Happy Biodiversity Day!

It's International Biodiversity day today! It's also the year of Biodiveristy. Of course everday is a biodiversity day. So what is it? The UNU university mentions that Biodiversity, "the earth's diversity of habitat and species — is vital for sustainable development, societies, and culture. Yet, like the climate, it is being lost more rapidly than ever before and this loss is most affecting the poor. Unlike climate change, the urgency, scale and impacts of biodiversity loss are poorly understood and the political will to tackle this issue is weak."You can't buy nature as a whole, just what it produces. Nature is not easily replacable.

Biodiversity is important to New Zealand too. As DOC mention: "New Zealand has a vast wealth of unique animals, plants and ecosystems, but we also have one of the highest percentages of threatened species in the world. We have much to lose so we need to do more to protect them."

Biodiversity is important for our food supply as well. It was one of the reasons for the Irish potato famine and it protected rice growers from the grassy stunt virus. 80% ofo ur food comes from 20 plant kinds, however we have 40,000 plants and animals we use as food. Diverse food gives diverse nutrition, which is important for our bodies to stay healthy. For instance Vitamin C that comes from kiwifruit, oranges or even other animals.

A report that's come out of the UN tells us that natures animals, trees and oceans are under threat. It's the third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook, which is produced by the Convention on Biological Diversity. The secretary general BAN Ki-Moon has a good summary(p. 3): "[T]he principal pressures leading to biodiversity loss are not just constant but are, in some cases, intensifying... In several important areas, national and international action to support biodiversity is moving in a positive direction. More land and sea areas are being protected, more countries are fighting the serious threat of invasive alien species, and more money is being set aside for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, these efforts are too often undermined by conflicting policies. To tackle the root causes of biodiversity loss, we must give it higher priority in all areas of decision-making and in all economic sectors."

In the report has been a discussion of tipping points. A point where it's difficult or impossible to recover these ecosystems. They are:

A - The dieback of large areas of the Amazon forest, due to the interactions of climate change, deforestation and fires, with consequences for the global climate, regional rainfall and widespread species extinctions.

B - The shift of many freshwater lakes and other inland water bodies to eutrophic or algae-dominated states, caused by the buildup of nutrients and leading to widespread fish kills and loss of recreational amenities.

C - Multiple collapses of coral reef ecosystems, due to a combination of ocean acidification, warmer water leading to bleaching, overfishing and nutrient pollution; and threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of species directly dependent on coral reef resources.

Biodiversity is something you can get involved in .

“In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed” - Charles Darwin, father of evolution.

A sore truth in New Zealand dental care

I was watching 60 minutes about 60 minutes ago. The programme talked about problems with dental care in New Zealand. People were finding it hard to afford with one man dieing of an abcess. Dental problems don't occur just in New Zealand, they occur in Canada and Britain as well. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about them.

Southland District Healthboard Director Tim McKay was on the program. When asked why things are expensive he replied(but don't quote me on this) "We are perfectionists. And we like working to the gold standard." He also said "We could do better." and "It's difficult to learn how to provide cost effective dentistry." Of course 60 minutes wouldn't show what the full interview and I think they might of wanted Tim to look like a dork. But he's right, there are problems surrounding dentistry. A dentist studies hard for five years for their licence. They'd want it to be worth their while after working as a student and having a big loan. But should this worth be in money or satisfaction from helping others? These issues don't mean we shouldn't try to make dentistry affordable.

Jim Anderton thinks we need to invest 100 million each year for effective dentistry. That comes to around $25 per person in New Zealand to have affordable dental care. Jim Anderton's often thought of as a "bludging MP" who is a labour voter who wanted extra money by being in another party. I don't always agree with him and think he should rethink his stance on marijuana. Especially after saying "Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country" but not pushing for a alcohol ban. But I think he's well-intentioned, smart and has good ideas. We need solutions if we want more accessible dental care, it wont be cheap but it'll have a great payoff. He also stated how because we don't subsidise adults, they end up in our hospitals costing millions. This is partly due to people not being able to afford it.

Access to healthcare is a human right, article 25. While many of us have access to emergency care, it is not all healthcare. Just because someone can get to the emergency room doesn't mean they will be ok. They could become injured severely or die.

The young adults 18+ and the elderly in this country both have problems accessing dental care. The head of AUT's school of oral health explains that “There is a gap [for them] but there is gap for a lot of adult patients including low income earners and beneficiaries – these people are all falling through the cracks". This was in 2006 and while some strides had been made to get better oral healthcare, they couldn't be rolled out completely before the new National government.

The New Zealand Medical Journal investigated the cost of oral healthcare for the elderly. The concluded that: "Problems exist in the provision of affordable oral health care for the older population in Aotearoa New Zealand. They struggle to afford dental care. They receive little financial support to access oral healthcare services and are dependent on developing their own strategies to enable such care. Health professionals and policy decisionmakers’ challenge is to bridge this gap."

This is not an easy issue but it's only going to get worse if it isn't addressed. While National have put some preventatitive strategies in place, it doesn't mean we should ignore problems we have now.

B-Day 2010 (NZ Budget-Day)

New Zealand is coming up to the annual government budget on the 20th of May. It's where the government plans to put its money into. English has said the government would be cutting "low quality" spending. A pretty vague thing to say that could be used later to to describe anything that gets axed. They'd also be raising GST to 15%. This contrasts with what the Bill English said in 2008 about raising GST: "We won’t be doing that … it’s not our policy”

Last budget National did a u-turn on taxcuts, which they said would be essential in boosting the economy. It's interesting reading this from Brian Easton in 2009 and knowing what National decided to do in the last budget. He explained that in order for taxcuts to happen: "A 10% government expenses cut will almost certainly have to heavily target the big ticket items of education, health and welfare." This is pretty much what has happened. Except of course for no tax cuts. Not for the poor and middle class anyway.

It's been signaled that there will be tax cuts in this budget: "Prime Minister John Key pledged to give across-the-board tax cuts in his statement to Parliament yesterday on his plans for the year. There would be upfront increases in social welfare benefits, superannuation and working for family payments to compensate for the GST rise."

Can this country afford taxcuts to do what it's doing now? Healthwise, Educationwise and Welfarewise? Not to mention all the other wises out there such as Justicewise, Conservationwise and Defencewise.

These taxcuts will largely benefit wealthy people. As the Sunday Star Times shares with us: "The Sunday Star-Times understands the government has settled on lowering the tax rate for those earning between $14,000 to $48,000 – which represents the bulk of wage earners – from 21% to 19%. The May budget is also expected to lower the tax rate for those earning up to $14,000 from 12.5% to 10%.The Star-Times also understands the government will, in one hit, lower the top rate for those earning more than $70,000 from 38% to 33%, rather than doing it gradually."

Almost all benefit goes to the rich. We will lose out as a society. This tax cut discriminates against the poor whose tax is reduced by 2% compared to the 5% of the wealthy. While it could be argued the wealthier pay more in tax, they are more capable in handling it compared to poor. Also the wealthier generally achieve their wealth because of the poorer and their wealth has often been boosted by their ethnicity, sex and their own family's socio-economic status. As for New Zealand's middle-class, any hope of extra change is offset by GST. While it's good to reduce consumption, not everybody can. Especially for those in poverty who have to deal with the challenges of being poor. This means generally being less healthy, and being able to afford less nutritious food like fruit, meat or vegetables. It also means discrimination from people viewing living on the beneft as a "dream", like feeding your family on baked beans and sausages is a dream. GST will affect these families the most who cannot easily cut consumption, especially as food prices continue to change.

The poors tax contribution is miniscule compared to the rich, they are the ones affected more by poverty and that poverty discriminates against minorities. We know unemployment is a factor in the causes of crime and the government thinks the solution is to lock criminals up and throw away the key. There's no guarantee that higher growth = higher employment. While New Zealands economy may grow, there's only so many jobs to go around. For businesses jobs cost money. If you can get somebody more qualified to do more for the same amount of money they will do it. Considering the governments record on job cutting, there probably wont be many jobs for the unemployed to enter into. Especially if they've got a criminal record. And as Marty G at The Standard points out, this government hasn't exactly been keen on supporting New Zealand businesses.

Little will be done with these taxcuts to reduce the amount of inequality causing problems in our society. Nearly 14 years ago the social policy journal reported that unemployment was highest for people under 20 and over 55, males, Māori and Pacific Islanders. They reported the cause was partly due to a lack of education, qualification and lack of employment in rural areas. Unfortunately these facts are still relevant to New Zealand today.

Social Service Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand(2008, p. 14) explain that: "The level of inequality is uneven across New Zealand society... Inequality is also reflected in ethnicity – outcomes are poorer for Maori and Pacific Islanders than for Pakeha and Asian New Zealanders" These taxcuts will also do little to reduce child poverty. As the Child Poverty Action Group(p. 5) explain: "While work is very important for reducing poverty and increasing overall wellbeing, a “work first” policy is not sufficient to eliminate child poverty. Parental or child illness and disability, physical and social isolation including poor access to services, fewer employment opportunities and lack of support may all act to preclude parents from paid work.”

So while National would like to increase Working for Families, they haven't specified how much and the poorer children will be left out. While a Whanau Ora co-ordinator/provider who can work cross-culturally sounds nice, it will probably take away from what we already have. It's likely Peter will be robbed to pay Paul. Except the thief will say it was to stop Paul's "low quality" spending as Bill English likes to put it. "Ministers have agreed that Whanau Ora will be financially neutral - funded by reprioritising existing funding in votes Health, Social Development and Maori Affairs. Those details will be set out in the budget." Reprioritising is a vague word and doesn't give much understanding of what will be a priority. These Whanau Ora co-ordinators may want to co-ordinate with other agencies, but their may not be much left of them to co-ordinate with.

Brian Easton has some thoughts on this upcoming budget. He feels raising taxes is probably the most ethical thing we can do right now: "We have very high overseas debt, which we are not addressing, and the ongoing fiscal deficit is making it worse. If nothing is done, our credit rating will be downgraded and interest rates will rise[...] Even so, to avoid a credit downgrading we are also going to have to cut government spending. I don’t know what, and I don’t know when. But I do know that even if it is phased in, it will create difficulties for ordinary New Zealanders – which is why I favour raising taxes as part of the adjustment.

He has also shared insight from Peter Lindert into what raising taxes can do: "In his book Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century, Peter Lindert points out that European countries have much more efficient tax gathering systems. They are able to raise higher taxes to fund a more comprehensive welfare state than the US. On the basis of the evidence, he concludes that their “net social costs of transfers, and the taxes that finance them, are essentially zero. They do not bring the GDP costs that much of the Anglo-American literature has imagined.” He goes on: “High budget democracies show more care in choosing the design of taxes and transfers so as to avoid compromising growth … Broad universalism in taxes and entitlements fosters growth better than the low-budget countries’ preferences for strict means testing and complicated tax compromises.”

This country has problems with its health, education and welfare sector caused by cost cutting and other factors. It looks like this coming budget will probably worsen these. If our tax system was made more progressive one like Britain, Australia or Canada's it would likely help fix our problems.

"The welfare state, warts and all, is one of the more noble achievements of those people we call New Zealanders. A failure to develop that achievement would represent a failure of the nation... The Welfare State has been a community response to historical change. To go against this historical thrust would be to abandon New Zealand as a community." - Brian Easton, 1979, p. 177 in "Social Policy and the Welfare State in New Zealand"

Revised 6/5/10, 1:40 PM

Meritocracy: Whose reward?

Ah that Genghis, what will he do next?

On a serious note, finding a balance between being awarded for work and being able to live from it is an issue. Many people work in sweatshops to earn what a checkout person in New Zealand earns working for 15 minutes. Thats if your lucky.

Dosomething.org shares several facts about Sweatshops. Facts such as how many earn as little as 1/4th for their basic human needs. Most of their income is spent on food. The US government also selectively gives aid to countries that have sweatshops operated by US companies. The Anti-Slavery society gives more insight into sweatshops: "Many children in Asia are kidnapped or otherwise trapped in servitude, where they work in factories and workshops for no pay and receive constant beatings."

In highschool I remember a world vision volunteer visiting my class before New Zealand's yearly 40 hour famine. He discussed how the conditions in sweatshops were better than many alternatives. These alternatives included digging in the trash, trying to look for garbage to sell. If you were blind or disabled, you would dig in the garbage at night. I think he didn't want to break our young spirits by explaining other some of the other alternatives. Unfortunately I think some of us could already guess.

Harvard Business School doctoral student Neeru Paharia and Professor Rohit Deshpandé have several ideas to stop sweatshops. They include:

• Stopping the desire for sweatshop products
• Empowering consumers to drive the opinion on how products should be made
• That shoppers become more self-aware about sweatshops themselves

Neeru Paharia also had this to add: "It's troubling that so much of our social and economic system is based on our moral judgment, especially if it's easy for us to justify our actions based on what we want." If you want it, it's yours as long as you can pay for it. You can be awarded for your work. No worries about the child's award for all their hard work. Their hard work can be your award.

This is a problem with Meritocracy in our system. Of course in New Zealand we aren't a pure meritocracy. We do have a mininum wage and a welfare system that is suppose to ensure people aren't in poverty in New Zealand. However problems do exist and so does poverty in New Zealand for that matter. Who receives an award can vary based on age, race and sex.

Individuality does have a link with Meritocracy. Humans have a long history of working towards their goals and being awarded for doing so. However some people forget that we don't all play on a level playing field. The work we can do is influenced by our DNA, the circumstances we were born under and the community. As well as this there are people who want to steal awards and claim them for themselves. Sweatshops are an example of this.

Dr. Joseph H. Saleh is Assistant Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He was also a technical consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. When working for the Michigan Institute of Technology, he had some comments and suggestions for a fairer Meritocracy:

"Consistency and transparency on what constitutes merit are necessary conditions for a meritocracy to actually be one... Meritocracy requires that we first articulate what constitutes "merit," and what constitutes merit in turn should reflect 1) our values, 2) what kind of people we want to attract and retain, and 3) what kind of behaviors we want to promote and encourage. So while talking about meritocracy, perhaps even better while talking about a "caring meritocracy," we can also talk about our shared values at MIT."

With this combination of ethics and engineering, maybe we could use this to benefit New Zealand's social and economic system? We could make our system:

1. Have more transperacy about how products are made and come from
   
2. Reflect Aotearoa New Zealand's values
3. Attract people to our country that appreciate these values
   
4. Promote and encourage behaviours based on Aotearoa New Zealand's values
   

To some extent our system does these four things already. But not to a totally large extent. I'd say many some products sold in New Zealand have involved slave labour in some form unfortunately. I also think the Warehouse wouldn't be too pleased if people knew where their bargains were coming from. However recognising a problem is usually the first way to fixing it. As well as this, some people feel they are too small to change the system and may be blind to the benefit of working as a group.

As for Aotearoa New Zealand's values, they can be hard to pinpoint. Our national anthem doesn't give us much of a clue about what these values are. I'm all for saving the Queen but I'm also for saving other people as well. The well-regarded New Zealand historian Michael King does give us some suggestions about where New Zealand's values come from.

In his interview with Kim Hill Michael talked about the values within New Zealand which are from Maori and Pakeha(NZ Europeans): "Pakeha culture is largely derived from Europe, its more individually oriented whereas Maori culture is more communally oriented. Pakeha culture has all sorts of other values that New Zealanders think are precious, like protecting the underdog, not having great extremes of wealth and extremities of poor. There’s a whole list of these things." How do you define a underdog? What is extremely wealthy or poor? And how can you have a combination of collectivism and individuality? For instance in individuality you usually earn your respect. Generally though in Maori culture, you are already born with it due to your inherited mana. As Michael explains, the values New Zealanders share are many. Investigating some practical definitions would be helpful.

Dwight Furrow is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at San Diego Mesa College, USA. Furrow(2005, p.4) explains in his book Ethics that humans often base their ethical behaviour on beliefs and habits they've learned early in life. Infact Furrow(2005, p.1) also says teachers and parents are responsible for teaching ethical behaviour. We are all individuals with our own individual needs and thoughts. But there are things that must be taught by the collective in order for people to be in a safe society. A collective teaching and encouraging New Zealand's values would play a part in a fair New Zealand Meritocracy.

David Perry director of Vann Center for ethics at Davidson College gives some insight into preventing people being exploited by meritocracy. Within his review of Tobias Wolff's novel Old School, he states that "our ethical system [at Davidson] is opposed to the contemptuous, arrogant and cruel sort of meritocracy advocated by Ayn Rand (91-96). Our code of honor at Davidson, unlike hers, is joined at the hip with mercy and forgiveness." He acknowledges that problems and unfairness happen in the real world and meritocracy should make room for this.


Genghis Khan shows us some of meritocracys pros and pitfalls. We can earn rewards through hard work. But these rewards aren't always earned fairly, they can be stolen from others and we don't always get the same rewards for the same work. Rewards play a part in our individuality and can help us gain meaning to our lives. But exploiting others for rewards makes us earn them unfairly. This hurts society, which hurts us for being part of society.