Philosophical Exploration of Philanthropy and Globally-possible inter-contributory choices Published in the eJournal of the Academy of Philanthropy; limited print edition sponsored by HE Sheikha Dr. Aisha Bint Faleh bin Nasser al Thani; available for purchase and download at academyofphilanthropy.org Abstract Philanthropy, humanity, are at a crossroads. Concepts of resource-based, acquisition-driven development—costly “social markers” of attainment and access—increasingly conflict with realizations that our planet is an interdependent biosphere of fragile ecosystems populated by millions of species, only one of which, the human, creates infrastructures and industrial complexes based on rents, repression and redistribution. An unparalleled opportunity exists to emerge from this “twilight” of unfulfilled promise, into a green, ethical era of individual, corporate, and state responsibility, where philanthropy is used neither as panacea, or “entitlement,” but a grassroots-to-boardroom bridge to knowledge, resilience, equality, sustainability—the best humankind can achieve. (Essay title:) Serendipitous outcomes, and a new Philanthropy of Needs, Sustainability, and Potential World economies are becoming increasingly affected by the uncertainties of a globe inhabited by peoples of apparently disparate lifestyles, access, and choices (or lack of access and choices). Inhabited—changed, cultivated; resources discovered, collected, and consumed—some to excess, to the point of zero-return, to the limits of exhaustion, to the threat of extinction. Habit, and habitat—terms which have been held separately for as long as humanity has been able to purchase alternatives more salubrious, convenient, and pleasant than the grinding realities of survival at subsistence levels, with limited resources, and lack of recourse. Concomitantly, the treasure of knowledge is becoming increasingly precious, although, in some ways, increasingly accessible: through global communication networks, globalized transportation capabilities, and globally-mobile organizations – be they corporate, cultural, educational, governmental, “non-governmental,” religious, or utilitarian/crisis-survival/sustainability entities. Yet many of these entities, even those purportedly involved in humanitarian outreach and philanthropy, are continuing “business as usual” practices and programs in a world overturned and imperiled by the inequities and contradictions among and between the beliefs, behaviors, lifestyles and access of its populations. In a time when people know more about their Earth and their supposed places upon it, populations are ever more able to view, via news media, global chat and video platforms, the crises and conflicts ripping apart cultural, political, religious and social fabrics woven over millennia, centuries, decades—to a point where the events of weeks or even days become milestones of demarcation, between a known past and an increasingly volatile, uncertain future. In a time when people know more about their environment, the climate, and various agricultural practices, know more about supposed ways to “leverage” maximum yields and profitability for the perpetuation of obsolescent production and consumption trends, populations are ever less certain that their own lives are safe upon a planet where peace and a non-destructive (nonpolluting), non-invasive (“fair” and shared), non-excessive (renewable) utilization and stewardship of shared resources, and the acknowledgement and assumption of common responsibilities are so tenuously balanced. Certainty fuels economies, societies, communities, families; distrust, lack of options and fears are said to paralyze, or at least create confusion and divisiveness between parties more willing to assign blame and

ostracize a convenient foe, than to identify potential partners, lay common terms, needs and challenges upon a table, and undertake the responsibilities of forging common solutions to shared goals and objectives. As has been long and often stated, leaders in philanthropy and humanitarian outreach do not have the luxury of waiting for clear guidance and codified rules to govern their philanthropic activities. Leaders in Philanthropy must search for the known “requirements,” the foundations of the continuation of humanity on this planet: everyone has common objectives of safe existences for children, dependents, and environments; fair division of resources and access to knowledge, energy, food, and water; and sustainable practices for actual and ethical freedoms and qualities of life in our increasingly interdependent planet. From this vantage point, Leaders in Philanthropy must forge reasonable, attainable and sustainable approaches and programs to not only strengthen these foundations of humanity, but to build upon them. Through philanthropy, through the Leadership of Philanthropy, humanity can look beyond sectarian oppositions, through the need for transition for tolerant co-existence, to the enabling of consensual recognition of, accountability for, and achievement of known values, and desired goals. Philanthropy, Leaders in Philanthropy can move beyond the separation and conflicts engendered by competition and scarcity, and de-isolate the concepts of vital strategic resources, vital strategic objectives, and vital humanitarian goals. Through the specificity of community-supported and sustained projects, and overarching, globally-balanced practices which can unite humankind, in their separate lives and cultures, Leaders in Philanthropy can mobilize the transition from the unilateral or multilateral violence of more-against-less, to the informed, participatory, consensual, and culturally-tolerant common effort of bringing humankind to a level of sustainable life upon a shared planet also inhabited by millions of other fellow (though “voiceless”) earth species. Leaders in Philanthropy may take positive steps to utilize shared “knowns” and verifiable/accountable attainment practices to increase the impact of the charitable, humanitarian and philanthropic choices and outreach projects of their organizations, and of all involved participants. Leaders in Philanthropy can then combat the unknowns of existing and future challenges (and the predictable outcomes/crisis requirements of natural disasters) from the common grounds of shared assets/capabilities, shared access/responsibilities, shared global realities/resource pools, and the transparent/communications-based tolerance of individual, national, or international perspectives, capabilities, resources and agendas. In these days, when conflict, corruption and consumption have raged, and continue to rampage, heedless and unregulated, seemingly at the whim of the most affluent or most powerful, the planet itself must be included, with its myriad species of humanity’s fellow earthlings, among the “voiceless” majorities of those needing inclusion, humanitarian aid, recourse to sustainable stewardship, and a transition from all-against-all, more-against-less conflicts and me-first competitions, to a coherent and consensual investment in our globally-interdependent, shared futures. Leaders in Philanthropy must build learning communities, based upon known commonalities, and transparent checkpoints and markers (aided with very little cost by access to global video/digital documenting and achievement/accountability standards which can be constructed upon existing communications networks and infrastructures). Instead of waiting for fragile local, regional, national and global economies to repair their business-as-usual practices, philanthropy might essay to build new concepts and conduits of aid and support, utilizing the best of community and localized capabilities to ensure projects and goals remain timely and efficient, and sustainable. We cannot wait for infrastructure investments from economies made fragile by overspending and underinvestment in the certainties of tangible attainments, humanitarian achievements, real values of water/food/energy and other quality-of-life security. In the fragile balance of peace, resources, and life on this planet, issues of supposed concepts of national security overshadow, environmental security, ecologies and infrastructures decimated by overconsumption and poor waste management which comprise huge threats to our joined “human” security. While bemoaning social and educational systems fraught with contradictions, short-sighted policies prolong and promote divisions hampering long-term elevation in the

specific and global knowledge pools, perpetuating a crisis-response behavior which actually seems to generate profits from the fueling of conflicts rather than the development of solutions. Instead of perpetuating the more-against-less competitions and the post-crisis, panic reactions such conflicts engender, philanthropic organizations, Leaders in Philanthropy, must plan a transition to a reality where peoples tolerate differences of origin, culture, politics, religion—and still work together to bring about consensual changes in the way each one of us accepts and acts upon our shared responsibilities to maintain the overall health of this planet, the overall peace of its peoples, the overarching concept that humankind, as a species, might, could, should have the “humanity” they espouse. Leaders in Philanthropy, philanthropic organizations, must also make possible the identification and achievement of goals which uphold those rights and reasonable actions which are universal in concept, universal in value, universal in ensuring the continued safety and sustainability of our shared/interdependent planet, and universal in trust among its peoples (and its tacit fellow earthling-species). Any and all people may aspire to self-determination, based upon the traditions, precepts and actualities of their inherited realities, of their capabilities, and of their choosing. However, the attainment of mutually-tolerant, non-invasive, equitable self-determination is an ongoing balance between interests, aspirations and these same individual-to-global specific realities—necessitating a continual evaluation and balance between perception and potential, challenge and opportunity, accountability and achievement. It is not enough to negotiate an understanding of a need to change, nor even a readiness to plan for change; Leaders in Philanthropy must make real, necessary change and improvement in an inequitable and endangered world a possible undertaking, a valid and chosen path, an attainable commitment along humankinds’ individual and cultural life-journey to self-determination, and the ethical and societal evolution of sustainable interdependence and mutual tolerance. Philanthropy must move beyond planning for transition, and reacting in crisis-imminent, or cliff-bottom post-conflict scenarios to mitigate the deterioration and destruction of our shared social fabric. Philanthropy must evolve to a position of shared investment, and strategically-employed resources of time, talent, tools, training, transport and energies, and real-and-non-renewable earth-resources to actually help bring about the change so desperately needed, so blindly sought, but seldom found, between individuals, communities, regions, nations, and global perspectives. A budget is a way to put into specifics the espoused values of a social contract, a social belief system, a social trust. Budgets need not be confined to monetary delimiters. Leaders in Philanthropy, as with leaders in politics, in the overarching-infrastructures of religion, in the corporate and service sectors, have relied upon economies of currency, of monies and trade-stocks, to fuel and fund their efforts, their involvement and impact, even their own annual salaries, recruitment, annual-evaluation-meetings, and retirements. Necessarily, such budgets have been tempered by the immediacy of access to fungible values, to distributable wealth, and such budgets and distributions have fallen prey to corruption, to mismanagement, to top-heavy bureaucratic and administrative structures which consume large percentages of the values given, through tax, crowd-sourced, individual and corporate donations, by those peoples wishing to fund philanthropic efforts. In a financially-biased world, where the visible trappings and continual luxuries of wealth are valued as a sine-qua-non of corporate and temporal success, any construct of philanthropy which depends upon those same ephemeral currencies of extrinsic excess can never truly achieve more than a band-aid mitigation to the harsh global realities of poverty, disaster, crime, and corruption. In an assets-accumulation scale, following the old all-against-all, more-against-less, cost/funding/benefit concepts of philanthropy (and economies) the lowest tiers of society might be afforded some alleviation of subsistence-levels of penury, and the working classes might be awarded some sinecures of recognition (tax-deductions, lottery-style-prizes, volunteer-vacations, etc) for their continued (voluntary and social-tax-based/mandatory) support of philanthropic infrastructures. However, the ongoing problems of

instability, insecurity of assets and resources (including arable and habitable spaces, food, water, clean air, energy), and crises of deprivation and natural disaster will still decimate budgets built upon pyramids of many-small-donors-supporting one-cause-and-much-bureaucracy with easily-divertible finances, despite the many laws intended to ensure the transparency of the use of such transferable intangibles. The currencies or credit of any nation can fall prey to theft at some point—and the time required, and expenses incurred, to trace such monetary flows and enforce the rectification of wrongdoing far exceeds the time-of-requirement and aid-capabilities for most disaster-relief, philanthropic, and humanitarian efforts. By large extension, continuing to base the greatest percentage of Philanthropic and Humanitarian outreach upon fungible currencies will cost more in administration than it will provide in aid and assistance—an untenable imbalance of need and capability. The expenses of such imbalance simply cannot be supported by the donations or tax-based collections of an increasingly aware-of-inaccessible-alternatives working class, by the passed-along-costs of corporate ‘support’ for partisan projects, by the mismanagement (and missed opportunities for management) of far-removed sectarian theorists who use mass-produced, cookie-cutter approaches to solve the community-specific and regionally-defined crises of education, environment, economy, and entropy in societies hoping to maintain their individual concepts of self-determination, worth and ethics, while bargaining to attract attention of governments, banking institutions, NGOs and Foundations offering the aid and succor necessary to prevent their imminent collapse and demise. Such a system almost demands the capitulation of values and self-determination on individual and social/cultural levels, in the name of being deemed “appropriate” to receive channeled charity and inclusion—rather than validating the concepts of “opposition/difference of design, commonality of desire/dependence/survival” as stake holders, shareholders in sustainable approaches to developing and achieving mutually-tolerant, culturally-diverse solutions to the challenges and obstacles (poverty of opportunity, absence of access, decimation of resources) which are destroying our societies today. A new concept of Impact Philanthropy and Investing could construct a new concept of transparency, accountability, and the budgeting of humanity’s shared pool of supplies/resources. A new concept of budget, supporting a transitioning concept of humanitarian and philanthropic leadership and lifestyle, is required. A budget of needs, values and expenditures could be constructed in terms of time, talent, training, tools, transport and energy… such budgets would direct the transfer of tangible resources for specific philanthropic ventures, projects, and achievements. Social connectivity could promote ongoing impact, in-community and intercultural learning, flexible development and enduring value in these projects. The rewards for Leaders of Philanthropy would include access, recognition, and the great responsibility of self-discovery and self-regulation, rather than huge salaries or the leveraging of authority for (and expenses incurred by) the running of huge corporation-of-charity infrastructures concerned more with administration than with delivery of aid. By calling directly upon the most qualified providers of specific services needed, be they tools/resources, transport, construction, training/talent, time-on-project and the energy to fuel requirements, the need to solicit, collect, safeguard, disburse and verify the receipt and proper expenditure of funds can be bypassed. By leaving the utilization of money, currency, fungible and transferable assets to the realm of the transient schedules for which such markers have value, and where their expenditure and utilization can be legally monitored, and accountability enforced, the enduring work of philanthropy can evolve beyond the ephemeral to assume its rightful position, as the genesis of its name, “Love of Humanity” implies. Philanthropy, Leaders in Philanthropy, can inspire within humanity the concepts and truths long lost in our history of sectarian, non-consensual conflicts. Philanthropy can build those bridges and avenues of tolerance

and security of basic wants, needs, human- and earth-species rights to safe, secure, sustainable lives, which have heretofore existed only in part, only for certain segments of the population, only for those with “more.” The accountability for the projects of philanthropy would be calculated in terms of human work-hours, hard-goods, services, and visible accomplishment, not in the variable values and expenses of currency or stock-and-trade. The verifiable accomplishments of philanthropic projects could be demonstrated in a sufficiency of sustainable qualities and amenities of life, for humans, and for the environment and other species of life sharing this planet. And the continual rewards of the projects from true Leaders in Philanthropy would be the eventual evolution of a humankind, capable of achievement and accountability in their own self-determination, choices and goals, mutually responsible for shared global resources and goals, but independent and self-regulating in their own communities, cultures, agendas and beliefs. Trust and leadership would truly be earned, not conferred, in a impact-driven approach/delivery of philanthropic projects which call upon the best of time, talent, tools, training, transport, and energy and resources from donor pools, rather than soliciting and depending upon the easily-diverted, easily-converted (to non-humanitarian purposes), expensively-monitored/administered donations of currencies. A credit-for-value marker system, which could be digitally-maintained in the world-wide-web, regardless of language, culture, or origin of the donor, could be assessed and instituted, enabling charitable donors (be they governments, foundations, NGOs, private individuals, the public-at-large, or corporations with equipment, energy, means of transport/construction, or work corps of service members, students or volunteers) worldwide to participate in philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors of their choosing, and suitable to their interests/abilities, regardless of status, age, origin, circumstance or mobility. Global interdependence would become a recognizable reality, through direct-participation channels of giving of real-value hard goods, equipment, transport, energy, resources, and services. As a specific exploration for this essay, consider that our interdependent globe is fast approaching a crisis of depleting oil and carbon-fossil fuel resources. The power and assets formerly derived from and funneled through control of these fuel reserves and their consumption is approaching an eventuality of annihilation. At the same time, the shared knowledge-pool of our global peoples is becoming increasingly technologically proficient. Alternative renewable sources of energy are being developed; power grids, which have been subject to load-shedding and brown-outs or collapse, are being made more efficient, and capable of bringing the energy required to fuel the communications and power needs of even the most remote pockets of humanity. Green technologies are enabling humanity to ensure that these renewable energy sources and consumption practices lessen, or remove altogether, the environmental impact and destruction of their utilization. How might the landscape of Philanthropy change, if real and tangible investment in infrastructure projects were to depart from typical single-reach projects and programs to a tiered, inter-functional approach of contributing to the greater good of humanity, of the planet, and of our fellow earth-species? What might the impact be, if existing infrastructures, corporate training and equipment capabilities, and the expertise of scholars, technicians and theorists could be combined in a multi-faceted solution, for example, to the crisis of fuel depletion and increasing energy dependency in our modernizing, mobile, and increasingly connected local and global communities? A government might not be able to undertake such an unconventional approach to common solutions, nor an NGO of pre-existing parameters and budgeting/funding disbursement bureaucracy and practices. But a true Leader in Philanthropy might be capable of utilizing existing infrastructure/edifices, enlisting corporate resources and expert training/technical assistance/development, and maintaining the public interest,

support and participation needed to truly alter the landscape of, potential for, and future of, giving (in terms of time, talent, tools, transport, training, energy and resources), on a truly inter-cultural, inter-national, humanitarian and global scale. To continue this example, to provide a hypothetical solution to the Energy Challenge: Leader(s) in Philanthropy could approach the various centers where large segments of the population gather for specific purposes, events or observances. That is, regional, national or international transit centers; access/egress points in the surrounding grounds of world heritage, pilgrimage or tourist sites; large-scale sports, entertainment or convention centers/stadiums; even large institutions of learning or health care or corporate centers could contribute, through sheer volume of participation and access to centralized collection and disbursement capabilities, to a globally-pooled power grid which could support continued-use infrastructures (of the transit centers, world heritage sites, hospitals, sports stadiums as first-level, “green-practices” sustainable entities, but also of secondary-level, “green-communities” humanitarian causes and aid recipients) and crisis-response reconstructions, providing energy security on a renewable, sustainable level, afforded and affordable to all. A tax-supported government, a profit-based corporation, a community-supported infrastructure (be it religious, political, educational, or other interest) would have neither the visibility, accountability, nor the non-sectarian/non-competitive interests to call forth all the variable resources and participants required to undertake such a project. But what if, for example, the World Council of Muslim Philanthropists could call upon the known resources, humanitarian, technological, and infrastructural, of the world today, to undertake just such a project? Portable, lightweight, solar-kinesthetic panels exist, and can be produced and transported affordably. Every year, millions of like-minded Muslims, world-wide, undertake the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. Without disrupting the sanctity of the Mecca, nor the prayerfulness of the participants, what if an over-arching philanthropic effort obtained and placed networks of these portable solar-kinesthetic panels, connected to power-grid receptors, to transform the mere movement of these millions of people, through the major transit points to the grounds surrounding the entry/departure gates of the Mecca and other prayer/pilgrimage destination sites? Similarly, the transit conduits and access/egress venues of the Catholics who throng to the Vatican for their Easter and other observances might be equipped to empower the participants, merely through their movements, to contribute desperately-needed renewable, sustainable energy to the power grids of the globe. The millions of Buddhist, Hindu, (other) Christian, and Hebrew pilgrims could also, in like manner, contribute, merely through the thronging steps of the faithful en route to their destinations, to the power grids of a needful planet, of humanitarian projects, of crisis-recovery centers. (On a more secular note, these same, or similar, portable solar-kinesthetic power panels could be installed in major sports stadiums, where team fans could compete between game periods, during time-out or penalty phases, and at entrance/egress passages, to produce “the most” energy for the power-grid charities targeted for those events. World heritage sites, major bike/pedestrian trails, and other pedestrian walking-markets, etc., could also have panels installed, for continual power-grid contributions.) In this fashion, every citizen, of any age or ability level in the world could find a common capacity to contribute to a continued need for energy, which has no sectarian, corporate, or political interest involved. In guiding the conceptualization, installation, and utilization of globally-supportive projects such as these, Leaders in Philanthropy could help our sectarian, disparate human-kind evolve, in a way which governments/NGOs and corporations (providing for the secular and social needs of populations), or religious organizations (providing for the sacred beliefs and needs of the souls of populations) cannot. Humankind, humanity, could be shown how to participate in their own determination and advancement as individuals, as communities, and as a species—to develop a new, mutually-responsible mindset of common humanity, while enabling the local communities and systems of religion and governance to maintain their more specific interactions with individuals and local or national populations.

Leaders in Philanthropy could change forever the paradigms of personal responsibility for our shared globe, personal investment and impact upon our shared resources and spaces, and more private/specific stewardship of local cultures, heritages, practices, climates/environments and resources. In this manner, social investment, and those philanthropic and humanitarian charitable projects of a more global, interdependent scale (as outlined above: undertaking to answer the challenges of energy security, food security and water security, to name a few) could be facilitated by Philanthropic projects, with oversight through established infrastructures and legal entities. In balance, the challenges of community-specific projects, which would ensure the sustainability of local culture, heritage, traditions and practices, environments and resources, could be approached through specific grant-making and provisioned endowment for the establishment of sustainable community-based programs which would not only provide preservation of existing valued amenities. However, again, innovating a system whereby the grants conferred and endowments established could be provided not through money, but in terms of time, talent, tools, training, transport, resources and energy would not only ensure that the assets so promised not be misdirected or misused, but also provide flexibly-appropriate training, employment, and future opportunities for the communities and peoples involved. As another specific challenge which could greatly benefit through true Leadership in Philanthropy and departure from habitual conflict and competition is the consideration of the greening (making arable and sustainable) of desert, infertile, or war-torn spaces, to re-balance the food and water security (among other benefits) of impoverished, non-included, endangered, or war-traumatized lands and populations. A global paradigm shift, where Philanthropic Engagement could replace tax-driven, bureaucratic reconstruction and/or re-purposing of non-arable lands, non-employed and under-skilled or under-resourced populations to provide secure and sustainable sources of food and water (decreasing crime, unemployment, conflict over resources, pollution, and need for stop-gap, cliff-bottom, crisis-assistance interventions which are short-term and do not alter the human-perceptions of all-against-all, more-against-less, zero-barrier, resource/consumption-based competition) could exemplify the kind of Leadership in Philanthropy which could usher in a new global ethic of choice, self-determination, mutual tolerance, shared responsibility, and peace. Currently, the philanthropic landscape includes NGOs, governmental agencies, cross-designated or multi-purposed peace-keeping/reconstruction forces, cause-specific charitable organizations and humanitarian efforts, and numerous other share-and-stake holders, including environmental, religious, political, monetary/investor, and corporate interests, all vying for prominence in various arenas of “requirement” and need. In Sierra Leone, in Rwanda, in Somalia, and, more urgently, now, in post-conflict Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, in Palestine (to name just a few of the social/environmental-systems with great potential for sustainable change leading to more secure populations/environments with more sustainable futures)—the challenges of maximizing limited water resources, of building arable soil and agricultural spaces/systems in currently non-productive, damaged, or otherwise non-arable environments looms desperately large for vast numbers of traumatized, starving/impoverished, option-less peoples. What if the concept of Leadership in Philanthropy could include a multi-tiered approach commensurate with the challenges of such endangered environments and needful (of food/water security, employment and opportunity for sustainable living spaces) populations—an approach which could move beyond sectarian concerns of origin, race, culture, religion, politics, or economic vested interests—and establish, simply, a benefit-to-all “green” space of arable land, maximal water-use, waste-conversion, and technological-skill-agricultural-and service sector employment potential for the current working populations and for generations in the future?

An innovative approach to humanitarian engagement and philanthropy could enable the time, talent, tools, training and transport, energy and resource requisition and provision to mobilize and deliver life-changing assistance on multi-tiered projects for communities and populations not possible within the landscape of current philanthropic and humanitarian projects. Instead of post-crisis reconstruction projects which construct refugee camps and redistributing or displacing people, especially the foundational peoples, those most affected by the more-against-less, all-against-all conflicts, those working every day to earn a bit of a better life for themselves and their children, Leaders in Philanthropy could discuss, and implement programs for green-spacing people. Leaders in Philanthropy could institute arable-land, sustainable water-use projects which would enable the marginalized, underserved, at-risk, foundational and impoverished peoples of the world to have renewable/resilient infrastructures in their lives—to have adequate food, water, energy, education, economic opportunity—all based upon multi-tiered, arable land projects. Moving beyond the sectarian concerns and competition for resources which hamper conventional aid and assistance efforts, philanthropic protocols which can muster the needed time, talent, tools, training, transport, energy and resources to construct secure, sustainable arable spaces and habitable green-spaces would provide these populations ‘humanitarian’ aid, inclusive provisions and amenities of life as part of ‘human kind,’ and the safeguarding of the humanity of ‘humankind’ with holistic, non-sectarian responses to habits of deprivation, violence, and the dissolution of states. Peace, especially in these days of global interdependence, immediate communications, and transportable weapons of mass destruction, can be far better achieved when all stake-and-share holders, when all neighbors, when all fellow humans, have unthreatened, sustainable lives and futures. Leaders in Philanthropy can guide the projects and programs which can can be chosen by community members, community leaders, and over-arching experts in the potential and possibilities of grean-spacing and sustainable futures. Supported by trainers, experts and sponsors, with contributions of time, talent, tools, training, transport, energy and resources/equipment, these projects could bring renewable agricultural systems (secure food/water supplies), renewable waste management and energy systems, resilient communications, education and interactions, and sustainable infrastructures to families, neighborhoods, regions, and nations. Green-spacing projects are multi-tiered. Leaders in Philanthropy could work to develop such multi-tiered, direct-impact projects, community-specific and globally-applicable and equitable. Over the centuries of our shared history, many people have grappled with the problems facing the world’s peoples, challenging their religions, their governments, testing their combined acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibilities and their perceived differences. The knowledge of the age rests in writings, speeches, videoblogs and media coverage, is seen in the choices and actions of the disparate and desperate segments of societies, of the visionaries, scholars, leaders—of religion, politics, commerce, of philanthropy. In our tandem march toward the future, can we, as humans, undertake a partnership of service and philanthropy, calculated in terms of equipment, time, and provision, and invest in the future of mankind? Such an approach, to truly humanitarian Philanthropy, could enable us, as human beings of distinct origins, traditions and values, to work together, maintaining our individuality, our cultures, heritage and beliefs, but, ultimately, together—towards common goals of sustainability, and peace. Of 25 million species estimated to co-exist on this planet, all are Earthlings. One, only one, species is human. We share this planet. One, only one, species undertakes philanthropic and humanitarian outreach and projects. We share responsibility to keep our existence on this shared planet sustainable. We can build more peaceful and sustainable lives; the choice to begin this investment, of time, talent, tools, training, transport, energy and resources, in the future of human kind, can begin, and then continue, through the shared efforts of Leaders and participants in Philanthropy.

Resources: http://www.journalofgreenbuilding.com/ http://uschs-apes.wikispaces.com/Desert+Biome+Location+and+abiotic+and+biotic+factors http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012WR011963.shtml scholarly guide to water resources http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=water+resources&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=-szeUJPXNMLu2gXjh4GYDQ&ved=0CD8QgQMwAA http://www.ehow.com/list_7225696_biotic-factors-deserts.html The Millennium Development Goals http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/approaches/south-south-learning South-South knowledge sharing has become a preferred method of learning - it is a way that countries can seek solutions from other countries with similar experiences. The usefulness of this approach became even more apparent in the wake of the recent financial crisis as policymakers began searching for new approaches to improve their competitiveness. http://renewablelight.blogspot.com/2011/03/shared-responsibility-or-self.html shared responsibility or self-preservation; corporate social responsibility and nationalization and the Mining Industry (natural resources) http://renewablelight.blogspot.com/2012/05/objectified-bystanders-and-those-living.html the objectified, the bystanders, and those living within the circle of care—from the borders of bedlam, to beyond http://www.developafrica.org/blog/serendipitous-beneficiaries-and-economy-needs http://www.changemakers.com/sustainableurbanhousing/entries/global-pedal-pedes-power-stations-and-mass-transit http://www.changemakers.com/sustainableurbanhousing/entries/mobile-garden-cart-and-composting-system http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/27/979614/-On-Palestine-a-Green-and-Sustainable-Peace# Institute for Human Rights and Business http://www.ihrb.org/ Business & Human Rights Resource Centre http://www.business-humanrights.org/ Global Business Initiative on Human Rights http://www.global-business-initiative.org/ McKinsey&Company McKinsey on Society http://mckinseyonsociety.com See also, for example, http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Sustainability/Fishery_Economics_Full_Report.pdf Women in Informal Employment Globalizing and Organizing http://wiego.org

International Labour Organization http://www.ilo.org/global/lang--en/index.htm Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development http://www.oecd.org/ World Economic Forum http://www.weforum.org/ See also, for example, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_RoleLargeEmployer_JobCreationArabWorld_Report_2012.pdf World Bank Open Access/Open Knowledge/Knowledge4Development etc. http://go.worldbank.org/V77PVZAOO0 International Monetary Fund http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm Social Protection Floor http://www.socialprotectionfloor-gateway.org/ Minority Rights Group International http://www.minorityrights.org/ Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa http://www.cseaafrica.org/ The Chronicle of Philanthropy http://philanthropy.com/section/Home/172 Learning to Give, teaching and learning resources http://learningtogive.org World Health Organization http://www.who.int/en/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao.org/index_en.htm See also, for example: http://www.fao.org/fishery/en ; http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e00.htm (SOFIA: the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture) Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.cbd.int/ World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology https://www.waset.org/ Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/ The Earth Institute, Columbia University http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sections/view/9 Albert Hadley Cantril, Pattern of Human Concerns (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1966) David Halpern, The Hidden Wealth of Nations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010) Christopher Jencks et al., Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America (New York: Basic Books, 1972) Christopher Jencks, Rethinking social Policy: Race, Poverty, and the Underclass (Harper Press, 1993) Richard Layard, Happiness, Lessons from a New Science (New York, Penguin, 2005) Peter Singer, The Expanding circle: Ethics and Sociobiology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981)

Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Londin, W. Strathan; and T. Cadell, in the Strand, MDCCLXXVI) http://books.google.bg/books?id=C5dNAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=true Wilkinson, R., and Pickett, K. The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better (London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 2009)