Melting news

This week's meeting in Copenhagen gathered 2000 researchers to discuss climate change prior to the UN-sponsored global encounter this coming December also in Copenhagen. It has revealed new, solid and consistent scientific evidence that the polar caps are melting twice as fast as it had been thought only two years ago. Now the worst-case scenarios (WCS) appear to be grimmer, or the same WCS from 2007 may occur sooner than expected.

This is not only causing a raise in the sea levels, but it is also releasing great amounts of methane gas that has been trapped within the polar ice caps since last Ice Age, around 9000 years ago.

The issue is not whether the planet is heating up or cooling down. Hence, the term "global warming," although related to the increase of the average temperature of the planet, is less accurate than "climate change," which refers to the impact this oscillation in temperature is having on micro and macro ecosystems which the human species is only a tiny part of. Recession or not, dozens of animal and plant species are becoming extinct every 24 hours, nonstop.

I see no reason to get scared. We should have gotten scared 30 years ago. Now we are too late for that. Put in more proactive terms, fear is not going to help us be more effective dealing with this situation. Right now, there are two lines of action to follow: adaptation and mitigation.

It is also too late to expect that mitigation efforts -or tackling the causes of climate change- will prevent humanity from adapting to an unknown and rapidly changing environment. Therefore, we need to assess vulnerabilities worldwide and start helping those most in need in their efforts of changing permanently the way they have been living until now, however comfortably or uncomfortably.

On the other hand, it is preposterous to believe, as some do, that adaptation will be enough, that we can burn all the fossil fuels we want, deforest all we pretend, and contaminate our aquifers further. We can still improve the quality of the Earth's environment for those of us that are still to come. So let's do it.

Perhaps the G-20 gathering early next month in London can be a good setting for the twenty political leaders of the 20 most responsible countries for climate change to do something considerably effective about it. In fact, it could be the last setting in which the 20 suspects of the largest global crime will have a chance to right their environmental wrongs under the delicate state of social cohesion that the world is still in. The recession is only starting, and every new unemployed person is a family without income to support itself. The Economist's dire forecast of today, Friday 13th of March, 2009, is that unemployment by the end of 2010 could reach 10% in developed countries. If we reach that scenario, the "poorest billion", as the same newspaper quotes today, will suffer famine and disease like globalization never expected.

Let's hope then that the G-20 finds leadership within to conduct the group towards virtue, instead of yet another photo opportunity to boost their public relations and opinion polls -well, at least for those leaders whose countries elected them democratically.

Meanwhile, rivers of water that had been frozen for millennia is running free around the clock, as we speak.

Sustainable Synergy

The famous approach of creating win-win situations has had several criticisms as well as praises. As much as the proposal to cooperate is appreciated, in terms of human interaction it is not enough anymore that both parties obtain an advantage from the bond. The deeper we move into the scientific diagnosis of environmental issues, especially the deterioration of micro and macro ecosystems of which humans are just a part of, the more necessary it becomes to include the environmental dimension in the equation of all human interactions.

If synergy is the the greater result of an interaction than the sum of its isolated elements, then by definition, one of the elements has to be the environment -because it is only one we all share- and it has to be positive, or at least not negative. Aiming at a human interaction in which there was a negative environmental impact and still hoping to have a positive balance in the equation is neither rational nor sensitive. It would be the equivalent of thinking three friends will set up a business, but from the start they all know that the contribution of one of them will be negative, hoping that, in the end, the result of the interaction will have a positive balance.

Therefore, all ideas, plans, businesses, innovation, policy and any new human creation for better quality of human life must consider the environmental impact. Otherwise, the creation is not virtuous, not sustainable, and clearly not win-win anymore. In fact, a new human creation that deteriorates the environment is a lose-lose situation.

One way to improve this condition is to start building consensus with our counterparts to evaluate if our creation is virtuous and of public interest. Eventually, one day this could become a global best practice: the same way there are certificates for high corporate standards, there could be certificates of global interest to sponsor businesses, policies, innovations, etc.

Likewise, the generation of wealth in the knowledge era has radically altered the purpose behind taxation, which was a retribution by the capitalist to the society, administrated by the government, for the improvement of public conditions as a means to redistribute wealth more evenly.

Today, when a single individual can have earnings of over $1 billion in a year, a 40% taxation falls short of the purpose of more equally redistributing wealth in society. What would happen if earnings over $1 million were taxed with 40%, over $10 million with 50%, and over $100 million with 70%? Is this really a negative incentive for wealth generation? Is this really going to make a difference in the quality of life and purchasing power parity of the individuals and corporations that earn the highest incomes? Is this scenario really so scary as to call it "SOCIALISM?"

In times when the environment, the financial markets, globalization and capitalism are at the intensive-care unit, before switching radically to the opposite side -communist planning and deglobalization- let us try to fix the system we already have so we start generating synergies in human interactions including the environment and the reduction of socioeconomic inequality as two of its advantageous outcomes in the quadruple-win elements.

Sustainable Globalization

Mainstream media has started making reference to the term "deglobalization", perhaps coined by Walden Bello, a Filipino professor and activist that published a relevant book with that title. This economic contraction the globe is experiencing these days could very well make the term the Spring fashion term. If that happens, the discussion about globalization could enter one of those deadlocks so common after 9-11: are you in favor or against it?

The point is not whether globalization works or not. There is no absolute criteria to approve or reject it as a valid hypothesis. We can agree that in terms of telecommunications, information, entertainment, religion, science, tourism, and trade, it works.

We can also agree that there are at least two global processes that seem to be suffering with the growth of the last phase globalization has had in the last 25 years. Those are the global environment and the social inequality standards. Although correlation does not imply causality, two researchers from the University of Siena, Italy, have proposed that these two processes have been deteriorating while globalization has been deepening worldwide. Borghesi and Vercelli have argued scientifically that the depletion and exhaustion of natural resources that has been taking place in the later decades is detrimental to all of us living on the planet. Also, that globalization has resulted in far greater opportunities for further development for those who already have the economic means to develop, say, through more and better training and education, than for those who have less economic means to do so.

Making a long-term projection, the process by which globalization promotes more production of more diverse products to sell in more open markets, tends towards the severe destruction of many ecosystems, some of which are vital for life in the planet. Think about the timber and logging industries that have compromised important forests in Brazil, Africa and Indonesia. Or about the need for biofuels or cattle meat that have also provoked higher rates of deforestation.

If globalization has been valuable for something, it has been for allowing global diagnostics of localized phenomena that a few decades ago we were unable to determine its global impact. Today we know that even though the skies in Europe are cleaner, the fact that they have shipped some "dirty" production overseas does not mean the planet's climate is cleaner.

If the expected economic growth will demand the corresponding growth in energy generation it is expected to require, and if the generation and consumption of energy does have an impact in the condition of the planet's climate, then there are reasons to worry about the tendencies towards global growth.

In terms of social inequality, even though there are more people coming out of poverty because there are more job opportunities where factories are opening and service centers are established to support larger-than-local demand, statistics show that the income gap between the rich and the poor is larger than ever. It is the case in the United States, in Latin American countries (with the fortunate exception of Brazil) and in Asian countries. For example, China. Only thirty years ago, everybody was nearly equally poor. Today, hundreds of millions have come out of poverty. Unfortunately, other hundreds of millions are still as poor as they were thirty years ago, while others are entering the list of the richest people in the world.

Generating wealth is not a problem. In fact, that is the mere virtue of capitalism. The problem is failing to distribute it in a way that deters inequality instead of promoting it. This may or may not be a weak link of capitalism. Perhaps we should start considering Adam Smith's second half of the explanation of what capitalism is and how it should work. He wrote Wealth of Nations and also wrote Theory of Moral Sentiments. Of the latter we know little about.

Truth is, the system seems to be not working well, and a crisis this deep at this time of economic evolution does not allow to argue otherwise.

This does not mean that we should embrace deglobalization necessarily. It means we should carefully revise the system's processes so we fine tune the weak links to make them stronger. In two words, what we need is to focus on sustainable globalization, or ways in which the interaction of all of us in this planet will ensure healthy environmental conditions not only for us and for our children and grandchildren, but for the seven generations yet to come after us. Also, to make sure we can all enjoy the process of global wealth-generation having dealt successfully with social inequality at a local and global level.

Both are insurmountable challenges, yes. At this time in history, when the promises of globalization seem to be failing, while the planet's ecosystems are changing so dramatically that dozens of species are becoming extinct every 24 hours, and where less rich accumulate more wealth than ever before in history, then it might be time to take on the challenges before an unsustainable system breaks down completely.

Celebrating Tibet

With the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the conflict between the People's Republic of China and the Tibetan government in exile, led by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, there are a few reasons to celebrate this relationship.

First and foremost, the presence of a conflict implies a bond between the parties. The Chinese government cannot speak about the issue without referring to its Tibetan counterpart, and the Dalai Lama cannot refer to the conflict without mentioning the Chinese.

Second, both parties have focused more on attacking the Other than on pointing out what they could contribute to the Other's cause. Especially, there has not been a clear will to achieve a harmonious interaction between both parties, being harmony a value shared and promoted by both: Tibetans from a Buddhist perspective, and Chinese from a Confucian approach.

Third, the time dimension of this conflict is the greatest adversary for both parties. So, the sooner they are able to start the process of transformation of the conflict, the sooner they will both start profiting from the process. If the Dalai Lama dies and the process has not began, he will surely become a martyr. As we all know, martyrdom becomes a motivational force that comes from above or from beyond this life. This could mean more -not less- trouble for the Chinese aspirations of controlling the conflict. On the Chinese side, aiming at controlling the situation by the use of force represents a contradiction of its government principles of achieving a "global harmonious society," in detriment of its country-image abroad. Country-image results in perhaps the most important tool for trust-building with other countries and regions worldwide. If and when China becomes a global power, it would do itself much good if it was able to achieve so by peaceful means, distinguishing itself from the world powers that have attempted at dominating the world during the last five centuries.

Fourth, in fifty years of conflict there have been no serious and consistent efforts on behalf of the parties involved to work on a joint diagnosis of the conflict. Doing so will help the parties and the international public opinion understand the dimension of the problem. Only then can it be possible to start elaborating -the parties themselves- proposals for the transformation process necessary to move from this state of conflict to a state of constructive peace.

Fifth, both parties could gain a lot of political capital if there is a peaceful transformation of the conflict. Tibetan Buddhism could represent a valid option of a religion that strives for peace, along with all the positive public opinion it could harvest from this worldwide. China, on the other hand, could show the world, especially the mainstream Western diplomatic community, how to do effective peace-building.

Sixth, it would clearly set a difference between the way of interacting in conflict in Western cultures, and the way of interacting in non-Western cultures.

Who should take the initiative? The party that feels strongest, definitely. As Gandhi said, only the strong can forgive; and only the strong can stretch an open hand as a sign of peace.

The New Argonauts

The following are extracts of a book by this title written by AnnaLee Saxenian, Dean of the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley.

"Argonaut: foreign-born, technically skilled entrepreneurs who travel back and forth between Silicon Valley and their home countries."

"Communities of US-educated migrant engineers now routinely transfer up-to-date information and know-how to help their home economies participate in the IT revolution. Capitalizing on their experience and the support of professional networks, these new Argonauts can quickly identify promising new market opportunities, raise capital, build management teams, and establish partnerships with specialist producers located far away."

"Ethnic professional associations and networks extend these advantages by enabling new as well as established ventures to quickly identify and build partnerships with distant suppliers and costumers."

"The new Argonauts are a small subset of highly educated professionals whose potential contributions to economic development are disproportionately significant. They are not typically drawn from the traditional economic or political elites of their home countries. Instead, they are often the top engineering students from middle-class households whose access to education in the United States has exposed them to a very different technological and institutional environment."

"Economic historians have documented the contributions of personnel recruitment to knowledge transfer and have demonstrated that the experience, relationships, and tacit knowledge that reside in individuals and their communities play a central role in long-distance transfers of technology and economic institutions. But tacit knowledge alone is no sufficient. Transforming production to a new location requires deep knowledge of the local context-the subtle as well as the more apparent differences in social, cultural and institutional settings. And long-distance collaboration rarely succeeds without the shared language and social context that facilitate communication. Because there are few substitutes for native experience, cross-regional entrepreneurs accelerate the adaptation of technology and institutions to local circumstances that are inevitably different from those in the United States."

"Silicon Valley's growth since the 1970s has been based on entrepreneurship, a deepening division of labor, and open information exchange."

"The Silicon Valley Venture Capital industry thus institutionalized the informal sharing of information, experience, contacts, know-how and advice -along with capital- with new enterprises, and serves as one of many mechanisms for collective learning in the region."

"The paradox of the Silicon Valley economy is that a key source of value, the know-how of individual workers, diffuses rapidly between local firms because of the region's open, high-velocity labor markets [...] THe Silicon Valley experience suggests that it is the diffusion of a wide range of know-how of individual employees, not their employers' trade secrets, that accelerates the pace of innovation and growth; it does so without undermining the incentive to innovate."

"Entrepreneurship is risky by definition. Even in the best circumstances, a majority of start-ups fail or grow very slowly. Entrepreneurs actively reshape the local environment as they grow their firms by supporting one another and by working to influence policy. Success reinforces success in these regions, as spinoffs from successful companies define new markets and technological pathways while also providing training grounds and role models for subsequent entrepreneurs."

"The new Argonauts are building technological and entrepreneurial capabilities in distant regions [...] They engage policy-makers on policies to improve the local environment for entrepreneurship; they emphatically reject the familial, opaque and frequently corrupt business practices that dominate in many developing economies. In short, they transfer institutional know-how as well as technology, capital and contacts to their home countries."

"Governments and multinationals alone could not have achieved the combination of local capability building and blobal integration that characterizes modern technology regions. The ARgonauts have provided the essential mix of focal knowledge and global connections required to initiate and motivate the experimentation and co-development that are transforming producers in once-peripheral locations into technology leaders."

"The new Argonauts retain an advantage in these long-distance collaborations because their shared language, culture and professional and educational experiences help them avoid the miscommunication, cultural misunderstandings and conflicting expectations that frequently plague long-distance work."

"Silicon Valley producers no longer view locating in or sourcing from India or China as an efficient way to reduce costs; instead they frequently argue that the reason to do work in those locations is to gain access to local talent."

"The new Argonauts will remain vital to the global economy as they pave the way for the development of new centers of technology entrepreneurship and new technology markets. They are most likely to favor regions that educate their youth, forgive failure and reward success, resist the impulse to protect yesterday's markets and jobs at the expense of tomorrow's, and welcome the openness, diversity and initiative that have built Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley likewise has much to gain from participating in a widening network of more and more capable partners, both local and long-distance, that can provide new skills, insights and resources to solving human problems."

Wéi Jí

This is the Chinese word for "crisis". It means both "danger" and "opportunity". Since the current global financial crisis is an opportunity, at least under some cultural parameters, how can we take better advantage of the situation while it lasts?

First, try to separate the issues that we cannot do anything about, like economic statistics that are fluctuating towards the negative end of the spectrum, from the issues that we can do something about, like public policy, innovation for processes, systems, goods and services, attitudes of proactivity and solidarity, and long-term vision for the future.

Second, seriously consider the options presented by the Doha Round for liberalization of global trade. The global economic system is wasting billions of dollars that could be redirected to other purposes. Of course, Free Trade must mean fair trade. Otherwise, no way, Jose.

Third, revise the human accomplishments that have not had virtuous results, for example efficient generation and use of energy and environmental sustainability of economic growth in most regions of the world.

Fourth, review the values and principles that should guide human action. For example, the meaning of quality of life; happiness; justice; peace.

Fifth, identify the least sustainable businesses in the world, like arms and military industry, production of beef, and all other businesses that either imply massive deforestation, indiscriminate deployment of natural resources, or that pollute air and water sources without compensating the environmental damage.

Sixth, remember the importance of education as an effective means to distribute knowledge more evenly, therefore, distributing wealth more evenly. Take advantage of such reminder to review how to make formal education more effective. Sending a human being to school for 12 years to become a hand-laborer is a waste of public resources educating this person. Some of the skills required by modern "mind-labor" are learned outside academic institutions. Identifying the skills that should be promoted or developed by modern employees would improve the diagnosis to solve the education and training problem of qualified "mind-labor" for today's working needs.

In 2000, I started thinking long-term about how I would have liked 2030 to look like. Although the vision has not changed much, we don't have 30 years to get there anymore. Nor do we have any sort of consensus -not even consideration- for such long-term future scenario. Ten years are gone. Before we know it, another ten will be gone. To make the conflict scenario a bit more complicated, if we continue the rate of natural resource extraction and depletion to feed our voracious industrial growth and consumerism, there won't be many resources left to think about the "next 30-year plan".

This crisis -opportunity- might be a good stop on the way to really think things over. Who's up for it?

Of Gas and Gaza

What a way to start the year. Despite the feeling of relief for 2008 to finally come to an end, 2009 started with a lot of heat -or in fact, a lack of it, in the case of many European countries that depended on Russian gas for heating. It was particularly dramatic to see Europe piling up wood at local markets for people to warm up, while a harsh cold front was bringing temperatures as low as -20C in some places.

It is another proof of Russian hegemonic aspirations. They were not dead. This time, again, their display of power is unsustainable. Energy is on the list of top problems to solve in the next coming decades. Once Europe and the world stops needing Russian natural resources for energy generation, maybe Russia will understand how unsustainable this game really is.

The Middle East is even worse. What has changed after 20 days of Israeli siege on Gaza? Well, a thousand less Palestinians in the world, that's for sure. Death is the antithesis of sustainability. In geopolitical terms, who speaks up for Palestinians? Who wants to step up in their defense? Perhaps somebody should tell Hamas that article 7 in their Charter, which vows the elimination of the State of Israel, is also unsustainable. Maybe the civil society of Gaza should say that. It's a democracy anyway, isn't it? Of course, when an adversary a thousand times stronger is attacking you day in and day out for three weeks, then it is very difficult to listen to your people and to make sound political decisions.

Meanwhile, Hamas's political assessment of the situation is: let's keep shooting our rockets into Israel, otherwise they will kill us all. Seems to be a very powerful rhetoric, since the militants still haven't stopped the shooting. But, again, quite unsustainable.

We are well into the XXI Century, and we still see no sign of civilization at the level we should be at, after such a prosperous XX Century. I heard Paul Hawken, the famous activist and environmentalist, say some time ago: the real Non-Governmental Organizations in the world are the governments. Very long ago, governments stopped governing. They are only supporting, defending and protecting a status quo of some very powerful groups around the world.

Although I believe there are incentives stronger than money to act virtuously, I am starting to consider it is time that we make a case for peace as a global business. If we understood how huge a business deal it would be if there was a sustainable degree of peace in the world, maybe we would stop the shooting and the blame game and the political belief systems that are conducting our planet in the wrong direction. Which way is Virtue?

Bye-bye Bush

Tuve la oportunidad de escuchar la última conferencia de prensa de George Walker Bush en vivo esta noche. Es la primera vez en ocho años que lo escucho ininterrumpidamente por una hora, sin comentarios agregados por los medios de prensa.

Me parece que muchos de los mitos que tenía sobre él, desaparecieron. Todo el cinisismo que decían que tenía, no lo encontré hoy. Toda la arrogancia que le endosaban, no la identifiqué. Toda la ignorancia que creía que él tenía, la repelió con conocimiento y experiencia.

Me pareció un excelente manejo de prensa, de respuesta precisa a las preguntas, de conocimiento del mundo en el que vivimos. Por supuesto que mucho lo habrá aprendido durante ocho años de vicisitudes, al igual que mucho de lo que sabemos hoy lo hemos aprendido, cada uno en lo suyo, en los últimos ocho años de nuestras vidas.

Después de estos ocho años de gobierno, pienso en lo que debe costar presidir los Estados Unidos. Los ocho años anteriores -los de Clinton- el planeta no tenía internet. Hoy muchos tenemos acceso a fuentes que nos hacen creer lo que asumimos como cierto, como Verdad. Y qué peligroso, pues todavía, a pesar del acceso gratuito e inmediato a información, podríamos estar equivocados.

Después del 11 de setiembre, después de una maestría en paz, después de tres años en la función pública y después de año y medio en la China del Partido Comunista, considero oportuno hacer un cierre de lo que ha sido el gobierno de Bush, especialmente para los que han asumido emocionalmente sentimientos en su contra. Si no hubiéramos leído o visto noticias, lo podríamos escuchar sin tanta agresividad predispuesta hacia él. Me parece, también, que es oportuno hacer un esfuerzo -individual o en familia- para señalar las cosas que nos parece que Bush ha hecho bien, que la historia de los Estados Unidos y del mundo democrático libre le agradecerán por los años venideros.

No creo que esta sea una disculpa por lo que él ha hecho mal. A un presidente electo democrática y libremente, lo juzga la Patria, con el tiempo. La elección de noviembre fue un juicio de ese tipo, pero ya ven, en apenas dos meses, las circunstancias han cambiado de nuevo y ya no habrá descuento de impuestos por ahora, ya no cerrarán Guantánamo en el plazo esperado e Israel ha matado mil personas en Palestina desde la Navidad. La política de la democracia es apoyar al líder hasta que esté montado, y después oponerlo hasta que sea sustituido. En el caso de Obama, lo será en cuatro u ocho años, esperemos que no en un período distinto.

Mientras tanto, revisemos cómo es la cultura que nos gusta, qué nos gusta de ella, cuán viable es vivirla, qué podemos hacer para fortalecerla, y qué le critican los que la critican. En el caso de los que somos americanos -de ciudadanía, de cultura o de afecto- también es menester pensar por qué nos odian tanto quienes nos adversan, qué fue lo que hicimos para provocarlos, y cómo podemos hacer para reconciliarnos con esa cuarta parte del planeta que está dispuesta a dar la vida por quitarnos la nuestra.

Y si pueden, traten de buscar en CNN.com la entrevista con Bush y hagan un esfuerzo de desapego emocional para escucharla y criticarla apenas por lo que es: las palabras de un ser humano, como tú y como yo.

Amén.

Sustainable Freedom

We reach 2008, eventful year of many lessons. The scar we shall bear in our foreheads to remember always is that freedom, as we understood it, came to a drastic end. Not only in terms of global, corporate and personal finances, but also, and most urgently, in terms of environmental impact.

There is no virtue in exercising freedom in such a way that we run out of it. For what would we do in the future if we realized we have lost it because we enjoyed it improperly?

More than a proper use of freedom, it shall be sustainable. Not only shall we assure we maintain the same degree of freedom we have enjoyed so far, but we shall also ensure that seven generations after this one, our descendants will still have similar degrees of freedom to realize their dreams and enjoy life as plentifully as we have.

Let us not be remembered as the generation that exhausted freedom. Our ancestors fought for us to have this freedom we enjoy. Let us keep in mind how we want our descendants to remember us when we are gone. Is our legacy one of solutions or one of problems?

Will we leave a better world than the one we found when we were born? It is already a tough challenge, but not tough enough to let it fall.

2009 will be the year for transformation. We must mend the conflicts we have created, most of which have manifested their gravity in this 2008 that breathes its last breaths. Let it not be forgotten.

Brother Killing Sister

Peace seems to be out of the mainstream geopolitical vocabulary lately. The explanations that intend to justify Israelstinian fighting does not seem to include the concept of peace or the way to peace building at all. It is, yet again, a constant mutual accusation of who shot first.

One lesson to learn from politics is how humble you become when you realize we all have glass ceilings, therefore we shouldn't throw rocks. Trying to establish a moral argument behind throwing rocks increases the risk of having your own ceiling shattered by somebody else claiming moral authority as well.

Another lesson to learn from diplomacy is that it is better to think twice before speaking and in the end say nothing, than to offend or insult or to come up with lies to tilt public opinion one way or another. Humans are persuasive beings. Aristotle referred to us as "zoon politikoon", or political animals. Being persuasive does not imply being manipulative. That is expected of children, who know nothing better than manipulating adults emotionally, through a very scarce verbal language, and with an understanding of the world a few inches beyond their noses. From adults, instead, who have the capability of voluntarily increasing their intellectual understanding of the Other and of the world we all share together, manipulation is an immoral, unethical lack of virtue.

I don't know if the few concentration camps I have visited in my life are part of a myth that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President, says was the Jewish Holocaust during Second World War in Europe. From what I have witnessed, those gas chambers seemed real, the amount of shoes and clothes and teeth collected at mass graves seem real. They constitute sufficient scientific evidence to make a solid, irrefutable historic claim.

If the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 seems to be the beginning of the last phase of the Israelstinian conflict of the last 60 years, it is imperative to understand that it was also the end of the most horrific phase of civilization's attempt at annihilating the Other. And we vowed never again. It was not too late to intervene, as it was not too late in Rwanda or in Kosovo, despite the damage that we, the human civilization, suffered from witnessing brother killing sister.

There is also no justification to attack a severely maimed population that has reduced access to clean water, to energy, to food, with very few opportunities for development of their population, without even much possibility to migrate abroad. The disparity in strength between both parties, and the disproportionate use of force of the attacks of one and the other, makes it impossible to legitimize such an attack.

I empathize with my Palestinian friends, the loving and friendly professors from the University of Gaza I have met in peace conferences around the world. Despite the sorrow and the stress, they still have faith and energy to stay up until late at night trying to work out a solution for the conflict that would bring peace, development, and justice to their nation.

I empathize with my Israeli friends, the hard-working and easygoing men and women who wanted to organize a conference in Israel so we could see what they had made of the desert. Despite the hostility from their neighbors, they are still proud to present what they have been capable of, and they never halted or failed to make us feel their warm hospitality.

Brother killing sister is not the way to peace. It has never been. It will never be. It is never too late for both parties to go to bed at night and think if there is any virtue in what they have achieved, launching a rocket to a neighborhood or bombing a university. Peace is a chain of virtues.

One sad reminder: Hiroshima. Japanese soldiers kept fighting, kamikazes kept flying their planes into allied targets, and Japan was not surrendering, despite there was nothing more at stake for them, except honor, of course. The war was over, and Japan kept on fighting. The US, out of a very limited number of options, chose to drop an atomic bomb in Hiroshima, and three days later in Nagasaki, to force Japan's surrender, which came immediately.

The good news is that anyone, in any conflict, no matter how violent, can take the initiative to stop aggressions and start thinking seriously, constructively, creatively, empathically, harmoniously, about peace.

Israelstinians, you are giving shame to us all. You are behaving as civilization at its worst and most primitive. Grow up, evolve, clean your act, wipe your tears, bury your dead, shake hands, move on, apologize, forgive: reconcile. There is no trace of morality or development in acts that are not virtuous. Brother killing sister is no virtue at all.

Mitigate Climate Change: go veggie

Did you know that nearly 70% of all grains grown in the US are used to feed animals?

Did you know that this amount of grains in one year can feed 800 million people in a same period of time?

Can we really say "development" when millions are growing sickly obese eating meat fed with grains while other millions are starving because they don't even have grains?

No one is to blame. We are just not yet globally aware of our interconnectedness, which leads to global conflicts and eventually to global transformations. And we are not yet individually conscious that money and the material possessions that can be acquired through it are not the essential aspects of life on Earth or humankind's sustainable development.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-laureate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated:
"The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. So I want to highlight the fact that among options for mitigating climate change, changing diets is something one should consider."

Stop eating meat. That's my New Year's resolution.

Costa Rican sustainable development

On July, 2007, the Costa Rican President and Nobel Peace laureate Oscar Arias launched the program “Peace with Nature”, intended to help Costa Rica become the first neutral country in carbon emissions by the year 2021. This ambitious and visionary proposal has become part of Costa Rica’s foreign policy, and several environmentally aware nations around the world have praised and vowed to follow Costa Rica’s leadership in this field.

Thanks to many key decisions taken during the last 35 years towards conservation awareness and education on the importance of protecting its biodiversity and natural resources, Costa Rica now ranks fifth on the Environmental Performance Index (EPI). Costa Rica’s position is only behind Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, outranking major environmental powers such as Germany, New Zealand, Japan and Canada.

The EPI is a well-deserved recognition for a country that has doubled its forest coverage in the last 20 years and has more than 25% of its territory protected by conservation laws. Moreover, it is a country home to the National Biodiversity Institute, a worldwide leading institution dedicated to the protection of wildlife biodiversity as a sustainable way to develop rural and urban societies in harmony with the surrounding natural environment.

In times when Climate Change becomes a serious global challenge, leadership in the field of environmental conservation, sustainability and the preservation of biodiversity is welcome worldwide. Precisely, Costa Rica wants to prove to the world that there is a way to develop and to reach high levels of human development whilst protecting and making a sustainable use of natural resources.

Costa Rica, a country roughly fifty thousand square kilometers in land surface, hosts nearly 4.5% of all biodiversity found on the planet. Additionally, its territorial waters occupy a surface area of nearly half a million square kilometers where a wide array of plants, animals and microorganisms conform richly diverse ecosystems.

The state has also implemented an important measure providing a Certification for Sustainable Tourism. This certificate rewards socially and environmentally responsible companies that also maintain high levels of consumer satisfaction, carefully distinguishing companies and agents that are genuinely sustainable.

Regarding energy development, Costa Rica produces nearly 90% of all its electricity from renewable sources, namely hydroelectric, wind and geothermal. In times in which oil dependency is very costly for the planet’s environment and increases the pressure of Climate Change, our country is positioned as an example in its sources of alternative, clean and renewable energies.

Costa Rica’s geographic location, only nine degrees latitude North of the Equator line, makes it a very suitable country for solar energy harvesting. Also, 1500 kilometers of coastal line represent very rich potential for tidal energy generation. Additionally, there are nine active volcanoes in our small territory, which represent endless resources for geothermal energy generation.

Today, the new frontier for Costa Rican development has to do with leadership towards environmental awareness, conservation and sustainable development of its people and resources. Neutrality in carbon emissions, organic agricultural production, biodiversity research, promotion of alternative, clean and renewable sources of energy, reforestation and conservation of ecosystems are among the components that form Peace with Nature, the Costa Rican campaign for global leadership.

What Costa Rica needs for its further sustainable development is more sources of investment and technology transfer. These are times when creativity and innovation are necessary to find answers to the global problems we have created. It is in the pursuit of synergies and international cooperation that we will manage to shift environmental and energy paradigms into a more prosperous future for all humankind.

As Van Jones, author of The Green-Collar Economy suggests in his book, "If we are going to beat global warming, we are going to have to weatherize millions of buildings, install millions of solar panels, manufacture millions of wind-turbine parts, plant and care for millions of trees, build millions of plug-in hybrid vehicles, and construct thousands of solar farms, wind farms, and wave farms. That will require thousands of contracts and millions of jobs-producing billions of dollars of economic stimulus."

The Green Collar Economy

Some extracts from the book by Van Jones:

"If we are going to beat global warming, we are going to have to weatherize millions of buildings, install millions of solar panels, manufacture millions of wind-turbine parts, plant and care for millions of trees, build millions of plug-in hybrid vehicles, and construct thousands of solar farms, wind farms, and wave farms. That will require thousands of contracts and millions of jobs-producing billions of dollars of economic stimulus."

"Though the need for a clean-energy revolution will be the main driver in revamping the economy, we will also need well-trained, well-paid workers in a range of green industries: materials reuse and recycling, water management, local and organic food production, mass transportation, and more."

"My definition of a green-collar job is this: it is a family-supporting, career-track job that directly contributes to preserving or enhancing environmental quality."

"Here's more good news. Most green-collar jobs are middle-skill jobs. That means they require more education than a high-school diploma, but less than a four-year degree. So these jobs are well within reach for lower-skilled and low-income workers, as long as they have access to effective training programs and appropriate supports."

"Even better news. Much of the work we have to do to green our economy involves transforming the places we live and work in and changing the way we get around. These jobs are difficult or impossible to outsource."

"We can connect the people who most need work to the work that most needs to be done-we can fight pollution and poverty at the same time."

"The green-collar economic revolution cannot succeed without a corresponding realignment in the public sector."

"The growth we seek will be in steadily improving the quality of life, not steadily increasing the quantity of goods consumed."

An idea worth supporting.

Poesía del Universo

El Universo es silencio, espacio, oscuridad.
Rara vez, un impulso de energía.
Cuando se juntan algunos impulsos de energía -suficientes- y se empujan hasta alcanzar el perfecto orden de la materia, surge la percepción de que el Universo es de cosas, de materia.
En realidad no ha dejado de ser silencio, espacio, oscuridad.
En un parpadeo de quinientos años en la eternidad del Universo, la humanidad, dotada de razón, quiso creer que la riqueza estaba en el Tener.
La razón no alcanzaba para entender que en un Universo de silencio, oscuridad y espacio, la verdadera riqueza está en el Ser.
Es ahí, sólo ahí, donde nuestra grandeza individual y colectiva no tiene límites.
Esa grandeza y esa riqueza la podemos tener todos por igual, sin envidias, sin límites, sin complejos.
No se agota el Universo porque algunos o todos alcancemos la grandeza de la riqueza del Ser.
No se agota lo que somos.
Sí se agota lo que tenemos.
Y ciertamente no alcanza para todos.
Ni siquiera el dinero, la gran ficción del Siglo XX, alcanza para que todos pensemos que somos algo más que pobres.
No alcanza toda la ficción para que podamos tener toda la riqueza que queramos sin que se agote la materia -aquel improbable encuentro de impulsos de energía que le han dado forma a lo que de cerca parecen ser objetos, pero que no dejan de ser más que improbabilidades energéticas en el Universo, infinito silencioso y oscuro espacio.

Sostenibilidad

Cuál es la queja que tiene la ciudadanía? Que el país no camina bien. Lo dice el Presidente y lo dice el aficionado de fútbol, el empresario y el dirigente sindical, el ambientalista y el inversionista. Ese sentir de que podríamos estar mejor ya lo compartimos. En eso ya estamos en la misma página. O sea, el deseo de mejoría nos vincula a todos por igual.

Si alcanzáramos la neutralidad ambiental en emisiones de carbono, sería este escenario aceptado de consenso para poder explotar los recursos naturales del suelo y subsuelo -tales como oro, bauxita, gas propano, energía geotérmica de los volcanes, pesquerías, locaciones turísticas, patrullajes conjuntos tanto contra el aleteo de tiburón como contra narcotráfico- sin que haya oposición de la sociedad civil, de la academia, de la prensa, de la Asamblea Legislativa, del Poder Judicial, de la empresa privada y del Poder Ejecuivo?

Si este puede ser un acuerdo nacional, podemos empezar a construir nuestra nación a partir de esta indispensable urgencia planetaria. Debemos fijar la meta con una fecha: 15 de setiembre de 2021, año de nuestro bicentenario de la independencia. Debemos trazar los objetivos para el alcance de las metas: 1. eliminar la dependencia de los combustibles fósiles; 2. instalar plantas de tratamiento para el 100% de aguas residuales; 3. cambiar todos los acueductos del país para que todos tengamos acceso a agua potable; 4. que se distinga con precio diferenciado el agua potable del agua para riego y uso industrial; 5. rescatar todas las cuencas hidrográficas y limpiarlas de residuos sólidos y químicos; 6. establecer el negocio de la basura para su reutilización y reciclaje como empresa pública a iniciativa privada con subsidiarias en todas las Municipalidades; 7. introducir en todas las escuelas y colegios del país educación para la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente; 8. crear impuestos especiales a bienes de consumo contaminantes y no esenciales, tales como el tabaco; 9. establecer clínicas de desintoxicación y centros de atención antidrogas en todas las regiones del país; 10. crear alianzas estratégicas con países desarrollados en energías alternativas, tales como Brasil, China, Estados Unidos, Alemania, Noruega e Islandia; 11. entablar negociaciones comerciales y gestionar convenios de cooperación internacionales en temas relacionados con la venta de servicios ambientales; 12. establecer políticas públicas para incentivar la transformación del sector turístico y agrícola en sistemas ecológicos y orgánicos con alto valor agregado; 13. promover el turismo interno para integrar a las familias al turismo sostenible; 14. crear el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente y la Sostenibilidad y encargarlo a uno de los Vicepresidentes de la República; 15. automatizar el sistema de recaudación de impuestos para erradicar la evasión fiscal; 16. erradicar la pobreza e incentivar el progreso sostenible de las sociedades menos desarrolladas, reduciendo la desigualdad; 17. permitir la generación privada de energía eléctrica más allá del tope actual de ley; etc.

Ante un escenario tan urgente de transformación como el conjunto de síntomas que denominamos como "Cambio Climático", el planeta urgentemente requiere de un liderazgo sin precedentes, con la autoridad moral de un país conservacionista, amante de la paz, desmilitarizado, justo y educado. Toda la humanidad debe someterse a grandes cambios y sacrificios en los próximos años. Un país como Costa Rica puede elegir tomar la iniciativa de hacer la paz con el planeta y liderar el camino para el mundo, o puede esperar a que las medidas internacionales o los mercados nos digan cómo debemos adaptarnos.

Ya somos quinto lugar en desempeño ambiental. Nos falta poco para ser los mejores en el mundo. La transformación del conflicto global requerirá en buena medida que todos los demás países se empiecen a comportar un poco más como Costa Rica. Y que Costa Rica implemente transformaciones en aquellas áreas donde todavía falta más trabajo para mejorar.

Entre más pronto alcancemos ese escenario de paz, más rápidamente transformaremos el vicioso espiral de la violencia y el desorden en el que se encuentra la nación, y más pronto iniciaremos el virtuoso espiral de sostenibilidad ambiental, que beneficiará todos los sectores del quehacer costarricense. Ojalá sea con una amplia gama de iniciativas sociales, académicas, privadas y públicas de constructivo cambio climático. Ideal sería que esas iniciativas tuvieran ejecución transversal entre esos cuatro sectores. Entonces podremos explotar lo que la madre naturaleza nos ha dado sin dilapidar la calidad de los recursos vitales de nuestros nietos.

Elementos de la seguridad ciudadana

En Costa Rica, "país de paz", se ha desatado una epidemia de inseguridad ciudadana. Como toda epidemia, es pasajera y podemos hacer cosas para aligerar el proceso de sanación. Primero, identificar los síntomas para realizar el diagnóstico.

La inseguridad ciudadana es una percepción que se fundamenta en tres elementos: miedo, riesgo y violencia.

El miedo es una actitud. Por lo tanto, es opcional. Hay gente que siente miedo durante un temblor. Otra que no. Hay sociedades que viven en guerra civil y sus ciudadanos viven sin miedo. Hay otras sociedades que viven en paz donde la gente vive aterrorizada (objetivo fundamental del terrorismo). Hay quienes sienten miedo de viajar en avión, y quienes no. El miedo es una proyección. A partir de un evento del que hemos sido testigos directos o indirectos, proyectamos que en nuestro futuro también nos sucederá aquello. Se caerá el avión, se caerá el edificio, detonará una bomba, nos invadirán legiones del mal.

El riesgo es un factor de probabilidad. Ante el aumento de delitos y actos criminales denunciados y no denunciados, aumenta objetivamente la probabilidad de que seamos víctimas directas o indirectas de un delito. Esto significa que aumenta el riesgo de criminalidad. Si además contamos con algunas características del perfil de víctima de esta epidemia de inseguridad, el riesgo aumenta mucho más. Por ejemplo, si traficamos drogas (compraventa, porteo, producción o consumo). O si frecuentamos las calles de noche, portamos objetos de valor vistosamente, o confiamos descuidadamente en las personas con las que convivimos (empleados, asistentes, choferes, guardas, etc.).

La violencia es la conducta humana que viola el pacto de armonía, respeto y no agresión primordial para que ocurra la coexistencia pacífica entre seres humanos en sociedad. La violencia no sólo es física y directa. O sea, no sólo el apuñalar a otro es violento. También es violento no ceder el paso al manejar, increpar a otro conductor, proferir improperios contra otra persona con la que se sostiene una discusión, alzar la voz, hablar mal de la gente a sus espaldas, desearle el mal a otro. También hay violencia indirecta. Por ejemplo, cuando la falta de pago de impuestos no le permite al Estado realizar gasto asistencial para los más necesitados. Ese sutil tipo de violencia de evadir impuestos va socavando muy lentamente a una nación. Al cabo de una generación -entre 25 y 40 años- el resentimiento que genera la desigualdad de oportunidades entre ricos y pobres va generando tentación y tensión. Como es bien sabido, la violencia engendra violencia. Así que el no pago de impuestos o el echarle el carro al que pide paso, sólo puede provocar más violencia. Se desata así una espiral que crece continuamente entre todos, y nuestra interacción se va cargando de violencia, perdiéndose así la armonía, por ende, la paz.

A manera de pronóstico de transformación, cada uno de los elementos tiene medidas que podemos realizar como Estado, como nación, e incluso como ciudadanos individuales.

En cuanto al miedo, debemos disecarlo para saber a qué tenemos miedo y por qué. Entender que lo que tememos es que nos suceda -o nos vuelva a suceder- algún acto desagradable delictivo del que hemos sido víctimas directas o indirectas o testigos directos o indirectos. Luego entender que el hecho de que hayamos sido víctimas o testigos no tiene correlación con la probabilidad (riesgo) de que nos vuelva a suceder. Descartemos el miedo. No temamos. Si el miedo nos invade, nos ha vencido. Esa cuestión de actitud es la diferencia entre el liderazgo que lucha y el que se entrega.

Respecto al riesgo, hay que administrarlo. Hay que minimizarlo. Hay que identificar, en nuestros patrones cotidianos de conducta, cuáles implican riesgos más altos que otros para ser víctimas de los delitos más frecuentes que se reportan en la prensa o se comentan en sociedad. Es necesario revisar las conductas para identificar adónde somos más vulnerables y tomar medidas al respecto. Quizás convenga ir menos veces al supermercado o al banco, ir acompañados, no ir de noche, entrar al banco y no sacar dinero del cajero automático. Quizás sea mejor andar menos tiempo en carro y buscar qué actividades podríamos realizar a través de los medios de información y telecomunicación actuales. Tal vez debamos ser más activos organizando nuestras comunidades voluntariamente y solicitando capacitación a las autoridades de gobierno a partir de los recursos disponibles para manejar los riesgos del barrio.

Y sobre la violencia, hay innumerables acciones que tomar. En lo individual, crear más conciencia sobre nuestra conducta cuando es violenta. Pedirle a nuestros allegados que nos retroalimenten cuando tenemos exabruptos de violencia. Estudiemos un poco más sobre el tema, consideremos algunas causas y tratemos de identificarlas, tanto en nosotros mismos como en el prójimo. A nivel de nación, como sociedad organizada, y como Estado que gobierna, es importante analizar algunas de estas causas mediatas o inmediatas de la violencia: 1. la desigualdad (y la incapacidad de erradicar la pobreza); 2. el deterioro del sistema educativo y su incapacidad para entusiasmar; 3. el narcotráfico; 4. la pérdida de valores (crisis en las iglesias, en las escuelas, en las familias, en las empresas); 5. influencia extranjera de patrones de conducta violentos (Hollywood, bandas robacarros, maras, paseítos millonarios); 6. rol de los medios de comunicación (en cuanto infligen imágenes y noticias violentas y hacen poco esfuerzo por mitigar lo que publican promoviendo escenarios de paz); 7. descontento ciudadano con el sistema político; 8. ineficacia gubernamental para controlar el problema de seguridad ciudadana; 9. carencia de policía y ausencia de ejército militar; 10. resago del sistema judicial y penitenciario; 11. corrupción e impunidad de autoridades públicas; 12. crisis de liderazgo y pérdida de roles modelo a seguir para la sociedad más joven.

La tecnología también puede ayudar mucho a reducir la percepción de inseguridad. En China, por ejemplo, miles de cámaras observan las vías públicas y las autoridades intervienen expeditamente ante cualquier disturbio o acto contrario al orden público. La seguridad ciudadana es cuestión de orden.

Reality Show Costa Rica

Dicen que la primera idea pública y comercial del concepto de "reality show" fue la película "The Truman Show", sobre un hombre -Jim Carrey- que, desde niño, su vida fue televisada sin que él lo supiera. Desde entonces, los populares programas de televisión que transmiten el comportamiento realista -no actuado- de los seres humanos participantes han invadido la televisión. Los hay desde programas de medio ambiente y supervivencia (Man vs. Wild), animalia (Crocodile Hunter, q.d.D.g.), empresariedad (The Apprentice), viajes alrededor del mundo (The Amazing Race) etc.

Los poderosos medios de comunicación se han vuelto más poderosos con los ratings y las ventas que obtienen, y los reality shows han sido un rentable descubrimiento. Todo con límites. Costa Rica, "país de paz", se ha convertido en el reality show más grande de la historia. Parece ser bastante exitoso, pues nadie se quiere perder ni un episodio, y lo siguen por televisión, radio o prensa escrita. El episodio de ayer, la oposición a la construcción del nuevo estadio nacional en La Sabana. El episodio de antier, los bonos costarricenses (mal llamados "bonos chinos", seguramente para alimentar el bochinche y así aumentar el rating y las ventas). El episodio de hoy, la mina de oro a cielo abierto en Las Crucitas.

Continúa el reality show. Continúa el bochinche. La actitud general me recuerda a mis primos pequeños, todos ellos, que a la edad de cuatro años aprenden el poder de decir NO. Aunque tengan hambre, dicen que no quieren comer cuando les preguntan. Y las mamás les hacen caso por un rato, hasta que se vence el plazo para que ejerzan la libertad de no comer. Sucede que ellos no saben todavía a esa edad que no se puede no comer, así que debe haber un poco de autoridad para que lo hagan. Porque, estamos claros ellos y yo, es más entretenido retozar y hacer bochinche que comer, aunque sea indispensable aquello. Entonces mejor digamos que no.

En la película mencionada, el personaje principal, Truman, empezó a sentir que lo estaban engañando. Debe haber sido una sensación incómoda. Sentir que alguien está constantemente engañándonos para que nos comportemos de una determinada manera debe generar gran confusión. Su búsqueda lo llevó a descubrir que toda su vida había sido un montaje para el disfrute de los televidentes y del rating que generaba ganancias a sus empleados, dueños y accionistas. Y tomó la decisión de retirarse, de abandonar su propio programa, de liberarse.

En Costa Rica, lo fascinante es que los personajes principales son muchos, los seguidores del show muchísimos más, y los empleados, dueños y accionistas siguen siendo unos pocos. Bien por ellos, porque han hecho el negocio redondo. Sus ganancias deben ser increíbles! Mientras tanto, los seguidores del show quieren que los actores sigan dando de qué hablar para alimentar el bochinche y seguir teniendo de qué hablar. El problema es que los seguidores no se han dado cuenta todavía de que los están engañando. Resultado: el reality show perfecto.

Hasta ahora entiendo lo que significa la frase "pueblo pequeño, infierno grande."

Government of minorities

The democratic paradigm has been that the government is elected by a majority of the voting population. This already indicates a peculiarity about the term "majority". It is not -and has never been- a majority of the population of a country. There is usually an age limit, and in some cases an additional legal requirement, for example being at the country on election day, to become a valid voter. This is the case of Costa Rican elections. Among these valid voters, that compose around half of a country's population, around half of them vote and the rest remain indifferent to the act of electing a new government. This already means that only a fourth of a country's population actually do vote. If an election is won by one vote, it means that an eighth of the Costa Rican population -plus one vote- can decide who will govern the country for the next four years. It means that the critical mass to elect the Costa Rican government is around 500,000 voters. This is clearly a minority of a total 4.5 million inhabitants.

This is nothing that should cause alarm. it is in fact a symptom that helps analyze the fact that a country is better governed is more minorities are included in the act and process of governing. How is a "government of the majority" effective at administrating public matters if they do not take into account what the other minorities that did not vote to elect the government do have as interests for their future?

Costa Rica is a country that, as many others, is integrated by many diverse minority groups. Perhaps not as large to elect a government, but definitely large enough to be included to make a better job at governing, especially because all minorities that did not vote for the ruling party add to much more people than the electing minority.

For example, there are religious minorities, predominantly Catholic, Christian and Jewish, each with its own interests and capable of influencing elections in a small population. Especially if you consider Catholic relationship to the State, Christian proselytism and Jewish economic power.

Then, there are media-related minorities that make people swing one way or another. For example, participation of followers to a football team like Saprissa, where there are other teams as well but none as corporately organized and sold as a media brand as this one. There are surely more than 500,000 followers of that team, although the most belligerent might be underaged, therefore not old enough to vote.

There are also professional groups and movements that incorporate large numbers of people. For example, the Lawyer bar association or the collection of environmental NGOs. Both groups have highly influential people when it comes to elections.

Also, you have all public workers that belong to trade unions. They are certainly in the hundreds of thousands and are also quite belligerent.

It can also be considered that university students or young professionals conform an important number of people that have like-minded interests: finding well-remunerated jobs in their field of study (no comment on that fallacy).

Also, there are the poor and those that consider themselves poor (compared to the rich that have or show much more). There are middle class families with that own a house, a car, that can afford to travel abroad to do some shopping and can take a week vacation at the beach twice a year, that consider themselves poor. This means that half of the population falls under this category. These people also swing and dance to the tune of political elections and use the criteria of "which government will do more for my level of wealth" when they cast vote.

Let's not even mention indigenous peoples, residents, migrants, temporary workers, illegals. Although only the first of them could vote, most of these people are not registered to vote. Yet, they influence the outcome of politics especially when it comes to governing effectively.

It is time that Costa Rica starts considering minorities as the leading force behind effective government. In the end, it does not matter much who wins. The best candidates that have become presidents in recent decades have been widely disappointing, and the least expected ones have performed better than expected. But none, so far, has had the talent to govern for all minorities, having their interests at hand when administrating public matters.

Equilibrio y balance

La crisis financiera le robó el show al cambio climático como el conficto mediático del planeta. Creo que ambos conflictos están relacionados cercanamente. Los sistemas políticos y de generación de riqueza deben apegarse estrictamente a códigos éticos de conducta. Como población, nos ha faltado ética. Y a nivel individual, como seres humanos libres nos ha faltado moral.

Esas dos faltas de criterio para discernir lo que es bueno de lo que es malo han corrompido nuestras estructuras. No es culpa del capitalismo ni de la democracia. Más bien pareciera el resultado circunstancial de una convivencia planetaria donde cada vez tenemos mejor calidad de vida, mejores oportunidades, mayor tecnología al servicio de nuestro confort. En fin, es quizás el resultado del desarrollo. No hemos tenido capacidad de ver venir esta falla en el sistema, tan sutil pero tan grave que podría acabar con la civilización humana como la entendemos.

En el análisis de los peores escenarios posibles sería grotesco pensar en lo que podría acarrear un cambio súbito en el gran ecosistema planetario, o lo que podría desencadenar una depresión desenfrenada en las finanzas globales. Desde dengue en Europa hasta docenas de guerras civiles en Estados Unidos, donde hay suficientes armas en la calle para cien años de batallas.

Los mejores escenarios sólo los podríamos considerar si estuviéramos haciendo algo respecto a solventar las causas que han desembocado en estos gravísimos conflictos globales. Lamentablemente, ni siquiera estamos pensando en atender las causas, sino que nos limitamos en suprimir los síntomas -crisis financiera y cambio climático. Seguimos el método de la medicina occidental para intentar solventar conflictos que van mucho más allá de esta generación o de las generaciones del Siglo XX.

Estamos empezando a entender, apenas a estas alturas, que la sostenibilidad es una forma ética y moral de conducirse que permite garantizarle a la generación de nuestros nietos oportunidades para desarrollar sus vidas con calidad. Ya somos pocos los de nuestra generación que hemos tenido oportunidades para desarrollarnos con calidad. Dos tercios de la población del planeta viven con menos de US$4 diarios. Eso significa un estilo de vida muy limitado, poniendo mucho estrés en las rutinas cotidianas para lograr si acaso subsistir y alcanzar las necesidades básicas de techo, agua y comida. Me refiero a cuatro mil millones de personas. Y de ellas, la mitad -dos mil millones de vecinos en el planeta- no logran tener un techo digno, agua limpia o más de una comida al día.

La evaluación que hacemos del progreso de la civilización a estas alturas de los tiempos es bastante sombría. Si pudiéramos promediar los ingresos per capita del planeta, quizás no seríamos tan pobres. Pero si también promediáramos la calidad de vida, estaríamos mal alimentados, enfermos y con bajísima educación.

El liderazgo que necesitamos para progresar todos juntos, cada uno en lo suyo y a su ritmo, con libertad pero con eficacia, es un liderazgo que sea visionario y sostenible, que entienda el tándem, la sinergia y la simbiosis para que ningún desequilibrio nos haga perder el balance.

Política para la Costa Rica de mis nietos

El presidente de turno debe negociar primeramente con la Sala Constitucional y con la Contraloría, que son las dos instituciones con más poder político en el país, y que para peores no tienen puestos de elección popular. Democracia secuestrada? No creo. Pienso que es la adolescencia de una vieja democracia que ahora empieza a madurar, desde el pueblo, cada vez más informado, hasta los líderes, cada vez más sujetos al escrutinio público. Precisamente, eso fortalecería la separación de poderes y el sistema político de frenos y contrapesos que tan exitoso ha sido por siglos.

No es que el país sea ingobernable. Es que ahora hay que gobernar modernamente, no como se hacía en los años 70 del siglo pasado. Ahora hay que tomar en cuenta que no son dos partidos políticos los que existen, sino 6 u 8, además de múltiples minorías de todo tipo: evangélicos, extranjeros, ambientalistas, feministas, liguistas, funcionarios públicos, exportadores, pobres, profesionales, gays. Sólo de memoria, diez minorías existentes y claramente identificadas en nuestra sociedad, muchas de ellas mezcladas entre sí. Ante semejante diversidad cultural, un país donde se creía que todos éramos "igualiticos" ahora es indispensable partir de métodos antropológicos (semejanzas y diferencias) para diagnosticar más eficazmente el panorama político actual.

Otra herencia dañina más que nos ha dejado Bush es hacernos creer que el público está "con nosotros" o "contra nosotros". Eso no es así. Tampoco lo es para el gobierno de Costa Rica. Lamentablemente la discusión pública y privada se basa en una premisa dicotómica: "te parece o no te parece lo que hace o deja de hacer el gobierno?" Entonces, quién critica con afán constructivo? Quién aporta soluciones? Y mejor aún, quién lo hace con carácter voluntario, sin pedir a cambio cuotas de poder político?

Mientras tanto, todos tenemos tres trabajos a tiempo completo: nuestro empleo remunerado, más el recargo de ser presidentes de la república y directores técnicos de la selección de fútbol. Esto desgasta, resta eficacia a las personas, y hace que la interacción social sea tediosa, aburrida y de pocas sinergias.

Hay que modernizar la democracia. Eso ya se sabe. Lo que no se sabe es cómo. Lo que planteo es que se modernice para que sea una democracia de las minorías y no una democracia de las mayorías. Para generar confianza, es más útil el consenso que la votación. Y no requiere nigún cambio constitucional ni legal. Basta conque el presidente de turno tenga la actitud de dibujar en una pizarra el panorama político según los intereses de las partes y hacerlo público. Ya no es cuestión de decir "este es mi plan, yo gané, quítese de mi camino." Pienso que es más fácil decir "planteamos -como equipo- estos cinco principios básicos, estos cinco valores fundamentales, y estos cinco objetivos principales." Cualquier otro asunto que merezca atención pública, el gobierno solicitará diagnósticos por parte de las minorías especializadas o interesadas -stakeholders- y facilitará la intergración de equipos transversales entre sectores de sociedad civil y empresas privadas en busca de sinergias para la solución de aquellos problemas específicos.