Care group model helped Seed for the future project to identify and sensitize the real voiceless young women from the grassroots communities in Africa and pilots done in Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya and Tanzania as Coalition and its growth to other countries and regions that were harmed over the years of wealth distribution injustices.
This work has roots in the first forms of democracy and can drive decolonization of wealth to liberate many in measurable ways. The United Nations failed to ensure sustainable and equitable family systems, which is now killing millions as the climate crisis unfolds.
The United Nations in 1968 finalized a paradigm of privacy isolating us from each other in the act of trying to constitute – through having children – equitable future relationships. This was done because a few wealthy families had a disproportionate impact on the standard and wanted to avoid covering the cost to children’s rights, and to benefit from the growth-based investments not having to invest in kids would ensure. This was done even though the act of having kids is more interpersonal than personal, and by ensuring isolation and subjectivity, the UN set in lace the collective action problem of inequity as not having an equal and influential share in determining the rules one lives under, and thus halting the unwanted influence others have over you.
The UN not telling this truth is killing innocent persons, skewing the baseline for live-saving climate loss and damage funding, including the preemptive nature of birth and developmental equity, the prioritization of certain claims, the amounts owed, and how the funds must be used.
What should have been done and can still be done today to fix this? One can create social contexts that overcome the collective action problem and break the veil of subjectivity, ones that invert entitlements (as was done to address famine), so that mothers and would-be mothers can all see how having kids and creating new members of the community will impact all and the future. In short, the use of a social context leads to the discerning of objective values we all share and are hidden by the UN process, and as such delay, the moving of resources from the wealthy to impoverished, relocating in some cases, smaller families, etc. – and this can all be expedited with child and future child savings accounts around which collective action can be based.
Small and less consumptive white families in wealthy nations will model and assist in funding the change. Delay, readiness, redistribution, share equity to get to autonomy, nature, etc. – these are the terms of a truly universal and intergenerational social contract.
Humans can only constitute the future through the language of obligation and the linguistic creation of power relations, and the fundamental mistake we all seem to be making is that our obligation is inverted: It would be physically impossible to be free unless we see ourselves as first obligated to persons who will parent, rather than first ruled by those at the top of the influence pyramid, e.g. officials, the wealthy, CEOs, celebs, etc., because all entitlement to influence – and ensure criteria other uses to assess what is true and valuable – derives from the governed and their primary equitable positioning. The latter should only have influence to the extent the creation of others ensures measurable (eight metrics as least) equity.
Whereas the United Nations and its members exploited isolation and birth and developmental positionality to fill factories and shopping centers with workers and consumers, this collective process will fill town falls, surrounded by nature, as the life of self-determination – not exploitation as economic units by in an economy that first requires democracies defined by measurable equity to be regulated – that justifies governance.
For example, the United Nations has recently recognized the right to a healthy environment, but on the day the General Assembly did so it was quickly undoing the right with subtle family policies that did more harm to the environment and the humans and nonhumans that comprise it than the UN was doing good.
The family policies work by giving would-be parents a sense of autonomy that ignores all the interpersonal impacts of having kids, one that ensures inequity and growth.
What the UN did is common. Most claims of public benefit are inaccurate because the key values/variables claimed (whether it is protecting animals, children, democracy, etc.) are actually hidden in/ absent from the premise (who we should be, which precedes what we should do) and being undone, but in ways humans have trouble perceiving because the changes move so slowly. The recognition of a right is a charade unless the UN enables crowd-sourced implementation of a right to the creation of power relations consistent with the right to a healthy environment.
These are facts, ones which enriched some at deadly and impoverishing cost to many, as the hiding/absence infects our thinking and conversations, making us unable to connect situations like redlining and urban heat in the U.S. to deforestation and poverty in Africa. In both situations the aligned values of nature and equity are absent from the first necessary premise of who we should be, and even the most ardent activists cannot see it.
Donations or reparations that are instead treated as one of many forms of influence (use of contact networks, prestige, civil disobedience, one’s skills, etc.) that logically are first obligated towards creating and maintaining the system that physically creates and maintains just power relations, which can be measured. Prioritizing our various forms of influence – above taxes or recognizing any entitlements to own wealth – makes us part of a system where we constitute or treat others as we would like to be treated – one which mimics the sort of entitlement change that has significantly reduced famines. Doing so includes the key values/variables in the premise of who we should be. One is either moving in the direction of being part of such a system or a threat to it – there is no middle ground. Those who choose to use their influence to back a system that does not include others as empowered equals, whatever they say, are harming equity.
It seems care groups are doing from below what written constitutions could not do from above – actually empower people with self-determination in a measurable way. The situation of women lacking basic needs in their lives causes physiological torture and force them to get early married, teenage pregnancy and gave birth too many children in the act of looking for the basic needs. Women cannot stay with basic needs; they are vulnerable if a younger woman lacks basic needs might end up doing negative things.
Global north wealth people, foundations and companies harmed women from the global south and her child’s future. Would it be wrong for a young woman with little wealth or income intending to become a mother to demand birth equity resources – resources that simply ensure a level playing field for her child and thus offset the harm from a wealthy family that externalized the deadly environmental and social costs of its wealth upon the child she wished to have?
What if that family exploited that birth inequality and growth to not only harm her future child, but ensure that child would be likely to work for little money for the wealthy family and their children? What if the young woman were black, and whose child would have 9/10th less wealth than white kids because they would be black, and the white family she asked could afford to share by choosing to have fewer children?
Start by stopping the harm and demanding climate restoration though birth equity as human right. Then start paying them back in the most effective through Care group model in the spirit of doing these reparations in decentralized form in transparency and accountability in responding to climate crisis and human rights and provide quick results in a short period of time. In paying to plan to keep the children’s women will have a safe environment.
The Care Group model, with its emphasis on identifying and sensitizing the marginalized and voiceless young women in grassroots communities, has been instrumental in addressing the long-standing injustices caused by wealth distribution disparities. These disparities have pushed women in these communities into a cycle of deprivation, leading to early marriages, teenage pregnancies, and excessive childbirth as they seek to fulfill their basic needs. This situation not only inflicts physiological torment on these women but also makes them susceptible to engaging in negative activities in their quest for survival.
It’s crucial to recognize that global wealth imbalances have often harmed women in the global south and jeopardized the future prospects of their children. In light of this, is it unjust for a young woman with limited wealth or income who aspires to become a mother to demand birth equity resources? Birth equity resources seek to level the playing field for her child and redress the harm caused by externalizing the environmental and social costs of wealth accumulation onto her child.
What if a wealthy family, responsible for this externalization, not only perpetuates birth inequity but also ensures that her child is likely to work for minimal wages for their family and heirs? Moreover, what if this young woman is black, knowing that her child will inherit significantly less wealth than white children due to racial disparities, and the white family she approaches could easily alleviate this disparity by choosing to have fewer children?
The path towards rectifying these injustices begins with halting the harm and advocating for climate restoration as a fundamental human right through birth equity. Simultaneously, it entails repaying the debt owed to these marginalized communities effectively, and the Care Group model provides a promising avenue for achieving this. By implementing reparations through this decentralized approach, we ensure transparency and accountability in responding to both the climate crisis and human rights violations. This method also delivers rapid results in a short timeframe, creating a safe and conducive environment for the children these women wish to raise.
In essence, urging wealthy individuals, foundations, and corporations from the global north to adopt the Care Group model in their family reforms. Reparations efforts are a means of addressing historical injustices, restoring dignity and opportunity to marginalized women, and fostering a more equitable and sustainable future for all. It’s a call for collective responsibility and action to rectify the imbalances that have perpetuated suffering for generations.
The care group model directly promotes decentralization with decolonization of collective action to problems through talking to each other in democratic system unlike the nuclear families in the global north, and also demoralizes non-human decolonization Animals to have freedoms.
How will the Care group model help future families?
- The Global North countries model on family planning endorsed by the United Nations simply isolates parents and parents-centered decision making resulting in errors in the global south model and Care group emerged to fix this error.
- The isolation has caused a terrible climate crisis and inequality in today’s generations.
- Care group modeling will allow Parents- children discussing and prioritizing when producing children based on their family planning reformation of policies that allow children all rights according to children’s UN convention.
- Will enkindle in all families with the sense of socialization and promoting working together in nuclear families.
- Care groups use rules that protect vulnerable voiceless women and children through investing in them and conserving animal freedoms in protecting nature to prevent crises present.
Why the Care group model?
1. A Community-Based Approach: The Care Group model is fundamentally community-based. It involves the formation of small, local groups of women who share similar life experiences and challenges. These groups serve as a support network for one another and work collectively to address common issues. In the context of reparations and family reforms, these groups would be a vital resource for affected women. They provide a platform for women to share their stories, access information, and collectively advocate for their rights.
2. Education and Awareness: The Care Group model places a strong emphasis on education and awareness. Trained community health workers or facilitators play a crucial role in disseminating information on a range of topics, including reproductive health, childcare, nutrition, and financial literacy. In the context of reparations, these facilitators can help women understand their rights and the resources available to them, empowering them to demand equity and justice.
3. Skill-building and Empowerment: Beyond education, the Care Group model focuses on skill-building and empowerment. Women in these groups can learn practical skills such as income generation, which can help them become financially independent. Reparations efforts can incorporate skill-building programs to equip women with the tools they need to secure a better future for themselves and their children.
4. Advocacy and Collective Action: The Care Group model encourages collective advocacy and action. Women in these groups can come together to voice their concerns and demands. In the context of reparations, these groups can be powerful advocates for justice, demanding accountability from those responsible for historical injustices and seeking restitution for the harm caused.
5. Monitoring and Evaluation: The Care Group model also includes a robust system for monitoring and evaluation. This ensures that the programs and initiatives being implemented are effective and responsive to the needs of the community. In the context of reparations, this means that the impact of reparations efforts can be closely tracked, and adjustments can be made as needed to ensure they are achieving their intended goals.
6. Sustainability: One of the strengths of the Care Group model is its focus on sustainability. By building the capacity of women within communities, it creates a lasting impact that extends beyond the duration of any specific program. In the context of reparations, this means that the benefits and support provided to women can have a lasting and positive effect on their lives and the lives of their children.
7. Partnership and Collaboration: The success of the Care Group model often relies on collaboration with local organizations, governments, and NGOs. When applied to reparations, partnerships can help ensure that resources are mobilized effectively, and a coordinated effort is made to address climate injustices and promote birth equity.
Coalition is aware of how environmental leaders are responding to the climate crisis and one of them suggested that their birth benefited them at the cost of others and working together to bring children into the world and avoid the problem that is arising from their errors.
None of the leaders want to participate in this conversation of saving the next generation, they are just ignoring because of supremacy.
Care groups can fix these crises, if environmental leaders can adopt and participate in the Care group model in responding to climate crises in a decentralized system of operation.
In conclusion, the Care Group model offers a comprehensive and community-centered approach to addressing the needs of marginalized women and their children in the context of family reforms and reparations for future socialization in families working together in addressing the climate crisis. It leverages education, empowerment, advocacy, and sustainability to create lasting change and promote birth equity and climate justice. Care groups focus on the vulnerable and how entrants impact the entire group to children above threshold therefore reversing the exploitation into growth to save the next generation.
