If you read about the controversy swirling around the head of Harvard regarding her recent statements on Hamas, and other instances where the university took a stance on political controversies, you might notice something odd:
In upholding certain values, like democracy, nonviolence, and human rights, Dr. Claudine Gay simultaneously accepts status quo family norms – in the region and elsewhere – that quietly undermine the values. We see this if we focus on the actual creation – through families and childbearing – of power relations.
Claudine might seem to value human rights. She does nothing to end a fundamentally unjust family system based on top down adult choice, rather than a bottom up system where – through entitlements – children are born and reared in conditions that comply with, minimally, the Children’s Rights Convention.
What fundamentally caused the situation unfolding in Gaza and Israel today?
Fact: While the United Nations urges the idea of human rights, the reality is that they have intentionally embraced destabilizing economic growth-based family policies in the Middle East that violate those rights. Instead of ensuring children’s basic rights, the policies created more and more people, with greater levels of inequity and hatred, in an area that is already an environmental nightmare.
The wealthiest and the charities they fund want to pretend the world was always meant to look like a massive shopping mall, and that climate damages should be evaluated on that basis. The truth is human rights guaranteed functional town halls in biodiverse nature. That is what was lost. That is how we measure the harm.
While charities were touting the benefits of saving a particular forest, ending certain diseases, or enlarging cages for laying hens, they were also ignoring the growth-based economic systems that were enriching their largest billionaire funders. Those same growth-based systems have undone three quarters of the climate crisis mitigation attempts made over the last several years.
That growth, from which these charities and their funders profited, now threatens millions of lives. That growth will cause more animal suffering and ecocide than many of the myopic, window-dressing campaigns these organizations ran and used for fundraising actually prevented.
The wealthiest and the charities want to pretend the world was always meant to look like a massive shopping mall, and that climate damages should be evaluated on that basis. The truth is human rights guaranteed functional town halls in biodiverse nature. That is what was lost. That is how we measure the harm.
But if the basic condition for any rule is that it be fair, and the first rule is that which accounts for our creation and development, e.g. the right of parents to freely have kids, then that rule must be made fair. And fairness begins with all children’s rights to a restored climate and ecosocial birth equity – true relative self-determination.
And we need not wait for governments to recognize and fix the issue. Many are using the correct baseline to cover effective reparations already.
Why don’t we have to wait?
Free people will condition compliance with the law on their being fundamentally empowered by it, and that’s physically impossible without treating an ecosicial fair start in life as the first and overriding human right, a right that includes actual participation in governance – being created for town halls, not shopping malls. Governments cannot assign property rights – to Musk or others – without first ensuring the human rights that justify governmental authority.
Today’s freedom fighters move beyond the outdated idea of national borders and fight for fundamentally liberating family policies that free us all ensuring climate and biodiversity restoration through birth equity entitlements that ensure parenting delay, a level playing field for all kids, and smaller or more eco-centric families.
Effective Altruism (EA), described at the most general and inclusive level, involves prioritizing charitable funding using a particular standard:
“People in effective altruism typically try to identify issues that are big in scale, tractable, and unfairly neglected. The aim is to find the biggest gaps in current efforts, in order to find where an additional person can have the greatest impact.”
Reason 1: Focusing on scale and wellbeing, the climate crisis is the greatest threat to human and animal welfare, accelerating beyond what we have expected. Recovering the costs that were externalized and using them to fund effective family reforms to protect kids through better birth and development conditions, is the most effective long-run way to address the crisis.
Be effective.
Family reforms have the greatest long-run impacts on everything, including climate emissions, child welfare, animal suffering, and human rights and democracy. That’s not odd. We, and what we do, are the products of our creation and pasts.
Many EA funders ignore the issue because they have made money on growth (including the sale of plant-based products), wish to continue doing so, and wish to avoid family reform based reparations. But those are not good reasons, and the benefits of many EA funded efforts (and veracity of fundraising claims) have been reversed when one factors in growth. Not starting with child rights also commits the fallacy in Reason 4, below – ignoring child-centric human rights as the system of actually inclusive obligation that overrides all competing interests and sets the baseline for cost and benefit analysis, telling us what words like “good,” “impact,” and “problem” mean.
Reason 4: This broad description of EA at the beginning of this blog reveals a fallacy. The term “altruism” frames the thinking in a way that excludes human rights obligations (which override decisions based on personal altruism) on the wealthy funders who back EA to first pay for costs their wealth has imposed on others. And those costs were imposed by fundamental reliance on a system of coercive legal obligation that did not include the average person, including black persons in the United States, at any real level of influence over the rules under which they would be forced to live. To the extent EA advocates believe in self-determination they have a fatal problem in using people for economic growth. They have to fit all those they create in terms of quantity and civic quality for shopping malls back into the participation-capable town halls meant to regulate the former. That’s impossible, and truly free persons will make compliance with the law contingent on their role in making it.
For example, initiatives to study wild animal welfare would logically have to start from a position that protects the animals being studied, which requires climate restoration as part of an overriding human right to birth equity. Funding a research project while simultaneously relying on system of growth eradicating those animals and harming the poorest humans is disingenuous.
This is not about different worldviews.
EA advocates all live day-to-day the values of not wanting to fall below minimum thresholds of welfare and self-determination in their lives – they are often simply too antisocial to extend the values to kids like Jazmine, who was slowly beaten to death as an infant, and would rather use a system of oppressive, “growth over parental readiness” power relations to make returns on investments.
TAKE ACTION: Urge EA advocates, like@dylanmatt, to be both just and effective in their thinking and funding.
Many promote his dietary focus because they are invested in plant-based companies, companies that embrace growth even though it does more harm to humans and nonhumans than these companies do good. His mistakes here, turning animal liberation into mass consumerism, bleed into his work on Effective Altruism, risking millions of lives with misleading information about entitlements and what has impact. His work siloed off animals from social justice, and the natural alignment we find there.
Cheerful African Ethnicity Infant Carrying Healthy Water for a dehydration concept
He should embrace true animal liberation, and not mislead as to what that means. We don’t liberate animals by humanizing the world.
Solution:
Ask anyone – like Singer – claiming to promote certain values about how their approach to families and child welfare undid and is undoing the values they otherwise promote. Exploiting children to ensure economic growth is the system we are all used to and largely ignore. We do this, rather than requiring equitable investments in their birth and development conditions. That move has now reversed most of the progress in fighting the climate crisis, and inequity. That fundamental injustice, which made a small percentage of mostly white men wealthy by violating human rights, will kill millions.
In the climate crisis reparations in the form of family planning entitlements save lives and restore biodiversity. They return wealth to those who deserve it. We can leave wealth at the top of the economic pyramid, and millions will die, or we can pay it back to the future generations – those on which its true costs are being imposed.
Urge Dr. Aruna Rao to go beyond micro-equity towards macro-equity, the basic norm.
Oxfam routinely makes statements promoting human rights, dignity, and equity.
Those statements could be based on an error/fallacy/impossibility that actually undermines these values.
Fair Start politely submits a few questions for Dr. Rao to consider: How are you accounting for children being born into the world (the creation of actual power relations), and whether the political systems we all back with our taxes, and otherwise, are investing in those children to give them a fair start, or exploiting them for growth? Did you assume the legitimacy of current political systems without conditioning that legitimacy on the creation – via the obtaining of children’s rights – of fundamental childhood relations in a way that actually empowers people, consistent with what is implied our being free and equal persons by the preamble of the U.S. and other constitutions? Would you consider supporting family planning entitlements that ensure parental delay and readiness, climate-safe migration, leveling the playing field for all kids, and smaller or more ecocentric families such that each person plays an equal and influential role in creating the rules under which they must live?
Where does Justice really begin?
Without the fairness in creation we may be quietly undoing the values we want to further. And by making statements about furthering articular values at a micro level without addressing them at a macro level, we are reinforcing a system that is fundamentally unjust, one that hidespower to reserve it. The connection, in the case of the animal rights movement, was recently exemplified by a dispute at a well known organization where green/growthwashing has a devastating effect on the nonhumans the organization claimed to protect.
The error simply involves the failure to derive political obligation all the way back towards intergenerational justice, rather than stopping the analysis – as is common – at static baselines. The basic condition of any rule is that it should be fair, but the first rule does not regard how we should act, but rather whom we should be. Returning to the preeamble question above, if the condition were met we would be able to break each fundamental polity into a functional constitutional convention at any time. That is not the case in the United States today.
If governance derives from the people then constitutionalism, or the limitation and decentralization of power, starts with the creation of relations, not written documents. That process is antecedent to government issued entitlements – like rights to extreme wealth or the authority of institutions – that ensure massive ecosocial inequity. Because of this error we do not really empower people, as we ignore the fundamental creation of their power relations, and as such our language and actions create a fantasy world of freedom that never sufficiently limits and decentralizes power. If freedom always requires some level of self-determination, it would be impossible to ensure without a primary obligation of birth and development conditions for all children that meet minimum thresholds so they can self-determine rather than be determined by others, and one test for whether that is occurring equitably would be treating growth as inverse to self-determination, relative to nature (which requires, at a minimum, climate restoration). Our failure to act in accordance with this inversion shows we do not think persons should be politically equal.
Free persons will condition their obligation to follow the law on their being empowered – relative to the ideal – to determine it, and how it limits and decentralizes the power others have over us.
The climate crisis exemplifies the need for this perfectly, and calls for fundamental macro change with every micro change we seek so that we do not undo our values and accept any obligation to follow the laws when the systems that make those laws cannot possibly be inclusive and participatory, and are not reflective of the will of those they control. And yet, we can easily see that we orient from systems of obligation, like written constitutions, without deriving all the way back to just systems of creation.
Our lives and freedom are determined by obligation, and the dominant one is law. The fundamental creation of power/obligation relations – our birth and development – should have been determined over the last several decades by incentivizing resources that would have ensured birth equity for all children, and equal influence over the laws under which we must live. That never happened, but climate reparations are a chance to change.
The Fair Start certification program standards track capital itself, and forthcoming state attorney-general complaints, Lanham and other tort litigation – tied to climate loss and damage cases – will target relevant green/growth-washing claim, in many contexts. Because green/growth-washing comes from business, charities, media, politicians, academics, etc., all of whom are responding to capital which is predisposed to greenwash. Much of that capital hides behind philanthropy, but the reality is that relative to the Children’s Convention and in light of climatological impacts on infants, the wealth doled out does less good than the harm created by the system of inequity and growth that created it.
These complaints will target harmful, preconstitutional, discourse: Statements about furthering particular values at a micro level without addressing them at a macro level, which has the effect of reinforcing a system that is fundamentally unjust and undoing the of the values we proclaim. Effective Altruism exemplifies this, assuming ownership in its very name of wealth taken from women and children.
To be clear: Rejecting family reforms like fair start means we are knowingly inflicting ecological and other harms on others, via the system that enriches us all at cost to those others.
TAKE ACTION: Contact Dr. Aro at https://www.linkedin.com/in/aruna-rao-25183716/, and urge her 1) consider these questions as well as Humane Family reforms, and to 2) back changes in international law that would make Fair Start the first peremptory norm, such that it would authorize using extreme concentrations of wealth, the costs of which were externalized, to ensure children’s rights, the actual foundation of justice.
Fair Start politely submits a few questions for Dr. Gay to consider: How are you accounting for children being born into the world (the creation of actual power relations), and whether the political systems we all back with our taxes, and otherwise, are investing in those children to give them a fair start, or exploiting them for growth? Did you assume the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s decision without conditioning that legitimacy on the creation – via the obtaining of children’s rights – of fundamental childhood relations in a way that actually empowers people, consistent with what is implied our being free and equal persons by the preamble of the Constitution? Admissions equity aside, would you consider supporting family planning entitlements that ensure parental delay and readiness, climate-safe migration, leveling the playing field for all kids, and smaller or more ecocentric families such that each person plays an equal and influential role in creating the rules under which they must live?
Without the fairness in creation we may be quietly undoing the values we want to further. And by making statements about furthering articular values at a micro level without addressing them at a macro level, we are reinforcing a system that is fundamentally unjust, one that hidespower to reserve it. The connection, in the case of the animal rights movement, was recently exemplified by a dispute at a well known organization. It was previously exemplified by media around our ask of the British royal family, and its obligations to others.
The error simply involves the failure to derive political obligation all the way back towards intergenerational justice, rather than stopping the analysis – as is common – at static baselines. The basic condition of any rule is that it should be fair, but the first rule does not regard how we should act, but rather whom we should be. Returning to the preeamble question above, if the condition were met we would be able to break each fundamental polity into a functional constitutional convention at any time. That is not the case in the United States today.
If governance derives from the people then constitutionalism, or the limitation and decentralization of power, starts with the creation of relations, not written documents. That process is antecedent to government issued entitlements – like rights to extreme wealth or the authority of institutions like the Court – that ensure massive ecosocial inequity. Because of this error we do not really empower people, as we ignore the fundamental creation of their power relations, and as such our language and actions create a fantasy world of freedom that never sufficiently limits and decentralizes power. If freedom always requires some level of self-determination, it would be impossible to ensure without birth and development conditions for all children that meet minimum thresholds so they can self-determine rather than be determined by others, and one test for whether that is occurring equitably would be treating growth as inverse to self-determination, relative to nature (which requires, at a minimum, climate restoration).
Free persons will condition their obligation to follow the law on their being empowered – relative to the ideal – to determine it, and how it limits and decentralizes the power others have over us.
The climate crisis exemplifies the need for this perfectly, and calls for fundamental macro change with every micro change we seek so that we do not undo our values and accept any obligation to follow the laws when the systems that make those laws cannot possibly be inclusive and participatory, and are not reflective of the will of those they control.
Our lives and freedom are determined by obligation, and the dominant one is law. The fundamental creation of power/obligation relations – our birth and development – should have been determined over the last several decades by incentivizing resources that would have ensured birth equity for all children, and equal influence over the laws under which we must live. That never happened, but climate reparations are a chance to change.
The Fair Start certification program standards track capital itself, and forthcoming state attorney-general complaints, Lanham and other tort litigation – tied to climate loss and damage cases – will target relevant green/growth-washing claim, in many contexts. Because green/growth-washing comes from business, charities, media, politicians, academics, etc., all of whom are responding to capital. Much of that capital hides behind philanthropy, but the reality is that relative to the Children’s Convention and in light of climatological impacts on infants, the wealth doled out does less good than the harm created by the system of inequity and growth that created it.
These complaints will target harmful, preconstitutional, discourse: Statements about furthering particular values at a micro level without addressing them at a macro level, which has the effect of reinforcing a system that is fundamentally unjust and undoing the of the values we proclaim. Effective Altruism exemplifies this, assuming ownership in its very name of wealth taken from women and children.
To be clear: Rejecting family reforms like fair start means we are knowingly inflicting ecological and other harms on others, via the system that enriches us all at cost to those others.
TAKE ACTION: Contact Dr. Gay at cgay@gov.harvard.edu, and urge her 1) consider these questions as well as Humane Family reforms, and to 2) back changes in international law that would make Fair Start the first peremptory norm, such that it would authorize using extreme concentrations of wealth, the costs of which were externalized, to ensure children’s rights, the actual foundation of justice.
Always ask this question about fundamental power relations (a better concept than population), the place where many hide injustice.
Ask anyone claiming to do any form of good, whether they are conservative, liberal or otherwise inclined, how they have accounted for children being born into the world, and whether they are investing in those children to give them a fair start, or exploiting them for growth. Do they support family planning entitlements that ensure parental delay and readiness, relocation, leveling the playing field for all kids, and smaller or more ecocentric families? Or are they putting millions of innocent lives at risk to make money?
Family planning, for decades, should have been determined by the incentivizing presence of ecosocial birth equity resources. Instead – according to one Nobel laureate – that wealth went to the top and created the climate crisis and vast inequity. Those continuing that system are skewing the baseline for climate reparations, benefitting themselves at cost to others, and putting millions of lives at risk.
No theory of obligation to follow the law and respect the rights of others (including their claims to own their wealth) works unless it accounts for the creation of just power relations that give all a fair level of influence, and all power relations are fundamentally created at birth.Ignoring that fact is a scam that benefits some at cost to others, rather than discursive act of constantly reconstituting democracy – from the roots – through birth equity as an equal share of the powerpie, so that all can freely negotiate things like written constitutions, contracts, corporate formations, employment relationships, etc. and other things that define our day to day lives.
Ending the greenwashing, the lies, can save lives. The most effective way to save children, animals, the environment, and human rights and democracy is through Fair Start reforms. Don’t get scammed.
Can this work in practice? Yes, we can derive obligation all the way back. Look at the Seeds program in Uganda, and give if you can. We are changing the fundamental nature of obligation, doing what the United Nations and other organizations that failed to uphold basic human rights should have done decades ago.
Today, as we reflect on the incredible potential that lies within every child, let us reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that every child, regardless of their background or circumstances, has an equal opportunity for a bright and promising future.
To avoid scams and see the truth you can ask one simple question of any person or group claiming to do good: What have you been doing to deal with the basic connection between children being born, and things like child welfare, the climate crisis, animal rights, or anything else you might claim to care about?
Every child deserves a fair start in life, and it’s up to us to make it a reality!
