Are we seeing some real change here?

Thirty eight billionaires from the US, among them some of the richest men in the world, are reported to have made a pledge a week ago to give away significant portions of their wealth to support those in need.

Warren Buffett cited as the ‘legendary investor’ led the way and pledged to give up 99 percent, believe it or not, 99% of his wealth to others i.e. a cool sum of US $ 45 billion. Most of it is to be channelled through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates is already leading the way with his own deeds.

They are joined by New York’s Mayor and Bloomberg founder Michael Bloomberg, now worth US$ 18 billion as the eighth richest man in the US and many others who made their billions in many, many ways. Some through innovative pursuits and others by buying and selling what someone else invented, making enormous profit along the way.

Warren Buffett

Bill Gates

Michael Bloomberg

Some among us may see this as another ‘do good’ deed and will relate it to corporate social responsibility (CSR), while others will see it as a publicity stunt of a few egoistic rich. Yet others will call it a tax ploy. I for one, would suggest that it is none of these, but a genuine realization and an attempt by these individuals to look inward at themselves and at the realities we all see (or do we?) around us.

We can not, for sure, call this galaxy of the richest of the rich, a bunch of crazy old men. For most of them have over the years demonstrated what they are capable of, and proved their mettle on both intellectual and business fronts. They all have proven track records of having their feet firmly on this ground.

A dominant model

Before we pass final judgement on the significance of this action, let us take a closer look at the social and economic model that has driven and is driving the global economy now. It is based on Western dominant thinking and has at its base, the premise that the driving motivation for economic and business pursuit, is to take advantage and exploit the human weakness of greed.

The yearning demand for more and more in choice enables the suppliers of those choices, the opportunity to profit from it. Satisfying and meeting the basic needs of all, is not an objective therein.

That is embedded in the United Nations Human Rights Charter and remains a political ideology far removed from the realities of the world at large of the dominant model of economics and business.

This model has given us humans a desire and drive, to seek what we know today as ‘growth and development based on the concept of comparative advantage and competitiveness, offering variety and choice driven by the price mechanism’. And in the process of its achievement, a larger portion of the human population has been marginalized from having access to the fruits of that growth and ‘development’.

More and more food has been produced using better technologies. Yet, hundreds of million people are continuing to be hungry living below the poverty line.

Significant breakthroughs have been made in the world’s medical and pharmaceutical industries of ways to prevent diseases and in the invention of new drugs.

Yet in reality, there is increased incidence of pandemics and spread of newer strains of disease. Most people also do not have ease of access or affordability to take advantage of these drugs and cures.

While cities have grown with glitter of high-rise buildings, people in villages are continuing to have limited access to unpolluted drinking water, quality education and healthcare and are facing higher incidence of natural disasters.

Lifestyles of excess have resulted in global warming and the good health of this only planet we have to live in, is at risk. While the world boasts or laments of rates of growth and performances of the stock markets, disharmony has grown among nations and communities.

The world has increasingly become polarized. We see huge resistance to efforts to provide healthcare for all from insurance interests, for incentives to develop alternative energy options from the conventional energy conglomerates and lobbies developing to protect exploitative systems.

A revolutionary change

On the flip side of the coin, we also see a democratization of processes and actions on several fronts. The info-communication revolution has provided reach and access to millions on information of how to make their lives better.

Access to computers and open source operating systems, has provided new vistas for the education of millions of children in marginalized areas and is very much a growing phenomenon.

The green movement has taken on the world by storm and are creating events calling out to each individual citizen. On December 12, 2009, 16 million of the world’s citizens from 181 countries participated in over 5,200 events on a single day, to call on their leaders to bring in real action on climate change.

CNN described the event as “the largest political action on a single day in human history”. On October 10, 2010 (10-10-10) a similar action is planned by an alliance of over 200 organizations calling for earth’s citizens to do their bit to mitigate carbon emissions.

There is more talk today of the need for alternative thinking on how the world and its affairs should be run. A black American was elected as the United States President defying conventional belief, and his campaign call for ‘Change we can believe in”.

An end to possession of nuclear weapons by all nations has now got into the front of global agenda and is indeed a first, for in the past it was only imposed on a list of selects. Each night Thai radio stations are running adverts on the merits of the ‘Sufficiency Economy” model, proposed by the country’s King.

As I had presented in an earlier column, it is based on the Buddhist principle of seeking a middle path, in developing a new social and economic order to meet human needs away from fulfilling excessive greed.

The pledge of the US billionaires is perhaps a signal of a directional change that we are beginning to see in the prevailing dominant thinking. It is symbolic of their wanting to ‘give up greed to support need’ (not charity) and should not be treated as yet another CSR event. This perhaps is the beginning of a process of real change in the existing world order that can lead to ensuring its sustainability.