploader was Devil m25 at de.wikipedia. 

Sustainability #2: Population and the Role of Women

My Sustainability posts spring from my forum posts in the free Sustainability Course, offered by the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, which I am participating in.

The Economist article in our Week 2 reading list asks: "Does...lower fertility cause wealth, or does wealth lower fertility? It would be better to say that the two things go together."

One thing is clear: looking at population alone comes with great costs (like the one-child policy of China). Quality of life is a far more humane context. Another observation: wherever women have access to education, jobs and status...the fertility rate has lowered and consequently the country enjoys higher standards of living. Empowered women transform the world. So, for people worried about the decline of the birth rate...it's still the same answer...go talk to the women.

In the Philippines, there is currently a raging debate whether our RH (reproductive health) bill should be passed. It has been delayed for 14 years. Our Catholic Church, particularly the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) is rabidly against the passing of the bill. Those who are against the bill question the need to make it a law and bring up heresy (in this day and age) and disobedience to church teachings as a way to threaten people who are openly for the bill (including one of the framers of our constitution, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a Jesuit priest).  Today, the bill is now in its period of amendment and will be voted on soon.

I've always known that women, particularly those from our poorest sectors, will play a big role in the transformation of our country. But never has it been more clear than now.

Illustration from Wikimedia Commons. Published in the US before 1923 and public domain in the US.

Sustainability #1: Sustainability, The Invisible Hand and Why We Should Inherit The Earth

My Sustainability Posts spring from my forum posts in the free Sustainability Course, offered by the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, which I am participating in. 

Recently, I discussed sustainability with my husband and he asked me why I was so concerned about it. I said we have finite resources and I'm concerned about the legacy we leave for our children. For example, I said, are countries prepared for the day we run out of fossil fuel? It's not an immediate concern but we can't live in a fantasy that we should leave it up to fate.

And this is where he launched into the invisible hand. I looked it up and it's an economic theory that the market, unchecked, will adjust itself and will preclude any kind of real catastrophe from happening. I retorted that we need to be aware of our impact on the environment, nevertheless. I don't really believe in leaving things to chance.

My husband has a different view. He believes that things will work themselves out. For example, when the world runs out of fossil fuel, he believes human beings will naturally and gradually adjust. "Then we'll use bicycles and work closer to our homes. Society won't collapse. Things will work out. We don't have to worry."

I was reminded of this discussion when I was watching my Week 1 Sustainability lectures (Free Sustainability Course on Coursera.org offered by the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign). Malthusian and Ne-Malthusian predictions have been proven wrong. But I beg to differ. The rise in global population can be pinpointed to different countries (from the "developed" to the "developing" nations). The impact of one country can also be shifted to another. Regulation will happen or is already happening. When more people are educated about the impact they have on their environment, a shift is possible.

So, where I differ, perhaps is in the source of the shift. Things will work out with human awareness and not inspite of it. Of course, worry is a state of mind. If no action is taken, it is useless. So I like to think that we should worry just enough to get us to inquire and do something about it. Sustainability is largely a human concern and only exists in human language. If humans were to disappear tomorrow, I believe the earth would go on and even recover more rapidly. So, we really need to ask ourselves why we deserve to inherit this earth.

Original post here. 

The illustration of Adam Smith (above), to whom the invisible hand theory is attributed, is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923. See this page for further explanation.