EmphaticalisM 

SOCIAL evolution: toward charity reform and optimization

The sole mission is to promote & disseminate a creative humanitarian paradigm under the overarching framework of the technological imperative as espoused under the school of Emphaticalism®  and efforts hidden under a project called seraphim

Social Justice: notes

Why do I consider Charity the highest Good?

Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail, whether there be tongues, they shall cease, whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away...And now abideth faith, hope and charity and of these three... 1 Cor. 13: 8,13

Why do I consider Charity elemental to Social Justice?

We are explicitly commanded to act under the moral principle of the sole and irreplaceable foundationthat can provide stability, dignity and tranquility, internal and external order, public and private order. These alone can generate and safeguard the prosperity of states, nations, sovereignties and continents. Only when powered by a radical personal & social renewal are we able to establish enduring justice, solidarity, honesty and transparency. These are the the components sine qua non of being most fully human. Charity is:

:...the fundamental law o human perfection, and consequently of the transformation of the world (it) is the new commandment of love." (sect 580 CSJ)

"And love is also the loftiest and most noble form of relationship possible between human beings....Only a humanity in which there reigns the 'civilization of love' will be able to enjoy authentic and lasting peace." (sect 582 CSJ) 

And "Charity is the greatest social commandment. It respects others and their rights. It requires the practice of justice and it alone makes us capable of it." (sect 583, CSJ)

WHY WOULD I SUGGEST SYSTEMATIZING CHARITABLE GIVING? 

To aggregate & promote channels of non-governmental aid distribution would best benefit those who suffer from hunger, disease & exploitation. Having fewer but more powerful & more recognizable charities “in the field” could help legitimize their protection offered by UN & military institutions that are currently dispersed. In order to maximize the coordination of these Charities fundraising, aid distribution & protection  efforts should result in efficiencies due to safeguarding the transmission of monetary aid, promote economies of scale in the purchase/distribution of the supplied aid & protect those who are administering them respectively.

WHY SHOULD WE CONSIDER IT IMPERATIVE?

The answer is in the statistics readily available concerning global famines, epidemics & social exploitation.

WHY WOULD I TRY TO MANIPULATE ICT TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF CHARITABLE GIVING?

Information & Communication Technologies can provide a single seemless, trustworthy & verifiable mechanism to promote & increase total contributions while leveraging existing infrastructures. Doing so adds the advantage of diminishing & virtually extinguishing web-based mechanisms of fraudulent, corrupt or needlessly inefficient organizations. The existing infrastructures (financial institutions, on-line payment services, internet connectivity, advertising avenues) can be quickly mobilized to the mutual advantage of those who need the aid as well as those companies engaged in these efforts.   

 WHY SHOULD ONE BE EXCITED ABOUT THE I.C.T. MECHANISM FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE INDIVIDUAL?

Decreasing the number of points of solicitation into the hands of a very small number of reputable institutions alleviates the aggregate decreases of giving by alleviating to a large part the phenomenon called “compassion fatigue”. It would also alow the participant an avenue of giving which they can “own” by virtue of their selection of (limited) institutions via a web portal.

WHY SHOULD WE BE EXCITED ABOUT THE I.C.T. MECHANISM FROM A CORPORATE PERSPECTIVE? 

Corporations could provide matching funds & would be encouraged to use this mechanism for their own promotion of Good Will. Companies that are unable to “green” their products & services would have a new mechanism for encouraging participation. What they add to their cumulative “matched contributions” is a self-propagating effort.

WHY WOULD I TARGET GOOGLE AS MEDIATORS?

Google has the largest on-line presence in the world, employs a resource pool of gifted programmers/developers/legal staff, participates in global causes & would be the ideal digital flagship organization to spearhead the effort.

Why should be CONSIDERING VETINGt the responsibility into one organization?

Reliability, credibility, auditability, decreased initial legal outlay & the opportunity to establish a “one stop” point of legitimacy through complete accounting transparency which can be provided on-line through a single portal. Transactions can be ‘digitally tagged’ such that the inflow & outflows can be readily tracked. Furthermore, one organization (for example Google) could then provide real-time accounting of personal & corporate contributions in such a manner that it could impact & encourage seasonal tax-deductible contribution trends. The flagship institution would own the responsibility of producing verifiable tax documentation readily acknowledged by the IRS. (And in doing so Google could promote accounting & digital record-keeping in such a manner as to displace other commercially available offerings further solidifying their span of services.

 

 

 

Why would I first target the USA?

 

 

 

Greater than 50% of individuals in the world’s top 1% income bracket reside in the US and Americans in absolute terms give the largest amount yet we are 23rd in terms of per capita giving; an abysmal record.

 

Why is maintaining an international focus so important?

 

 

 

Looking beyond the borders; international relief organizations such as UNICEF, OxFam, International Red Cross/Red Crescent & Doctors Without Borders should be considered prime examples of the most appropriate & efficient international charities & recipients of our nation’s collective aid contributions

 

By funneling contributions outside the US we shift our collective focuses toward global Social Injustices & natural disasters. Within the United States social injustice has been (arguably) increasingly restrained by legislative & cultural resolutions. Hunger in the US is well-underwritten by Federal social services. And medical attention, although there are significant barriers with respect to its administration are available. By and large, Americans pull together for their own disasters & tragedies very efficiently and internal institutions are already well-established..

 

 

 

Who are the enemies?

 

 

 

The enemies put up fraudulent post-crisis websites to take advantage of the charitably-spirited yet gullible donors. The enemies are the warlords & clan leaders who steal the aid, sell it or only distribute it to their followers, clans, tribes, ethnicities or other inequitable criteria. The enemies are those leaders of countries who do not accept & are unwilling to acknowledge the suffering of their own citizens. 

 

 

 

In Conclusion:

Charities are not the mode for stopping wars. The end to violence is paramount in Social Justice but its resolution is not achievable by technological means. An end to famines, epidemics & physical suffering due to natural catastrophic events can. And that is why I can this mandate, based on the current availability of technology the Emphatic Technological Imperative
.