In Michael Strong’s article, “Solving All Environmental Problems” from the book Be the Solution: How Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the Worlds Problems, he makes an intriguing claim:

…in a world of more than six billion, in which even within a given nation-state there are diverse beliefs about morality (and reality), it is unrealistic to expect that everyone will be persuaded. People react to incentives and disincentives. Moral suasion is useful in projecting a values system, but if the persuasion lacks a meaningful, tangible incentive structure, the values are likely to be ignored. Carrots and sticks work far better than words and, when manifested in the price system, they allow for nearly instantaneous “sustainability” decisions to be made worldwide.

Michael Strong, “Solving All Environmental Problems,” 147.

Similarly, from the book Creation in Crisis: Christian Perspectives on Sustainability –

“[In the past] social collapse … occurred when nations and civilizations failed to adapt sufficiently quickly to threatening scenarios. This means that the creation of a better successor to the Kyoto Protocol involving ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ is imperative. It will have to focus on a low- or zero-carbon economy … and create innovative carbon pricing schemes that do not penalize low-income countries.”

Brian Heap, Flavio Comim and George Wilkes, “International Governance and Unsustainability,” 78.

These suggestions made me wonder–are incentives and punishments the most effective way to bring about environmental sustainability? Part of me says no–there are certain things that people will do simply because it’s the right thing to do. Recycling is a good example. There’s little benefit to separating out cans and garbage, but the vast majority of people in the Bay Area do it, I think. A more difficult example would be something like installing solar panels on a home. Right now there are tax benefits to doing so that can save you thousands of dollars (an incentive). If those benefits went away, would people still take the financial hit, knowing that they might not get a return on their investment? Some people might based on values, because their financial hit paves the way, however small, for a more sustainable future. On the flip side, what if you were penalized on your energy bill for high electricity use? Would that change things?

At the core of my inquiry is this–is the pursuit of value transformation (through information dissemination, reading books, lectures, demonstrations, focus groups, etc.) enough to bring about lasting behavioral change? Or do we need to rely on a system of carrots and sticks? Or a little of both?

Can you help me with this by taking a quick survey? Just your gut reaction, and you can only pick one: When thinking about environmental issues, what would motivate you more-values or incentives? See it below. (If you can’t see the survey, click this link: Motivation Survey)

No related posts.

This article, “In China, Human Costs are Built into an iPad,” from the New York Times makes me wonder about their ability to deliver on the promises they make. The article chronicles two accidents that occurred at Foxconn iPad manufacturing plants, that resulted in four deaths and dozens of injuries. According to the article, part of the tension is that Apple’s demands are so stringent that its suppliers feel compelled to cut corners wherever they can to create even the slimmest of profit margins. Here’s a snippet from the first part of the article that really illustrates the problem:

Some former Apple executives say there is an unresolved tension within the company: executives want to improve conditions within factories, but that dedication falters when it conflicts with crucial supplier relationships or the fast delivery of new products. Tuesday, Apple reported one of the most lucrative quarters of any corporation in history, with $13.06 billion in profits on $46.3 billion in sales. Its sales would have been even higher, executives said, if overseas factories had been able to produce more.

Executives at other corporations report similar internal pressures. This system may not be pretty, they argue, but a radical overhaul would slow innovation. Customers want amazing new electronics delivered every year.

“We’ve known about labor abuses in some factories for four years, and they’re still going on,” said one former Apple executive who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements. “Why? Because the system works for us. Suppliers would change everything tomorrow if Apple told them they didn’t have another choice.”

“If half of iPhones were malfunctioning, do you think Apple would let it go on for four years?” the executive asked.

Is there some sort of systemic Jekyll and Hyde thing going on here? I believe that Tim Cook is completely sincere in his letter and that their policies are filled with good intentions. At the same time, it appears that when the bottom line is affected, their values are pushed off to the side. This is a company that has nearly $100 billion in the bank, yet seems relentless in pursuing maximizing profit margins–a relentlessness that appears to come at the cost of real people, just people that you and I don’t see.

Related posts:

1. Apple and Its Pursuit of Fair Labor
2. Aperture
3. A Three Minute Introduction to the Mini-Farming Method We Follow

Logos 2.0.1 on iOS

Related posts:

1. Downtown Shot: A Crate of Apples
2. Gutenberg to Google
3. Get a Year-Round Supply of Green Onions for Two Bucks

Rembrandt - Return of the Prodigal Son

My favorite part of the passage, though, sits in verse 36–”When he saw the crowds, he had compassion (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη) on them.” The verb translated “had compassion” is σπλαγχνίζομαι, defined as “have pity, feel sympathy”, and I have to say it has a nice, albeit harsh, ring to it: splanchnizomai. The noun form is σπλάγχνον (splanchnon), which literally means “the inward parts of a body, including esp. the viscera, inward parts, entrails” (BDAG, 938). Thus, the translation “had compassion” connects a deep, heartfelt emotion that goes all the way down to your guts. Jesus really felt it for these folks. They were harassed and helpless, and he was moved in his most inward parts to love them.

Following the trail in a dictionary a little bit further, I found that there are two other key stories where this verb shows up: The Parable of the Prodigal Son and The Good Samaritan story. In the story of the prodigal son, the father–betrayed, spat on, and rejected by the younger son–has this response to his wayward son’s return:

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη) for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.” (Luke 15:20 NIV)

All he needed was to see him, and his guts were moved, he ran, and he welcomed him home.

Then, there’s the Good Samaritan seeing the injured man in Luke 10:33 (ESV): “But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη).” But he didn’t just feel bad for him, he did something about it–he tended to his wounds, brought him to an inn, and paid for his stay. As Hans-Helmut Esser notes,

In the parable of the good Samaritan (Lk. 10:30–37) splanchnizomai in v. 33 expresses the attitude of complete willingness to use all means, time, strength, and life, for saving at the crucial moment. It contrasts with the passing by on the other side (vv. 31, 32). Since seeing and being prepared to help are one, it sets in motion as with Jesus himself, a whole chain of events which together are called eleos (v. 37a). Humanity and neighbourliness are not qualities but action (v. 37f.).

Hans-Helmut Esser, s.v. “σπλάγχνα, σπλάγχνον,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 2:600, boldface added.

I’ve heard it said that compassion without action is not compassion at all, but sympathy. Jesus demonstrates to us that real compassion involves active participation in addressing the needs of the hurting.

Humanity and neighborliness are not qualities but action. That takes guts.

Related posts:

1. The Kingdom of Heaven is Near, and Stays Near
2. Jesus’ Parables and God’s Intended Design
3. Perfection in the Sermon on the Mount: Attainable or Not?

Kuo Wah Cafe (San Francisco, CA). Olympus E-P1, Lumix 20mm f/1.7.

Related posts:

1. Shot: Train Drawings at the Park
2. Shot: Save the Earth
3. Downtown Shot: A Crate of Apples

Shigetaka Komori, Fujifilm’s boss, expresses admiration for Kodak in an interview prior to the lawsuit, calling it “the strongest company I ever saw.” He entered his firm in 1963, when the American firm towered over its Japanese rival in every way. “Its situation fills me with a bit of regret and emotion,” he says about Kodak’s woes.

Like Kodak, Fujifilm realised in the 1980s that photography would be going digital. Like Kodak, it continued to milk profits from film sales, invested in digital technologies, and tried to diversify into new areas. Like Kodak, the folks in the wildly profitable film division were in control and late to admit that the film business was a lost cause. As late as 2000 Fujifilm counted on a gentle 15 or 20-year decline of film—not the sudden free-fall that took place. Within a decade, film went from 60% of Fujifilm’s profits to basically nothing.
If the market forecast, strategy and internal politics were the same, why the divergent outcomes? The big difference was execution.

Fujifilm realised it needed to develop in-house expertise in the new businesses. In contrast, Kodak seemed to believe that its core strength lay in brand and marketing, and that it could simply partner or buy its way into new industries, such as drugs or chemicals. The problem with this approach was that without in-house expertise, Kodak lacked some key skills: the ability to vet acquisition candidates well, to integrate the companies it had purchased and to negotiate profitable partnerships. “Kodak was so confident about their marketing capability and their brand, that they tried to take the easy way out,” says Mr Komori.

When sales from film developing and printing were dwindling, for instance, some revenue could still be gained by installing kiosks to print digital photos. Yet whereas Fujifilm had its own system, Kodak needed to partner with another firm—and thus share the income. Moreover, whereas Fujifilm could apply the kiosk technology to other businesses in its digital-imaging division, Kodak could not because it did not own the technology. The Japanese company was also able to strike a deal to place its kiosks in Walmart stores, which gave it scale. Today Fujifilm controls nearly 40% of the photofinishing market in America, whereas Kodak’s share is only 15%, according to IBISWorld, a research firm.

Related posts:

1. Rented Spirituality: A Lesson from the Egyptian Revolution
2. More Megapixels Aren’t Always Better
3. A Hat in Bergen

“Every system is perfectly designed to achieve exactly the results that it achieves.”

In other words, if you build a factory that makes pencils, it will make pencils! There will be some defects here and there, but by and large, it will make pencils and a lot of them. So to make any sort of change in output, you can’t necessarily blame the personnel (although they certainly play a part), but you have to look very closely at the entire ecosystem in which those people carry out their jobs. Is there an inefficiency in the eraser attaching station? (I’m making this up, I have no idea how to make a pencil). Then you can’t blame the worker for attaching erasers too slowly, you have to re-evaluate the process within the system where the erasers are attached. Or, to provide a more day-to-day example, think about your commute to work. I take the 38L (Limited stops) or the 38BX (Express bus, almost no stops) bus every day, whichever one comes first. But if I took the 38 (many stops), it would be less efficient. I can’t blame the 38 bus, I have to make a change to shorten my commute time. Same thing can be applied to driving–if 101 South from SF to the Penninsula clogs up every day during the 7am hour (I experienced this first hand), then you have to make a change: either wake up earlier and commute partially during the 6am hour, or take a different route (280 South). But don’t blame 101 South. It’s handling exactly the traffic it was designed to, driver inefficiencies included.

Alex Smith - A changed man, or part of a changed system?

Or, to take a current sports example, look at the relative success of the 49ers this season compared to last, with essentially the same personnel. What changed? The coach, yes, but essentially what changed was the system! (Full Disclaimer: I don’t really know anything about football, so I am completely open to correction on this analogy).

This all got me thinking–does this sort of improvement science thinking apply to the church context? A common attempt to solve church problems happens on the personnel or people level–change the pastor, swap out small group leaders, use teaching or training to fill gaps in theology or thinking processes, have more prayer and worship times to facilitate people’s connection to God, and many other good things. And this is a natural way to go about things, because that’s what is right in front of us. This is undoubtedly a tricky question, because a church at its core is the people (see my post “Mischaracterizations of Church“), not an institution. However, there is value in a “living systems” approach, which sees the church as a live and active organism that moves, breathes, reproduces, and depends on its constituent parts to form a healthy whole. Moreover, when one part of the system is operating inefficiently or is experiencing some sort of trauma or unhealthiness, then the whole system suffers as a result.

But what if the problem is the system?

From the start, the church is not a factory. It’s not simply an input-output machine where you put a person in one end and get a result out the other. But our post-industrial mindset teds to conceive of church as that way. A better approach would be to recognize the organic nature of the church as a living system working synergistically. As Alan Hirsch aptly puts it in his book The Forgotten Ways, “the church in its most phenomenal form organizes itself as a living organism that reflects more how God has structured life itself, as opposed to a machine, which is the artificial, inorganic alternative to a living system” (Hirsch, 180). What exactly does this sort of approach look like?

“A living systems approach seeks to structure the common life of an organization around the rhythms and structures that mirror life itself. In this approach we seek to probe the nature of life, we seek to observe how living things tend to organize themselves, and then we try to emulate as closely as possible this innate capacity of living systems to develop higher levels of organization, to adapt to different conditions, and to activate latent intelligence when needed (emergence).” (Hirsch, 182)

If we take an improvement science approach to a church organism, then, it would involve identifying unhealthy or inefficient parts of the system (not the people, per se), and correcting them. So if people aren’t growing in their prayer life, a first move might be to evaluate what things are in place that are supposed to foster a healthy environment for growth. Moreover, it’s not simply a “More is Better” approach–it may not be that more preaching or more prayer gatherings is what’s needed to help the overall health of the church organism. What may be needed is a complete re-conception of the system itself. That’s where I think re-constructionists like Hirsch and an improvement science approach can be quite helpful. Instead of applying band-aids or swapping personnel, a living systems improvement approach would require deep thinking and reconfiguration. It would mean asking a lot of hard questions and examining every cog in the church, comparing it to known kingdom values, and removing or changing those parts that don’t conform. That process can be quite jarring, but I think it’s worth it f it means healthier, more Christ-centered disciples.

Not to leave God out of the equation, I think where the application of improvement science principles breaks down is that it can’t account for a transcendent God that constantly surprises us and works as He wants to work. We simply cannot systematize God, and even if we create the “perfect” environment for spiritual growth, ultimately nothing will happen without a work of the Holy Spirit. Simultaneously, as responsible disciples, our task is to listen to God, do what He says, and create the best environment possible in our churches with what we’re given. And that takes work on our part. I think this also breaks down a bit because the church IS the people, and any structures or systems associated with it–when operating organically–are quite intertwined. That makes it hard to just make a systems change that is distinct from the people themselves.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!

Related posts:

1. Living Mulch: An Organic Illustration of Churches and Church Networks
2. More Isn’t Always Better…in the Church
3. Mystery Brought to Light Through the Church

At the same time, I know there’s a lurking unhealthiness to the whole economy of Likes. When I post something and I get relatively few Likes, or (gasp!) none at all, I subconsciously (or perhaps consciously) start to question myself. Was I not witty enough? Was it a poorly composed photo? Was my blog post just meaningless meandering with no point? (Quite possible) And then if that happens over a string of posts, then I get discouraged and feel less inclined to participate. Or, worse yet, sometimes I wonder if I’m posting something solely for the Like.

I was reminded of this love/hate relationship I have with Facebook Likes when I was reading Jesus’ comments on prayer in Matthew 6:5-6 over the weekend–

5 And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

I know, writing and posting stuff on Facebook is NOT the same as praying. But it did give me pause and wonder about whose affirmation I thrive on. I like being liked. No doubt. But does my heart truly resonate with the truth that the only Like that really matters is God’s? The whole “living for an audience of One” idea, where God’s view of you is the only one that ultimately matters.

That’s hard, though, especially when we don’t feel like we’re hearing God. There’s another part of the puzzle, though, and I think it involves a reorientation away from individualism and toward seeing ourselves as unique individuals part of a larger whole. In fact, right after Jesus’ admonition to pray in private so as to keep your motivation in check, he provides his model prayer, the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9-13). Notice that the way the whole prayer is phrased is in a communal manner, with all the petitions in the first person plural:

Our father in heaven…

Give us this day our daily bread…

Forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors…

Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one…

There’s a beautiful richness that comes from living life as part of a community, with mutual encouragement, and constant reminders that we’re a part of a greater whole, and that God uses and works through collections of people. While I don’t think facebook is a substitute for face to face communities, I do think it plays a part in the overall collection of people in our lives. And our communities help us grow in maturity.

One of the most helpful pieces of advice I heard long ago as a young worship leader was that when people tell you “good job” after a worship set, you can legitimately receive that affirmation and simply say, “thank you.” No need to say “it was all God” (and if it truly was, it would’ve been perfect, right?”) or resort to some form of false humility. Just a plain self-recognition of your hard work combined with how God worked through you shall suffice. Not claiming any more credit than you ought, but just accepting some legitimate encouragement. That’s how communities of individuals function. Certain people do certain things well, and others do other things well. And the community affirms others in that community through various means–even a Facebook Like.

I think that there can be a healthy approach to this built-in desire for external affirmation in the form of a Like. Yes, we do need to embrace the real truth that God deeply loves us as He made us, and that in the grand scheme of things, that’s all that matters. But at the same time, He designed us to thrive in the context of communities (including extended virtual communities like Facebook), and receiving affirmation through such channels is fine and healthy. Just don’t make that your top ambition. Live how God wants you to, share what you want, and receive affirmation where it’s due.

So I don’t mind if people Like this post (or not). And I’ll still greatly enjoy it when people Like my photos and other stuff I post on Facebook. And I’ll keep doling out Likes for things that make me smile or laugh. But my worth comes from Jesus. At the same time, because I am embedded in a community of people, I can receive that affirmation in a variety of ways, through a variety of people.

Thanks.

Related posts:

1. N. T. Wright and a Hermeneutic of Love
2. I Love Baseball!

If it doesn’t pop up, you can follow the link here: Grow Biointensive: Session 1.

Related posts:

1. Who Needs a Gym When You Have a Mini-Farm?
2. Was Farming Easier Before Adam and Eve Ate from the Tree?
3. Kuo Family Winter Garden 2011-2012: Mid-Season Update

Apple's Pursuit of Fair Labor

Heard this through Macrumors about Apple’s fair labor initiatives. Check out CEO Tim Cook’s recent letter, an excellent example from a very highly visible company. I especially admire his tenacity in eliminating child labor (see boldface) and pursuing fair working conditions for all. Even though they’ve encountered some controversy in their supply chain (see Foxconn), at least they are trying something systematically across their business. See the letter in full:

Team,

We’ve just released our sixth annual update on conditions in Apple’s supply chain, and I want to personally share some of the results with you.

We insist that our manufacturing partners follow Apple’s strict code of conduct, and to make sure they do, the Supplier Responsibility team led more than 200 audits at facilities throughout our supply chain last year. These audits make sure that working conditions are safe and just, and if a manufacturer won’t live up to our standards, we stop working with them.

Thanks to our supplier responsibility program, we’ve seen dramatic improvements in hiring practices by our suppliers. To prevent the use of underage labor, our team interviews workers, checks employment records and audits the age verification systems our suppliers use. These efforts have been very successful and, as a result, cases of underage labor were down sharply from last year. We found no underage workers at our final assembly suppliers, and we will not rest until the number is zero everywhere.

We’ve also used our influence to substantially improve living conditions for the people who make our products. Apple set a new standard for suppliers who offer employee housing, to ensure that dormitories are comfortable and safe. To meet our requirements, many suppliers have renovated their dorms or built new ones altogether.

Finding and correcting problems is not enough. Our team has built an ambitious training program to educate workers about Apple’s code of conduct, workers’ rights, and occupational health and safety. More than one million people know about these rights because they went to work for an Apple supplier. Additionally, Apple offers continuing education programs free of charge at many manufacturing sites in China. More than 60,000 workers have enrolled in classes to learn business, entrepreneurial skills or English.

Finally, we are taking a big step today toward greater transparency and independent oversight of our supply chain by joining the Fair Labor Association. The FLA is a leading nonprofit organization dedicated to improving conditions for workers around the world, and we are the first technology company they’ve approved for membership. The FLA’s auditing team will have direct access to our supply chain and they will report their findings independently on their website.

No one in our industry is driving improvements for workers the way Apple is today. I encourage you to take some time to read more about these efforts, so that you can be as proud of Apple’s contributions in this area as I am. The details are online now at apple.com/supplierresponsibility.

Tim

For more, see their Labor and Human Rights page and other associated material.

Related posts:

1. Aperture
2. We Shouldn’t Need the Terms “Fair Trade” and “Organic”
3. A Doubly Sad Day for Cupertino