The following is an update of part of my previous post attempting to incorporate this thought.

… Though some economists will claim that economic growth is a game where all will win, that only holds true if no one tries to gain advantage over others. Those who will use any method or opportunity to gain advantage change the idealism of “all will win” into “all have a chance to win – but many will lose – and the winners get to set the rules to their further advantage”. Also, economic growth that results in the growth of environmental impacts is unsustainable.

The real change would involve people understanding the benefits of competing fairly and cooperating for everyone’s mutual interest (acting with consideration for others and with sustainable environmental impacts), rather than competing to gain maximum benefit over others. This will be difficult because the greedy and devious among us already have significant power and will try to maintain their advantage. They will believe they have done better because they did better than those they gained advantage over. But they will not understand that they may have ended up doing more poorly than they and all the others would have if they had been fair. They will not likely be willing to “give it a try”.

The real challenge is to try to change the attitudes of those who see the world and life as a competition to maximize personal benefit rather than a cooperative effort to benefit all including future generations. Though some will claim that competition is a basic human characteristic research has shown that altruism and competition are both inherent human characteristics. The dominance of one characteristic over the other is probably the result of upbringing and circumstance. Many societies place a high value on competition but have inadequate methods of limiting the action of cheaters. Many of these societies became more powerful and wealthy than others. How the world would have developed if the fair and cooperative people ruled and effectively limited the impacts of those who used any means to gain personal advantage, cannot be proven because such competition has generally ruled the societies of our recorded history (including communist and socialist societies). The only exceptions are the Kalahari Bushmen and other isolated groups that had no benefit to be gained by taking advantage of others, or needing to compete for resources.

Creating the social innovation of a cooperative, considerate and fairly competing population powerful enough to overcome the resistance of those who try to win any way that they can is worth striving for, but will be quite a challenge…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by geroter: What is Social Innovation? Some thoughts from my newest blog post: http://bit.ly/VnxKY…

I agree that social innovation is what EWB is all about, in Canada as well as in Africa.

I think the key is to be able to consistently point out the injustice that needs to be addressed. Social innovation that does not have a clear link to a recognizable injustice will not easily overcome the motivating force behind the continuing injustice.

The vote for women was indeed a difficult battle to win because men did not wish to give up their control. However, it was difficult for the men to defend their efforts to deny the women the right to vote.

EWB can make steps forward by explaining how a business can benefit from dealing more fairly with the less fortunate in areas where they operate (social responsibility). Training and enabling the less fortunate to be more self-sufficient can produce tangible benefits for a business. However, that will only provide a portion of the required change – and perhaps the only achievable amount of change.

Maximizing the ability of Africans, and other less fortunate people, to become self-sufficient will require the fortunate to give up some of their advantage.

Though some economists will claim that economic growth is a game where all will win, that only holds true if no one tries to gain advantage over others. Competition changes the idealism of “all will win” into “all have a chance to win – but many will lose – and the winners get to set the rules to their further advantage”. Also, economic growth that results in the growth of environmental impacts is unsustainable.

The real change would involve people understanding the benefits of cooperating for everyone’s mutual interest (acting with consideration for others and with sustainable environmental impacts), rather than competing to gain maximum benefit over others. This will be difficult because the competitive among us already have significant power and will try to maintain their advantage. They will believe they have done better because they did better than those they gained advantage over. But they will not understand that they may have ended up doing more poorly than they and all the others would have if they had cooperated fairly. They will not likely be willing to “give it a try”.

The real challenge is to try to change the attitudes of those who see the world and life as a competition to maximize personal benefit rather than a cooperative effort to benefit all including future generations. Though some will claim that competition is a basic human characteristic research has shown that altruism and competition are both inherent human characteristics. The dominance of one characteristic over the other is probably the result of upbringing and circumstance. Many societies place a high value on competition. Many of these societies became more powerful and wealthy than others. How the world would have developed if the cooperative people ruled and effectively limited the impacts of those who tried to gain personal advantage (the competitive people), cannot be proven because competition has generally ruled the societies of our recorded history (including communist and socialist societies). The only exceptions are the Kalahari Bushmen and other isolated groups that had no benefit to be gained by taking advantage of others, or needing to compete for resources.

Creating the social innovation of a cooperative and considerate population powerful enough to overcome the resistance of the competitive and the greedy is worth striving for, but will be quite a challenge.

There are many other organizations striving globally for this same goal. Together, they might be able to make this desired social innovation a reality.

Sorry to be commenting on such an old blog entry, I’ve only recently discovered your ‘co-ceo’ blog.

I just wanted to present myself and my involvement with EWB as an example of a very different path to engagement from the one you have followed. I would say I followed a reverse path to yours, starting with making donations, then getting my company involved in making donations, and gradually becoming more interested and (as my time allows) more involved with EWB.

Just wanted to give you one data point to say that your hypothesis about making a donation being the ‘easiest, lowest barrier to entry’ might have some merit.

Mike