Author: Chris Macrae
What NEED does this meet?
This is a rough concept but an idea I have heard many people voice
It would need a panel as well as a web. They would need to be seen as worldwide and contextual experts in justice but the job assigned to them would not be too onerous. For example, quarterly approve a batch of risk statements each to be added into its own communal thread. Where necessary edit the language of the risk goal to unite rather than divide everyone
Typical panel members might include Peter Eigen of Transparency International transparency.org , Oded Grajew of the world social forum, Bill Drayton of ashoka.org- all of whom who have devoted a lifetime of work to understanding risks globalisation is in danger of compounding onto digitally divided or otherwise discriminated against communities. The panel should have a representative of all major religions, races etc that have a significant poverty population in their midst. We are looking at risks that wave beyond borders.
Examples might be:
organic – reduce the risk of cancerous poisons in out food and water chains
end petroleum economics addiction with a special effort to develop a package tour guide to all open photosynthesis and sunshine experiments
The threads would also need moderating. But instead of long debating posts, the webs community would be encouraged to vote on most urgent risks and to catalogue simple questions – a question might be which global market sector has the most responsibility for reducing this risk if all its largest organisations collaborated?
In parallel to the thread of questions, we might have a 2nd column where accredited journalists or other open survey institutes announced links to any research of the question they were following up.
The idea of this web is not to do too much but to prepare the way. For example, some of the risks and questions might at a next step become a series for the BBC or other public broadcaster to raise in a world service and scaled way. Step by step advances in transparency mapmaking and cross-cultural reconciliation are do-able now but if we wait even one more decade the consequences for sustainability of all peoples are, according to various independent mathematical models, not good.
What is the APPROACH?
see 1 for plan; I would not have suggested this if I was aware of it being done
What are the BENEFITS to people?
Currently organisations are governed formally only on monetary value not other compound values like health, cross-cultural safety, communal goodwill etc, environmental and networked intelligence;
risk reduction is the simplest popular way to start intervening with wrong mathematical assumptions currently embedded in a globalisation -which can only compound more dis-trust less transparency unless the auditing and whole recognition for responsibility flows are systemically changed
another benefit is that future generations will be sustained ; moreover risk is something teachers of children need to develop a new syllabus on and the questions from 360 degrees of global villages concerned by particular risks might provide some clues to developing an outline of that
What is the COMPETITION?
None that I am aware of. However please note this is a collaborative idea. If you have a simpler one for turning round risks of globalisation (and as Queen Elizabeth in her ened 2005 speech to the nation voiced “humanity turing on itself) then I vote for that
What BUDGETS & LOGISTICS are required?
It’s less about money and technology than whether the people behind this competition feel the time has come to use their influence to support a worldwide risk reduction project. And can we see this as a stepping stone that for example could enable the BBC as world’s largest public broadcaster to take debates like Make Poverty History to a new integral level of understanding; connecting practical common sense that people in grassroots crisis situations can see has rooted long-term sustainability problems; reducing risks externalised onto the digitally divided or those who have historically been most discriminated against.