Serendipitous Beneficiaries and the Economy of Needs

In Africa, in an interconnected, interdependent world, the mismatching of needs, resources, opportunities, competition and accountability is undermining the perceived value of education, of labor markets which cannot absorb the vast pools of skilled and unskilled labor, of social infrastructures which cannot at present maximize the multifaceted resources of human capital. Inequality of access and value-of-outcome for individual, or group, efforts and achievements very often lead to financial hardship, gender-based deprivation, perceived/actual disenfranchisement, crime, violence, and larger conflicts.

Technologies in communication, transit, cloud-based information storage and sharing are providing unprecedented opportunities for growth in the knowledge capital of humanity. In previous centuries, humanity experienced the pseudo-sustainability of growth with the advancement and enrichment of a sheltered upper class, with acceptable numbers of jobs for uneducated, semi-skilled and skilled laborers. In the 21^st Century, however, the increasing millions of educated young people eager to apply their talents and skills to forge lives for themselves have clearly demonstrated that neither private nor public sector employment landscapes provide adequate opportunity, compensation, the attainment of life-goals.

Social infrastructures, regardless of climate, location, or resources, depend upon the investment of participants, individually and as communities, to endure. Poor outcomes which commence with gender-based discrimination leading to early child-birth, low-parental education and wealth, poor nutrition, geographic factors of exclusion-by-circumstance are reinforced by the disparities in the next generation of children’s education, and the improbability or even impossibility of obtaining a well-paid job—causing productivity levels and dependency levels to become progressively imbalanced.

Social structures are straining under ever-increasing populations of job-seekers, ever-increasing deficits of funding, and the double-sided swords of instant communication and transit technologies. While communities, states and nations should be building social and economic infrastructures which amplify the rights, and the responsibilities of an interdependent human species, inequality of opportunity continues to exacerbate the poor outcomes of the non-privileged.

Clear expectations of recompense-for-effort are reinforced by media and crowd influences, yet equitable, durable opportunities for educational, economic, environmental, energy and ethical (“universal” freedoms and rights) security are ever-more threatened. At a time crucial to the development of human responsibility and investment in a sustainable, interdependent world, poverty of outcomes is impoverishing, endangering the future of our species on this planet.

From the very start, impoverishments of circumstances affect each child’s probability of receiving adequate healthcare, nutritional, and educational services to succeed in life. Almost inescapably, these same circumstances and subsequent poor outcomes affect the ability of the working generation to support themselves, their children, and their elderly. Opportunities for education and hiring based upon connections, rather than merits, undermine the whole process of building human capital, and evolving from a top-heavy distribution of wealth, resources, power, and access, to a more equitable, merit-based, sustainable assumption of responsibility and recompense.

Investment in dynamic, strategic employment and social infrastructures is essential to impartial, merit-based hiring, to widening access for qualified enterprises and individuals. Investment opportunities to encourage the increase of businesses and agencies which look beyond regional and sectarian considerations, which work together to conserve limited finite resources while maximizing the potential of renewable resource utilization would strengthen infrastructures, and encourage new ideas, and new markets for services created, offered, and utilized.

In an overhauling of current collateral regimes of protectionism and creditor rights at the expense of small-investors, wage-earners, and subsistence- or poverty-line laborers, increased understanding of the economy of needs, rather than wants, reflects a richness of social fabric, rather than a paucity of empty promises.

The concept of serendipitous beneficiaries, of responsible development which considers the interconnectedness of humankind, of other earth species, of limited finite resources, global-renewable resources, and potential for sustainability, is crucial to the “greening” of markets, services, and human occupations today. Value-adding serendipitous beneficiaries to the associated/collateral choices and activities of market-share providers of goods and services enables citizen-consumers to make responsible choices themselves, empowering those enterprises ensuring "green," sustainable practices.

For example, in many nations, young people, unable to find adequate employment in their “home” communities, regions, or nations, tend to leave, congregating in urban centers where they hope to find paying jobs. This leaves the parent-generations cope, alone, with aging grandparents. In nations where poverty and tradition caused young girls to be married to men three and four times their age, this “flight” of the young generation leaves many, many older women, without adequate education or job skills, without financial training, property rights, or any access to healthcare, adequate nutrition, transportation or services, to support aged, dependent spouses alone.

A project to address constraints of youth receiving adequate training to get a job could include considerations of what jobs, projects, products, and collaborative efforts would best benefit the communities inhabited by each group of youths. Appropriate locally- or regionally-based projects could include plans to create new, and provide access to existing education and jobs in product -creation, -sales, -utilization; in service –training, -providing; in education, heritage knowledge preservation and tech-based communications/interconnectivity; in medical services and specialties; in domestic and hospital/hospice-based care and sustainable interventions. Every community eventually will have elder-citizens requiring assistance, inclusion, active care; every community at some point has adult and youth-emergent work forces needing employment and services themselves.

Serendipitous beneficiaries of locating training sponsorship for youth development and skills/vocational training could include infrastructure, energy-and-communications grids, construction, maintenance, and transit-systems/access, water/waste management, and social-services training, as well as specialized/medical field employment. Collaborative development and endorsement of projects with applicable industry sponsors, for equipment and for training, provide opportunities for “green-minded” corporations to invest at the community level in the sustainability and serendipitous outcomes of the populations served by their market-products/services, and build their market share among the young populations to which they offer training and opportunity.  

The elder communities served by such inclusive projects have their own associations of serendipitous beneficiaries, including adult offspring who are more able to contribute in their own jobs, knowing adequate, safe care is available to/provided for the elder family dependents. With more training, connectivity, and jobs available in outspread communities, urban flight and other employment-seeking population shifts would be less likely, with less detriment to the social fabric. Upgrades to “green” and environmentally-sustainable facilities and resource/waste management practices would benefit the ecosystems of the communities served. Infrastructure and service administration practices could become more transparent, as communities actively collaborate with funding sources on the projects undertaken, and employed participants contribute to the longevity of the program(s).

The concept of serendipitous beneficiaries as a measure and enhancement of social responsibility and sustainability could add to the flexibility of social infrastructures, educational programs, to the accountability and responsibility of service, commercial and industrial providers. In an interdependent humanity, on an interdependent planet of limited resources, a “green” approach which includes associated industries and efforts as serendipitous beneficiaries of planned output can result in alleviation of “poor outcomes” for all strata of society, for our shared environment and pool of resources, and can result in a raised quality of sustainable lifestyles for humankind, and our millions of fellow-earth species.

The objectified, the bystanders, and those living within the circle of care-- from the borders of bedlam, to beyond.

Physical health, mental health, mental abilities—among the “normal” and the differently-abled (challenged and gifted)—as the “higher species,” humans have long separated, described, documented, and dealt with (for better or worse) family and community members enduring some state of injury, disease, or condition which alters their ability to succeed, cope, or even survive in general society. Folk lore, arts, writings and institutions have, for centuries, acknowledged, if not improved the condition of the differently-abled within their communities—and have long, if inadequately, recognized the frequent companions of untreated disability/different-ability: poverty, ignorance, and isolation (of individuals, or whole groups). From appearances in nursery rhymes and Breugel paintings, to harsh realities of slave galleys and circuses where the different were paraded and exploited for the amusement and profit of the “normal” or the more powerful, the costs of being different have long weighed heavy on the shoulders of the afflicted.

The catch-term “mental illness” (including Alzheimer’s, dementia, personality disorders, substance-related disorders, epilepsy and other neurological disorders, and other conditions) has often been grouped among  “non-communicable” diseases—running distantly behind global awareness of cardiovascular diseases, lung diseases, cancers, diabetes and organ-deteriorating diseases. Improving genetic study technologies are showing links between maternal health, child health, and possible hereditary and environmental causes contributory to many mental as well as physical diseases.

Despite increased awareness, human-rights and social-justice programs lag in their capabilities to address the physical, mental, and community-health issues, even when deprivation and lack of status contribute to the downward spiral of dysfunction and discrimination, exacerbating health conditions through lack of options, care, and concern. Even crowd-sourcing and internet local-to-global appeals struggle to get the attention of funders, NGOs, research and care institutions and programs… and the families and caregivers of the less-capacitated are caught in what many consider a catch-22 of lose-lose options.

Many people lump differently-abled children and adults, those with birth-related dysfunctions, profound dis-abilities, autism, chronic-or-deteriorating neurological and/or physical afflictions which curtail “normal” communication/participation and social interaction, and severe/debilitating injury due to accident or malpractice together with the mentally ill— if for no other reason than the perceived differences in appearance, behavior and social participation from “The Normal.”

And many people do not want to be associated with mental illness. The centuries of separation, exploitation and exclusion have created stigma associated with “difference” which are sometimes nearly impossible to overcome. Many people think there is no “hope” associated with being differently-abled, ill, incapacitated—without ever seeming to define “hope” itself (using it as a blanket excuse for lack of participation or involvement), for in aligning with the “Many” comes the anonymity of non-responsibility, the safety of escape, the lure of “backing the winner” and avoiding the “loser,” the weaker, the disabled, the “other.”

Yes, there is a “global” health community, albeit, on the non-professional side, loosely-knit and sporadically-joined. Yes, there are local, community, national and online/stateless efforts to raise awareness, funding, and treatment-levels for the panoply of hereditary, communicable, chronic, non-communicable, trauma-related, event-induced (et cetera) illnesses and conditions. World Mental Health Day (held annually on the 10^th of October) helps raise awareness and global concern about mental health issues, awareness of treatment, costs, and related effects and syndromes. And the opportunity to research resources and techniques, to find mentors and affirming/supportive “friendships” online have elevated options and opportunities for care to the realm of possibility even in impoverished, remote, and underserved communities and households.

However, while global estimates of the annual costs associated with mental health/illness mount ever-closer to the trillion-dollar mark, mental illnesses and programs to improve mental health and chronic-illness treatment/care options struggle to get the attention of funders. Perhaps part of the problem is exactly the nearly-overwhelming burden of simply beginning to combat the massive imbalance built through years of inadequate care, and lack of confidence for a sustainable future—for the afflicted, and for the family/caregivers.

So, what are the costs of medical challenges, to those who endure the injury or condition, to those who love them, to those who provide care? Attendant costs, in some economic strata, of care planners, legal teams, “entitlement” specialists, social/medical-aid procurement specialists, public/private health liaison specialists, therapy/rehabilitation providers, procurement/cost specialists, personal-coach/counseling specialists… and tertiary costs: extra expenses for transit, equipment, training, specialized wardrobes, site-accommodations, service-accommodations, costs associated with inabilities to handle exigent circumstances… and “hidden” costs: lack of access, the huge resources of time/grooming/support needed to overcome perceived and actual discrimination, the postponed realities of geriatric care for individuals who have spent their live energies and life capital supporting the attendant costs of a disability or chronic condition (whether as care givers or care recipients)—leaving few if any provisions for the solitary shouldering of the entire burden of care when old age separates need from sufficiency, “retirement” from security, and adds the burden of “silencing” the marginalized by leaving them in isolated backwaters seldom noticed by the flowing tides of people competing for money, power, and life in an ever-evolving marketplace.

Without the capacity to change the circumstances of an ongoing condition, the physical and mental realities of the daily and nightly struggle to live in a body so afflicted, those who endure illness or trauma already face, with aging, the liabilities of depleted assets of strength, affluence, even basic inter/intrapersonal life/communication skills.

Those who are able to rely upon a network of support may have an easier journey in the short term, but unless they are able to achieve and maintain a level of self-reliance or committed-ongoing support, their apparent autonomy is tenuous, at best—and might collapse with the removal of the assistance, accommodation, and/or access-due-to-affluence to services needed to maintain a life of best-possible circumstance.

Sometimes the realities of this dependency so paralyze the afflicted individual that they are unable to assume a level of independence that they otherwise might have reached—perhaps fearing the removal of support if they become “too successful”—and fearing, more, the day when their abilities again are insufficient for the demands of the lifestyle they have attained, this time, striving and struggling or even failing without any network of support, because they have presumed to be “normal.”

Sometimes, the bubble of support so encourages the chronically or permanently differently-abled that they fly, like Icarus, to heights beyond their capacity to sustain… and the sudden or gradually-escalating demands for additional intervention by caregivers become so unbalanced within the level of resources actually available, that these efforts collapse, again insufficient to the demands of the lifestyle—this time having exhausted and/or lost the network of support which had previously been available.

Of course, there are myriad stages in between, where the socially-aware and the self-or-insular-focused dependent/differently-abled individuals alike find some balance which permits the continuation of daily life, and myriad stages between the levels of quality, or lack of quality, of those lives. And afflicted and care-giver alike encounter all the myriad stages of feelings of dependency, frustration, guilt, rage, wishes to escape or self-harm or suicide attendant to afflicted lives, as well.

And so the afflicted capable of doing so, and those who love the afflicted, the differently-abled, struggle to provide, to constantly reassess needs, and constantly realign degrees of care, support, autonomy, community in the fragile balance between security and challenge, comfort and control, predictability/sufficiency and collapse/chaos. Massively-invested family- and caregiver- circles pour life resources of time, energy, attention, affluence and affection into the pooled experience of life with a differently-abled circle-member. Other kinds of family-caregiver circles assign the expenditure of resources to exterior providers, and the differently-abled circle-member is relocated to an alternate place of residence/care, and must form a new circle of experience, trust, expectation and hope (or lacks thereof).

One of the contradictory realities which caregivers and circle-members also face is the division between urban/rural care-opportunities/resources, urban monetary-costs-of-living, urban costs-of-quality-of-life, and the potential gross separation between individual care and mass-cost-saving/profit alternatives. Uninformed, “qui tacet consentire videtur” and/or participatory support for care-provider neglect, malpractice or the flagrant misuse of power contribute to additional injury/affliction. These include mental-care/health-care “providers” who increase dependency to build economic inflow of predictable patient rolls; care providers, educators, and others in the train-attain-ladder who withhold/deny care/funding—or grant it based upon skewed demands for favors and other abuses; care “givers” who hide behind appearances of adherence to protocols and established practices while extending sub-standard, deleterious or even damaging assessments/therapies/regimens-of-treatment to patients in their care.

In the quest for change, with national economies teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and national health-care plans nearing insolvency, with health care providers hoping (logically) to work where the amenities and necessities of care are available, the precedent has been flight of intellectual and talent-based capital to urban centers. However, increasingly overcrowded, food/water-and-resource-dependent urban centers have become unsustainable, and a rebalancing of concepts of time, value, remuneration, of monetary-vs-social credit might redefine concepts of “ability and dependency,” of “success” of mastery of skills and the providing of care.

Cultural demands to care-for-your-own, fear of the suspicion, stigma and sanctions associated with differences/and visible-vs-invisible injury, illness and needs, and burgeoning global poverty/limited non-renewable resources might, serendipitously, coalesce to provide a sustainable solution to the mounting challenges, costs and considerations of mental illness and mental, community, and social well-being.

That is, rather than turning to self-attributions of self-imposed guilt (or sadly, even self-hatred) for being dis- or differently-abled, or for self-imposed guilt or blame/hatred for somehow contributing to the condition of the dis- or differently-abled dependent, individuals, care-givers and communities can learn from the focus of those coping with life-long afflictions—who strive to find the balance between living in their “reality” and creating the environment of joy whenever it is possible to pursue those activities/avocations/vocations they most love… Not all the differently-abled are able, or want to find what might be enduring questions of voyages of life, of interdependence on a global scale, of corporate, social, legal, and “humanitarian” responsibilities for levels of care and the quality of life—and whether that care is viewed as burden, sacrifice, obligation, labor-of-love, continuation of life-as-it-is, or opportunity.

Many humanitarian projects and programs, whether crowd-sourced/funded, privately-endowed, or beneficiaries of micro-loans and other self-help sponsorship/aid-partnerships have provided accumulating evidence that ground-to-boardroom community-involvement is crucial to the successful introduction, implementation, and continuation of the work/projects to-be-accomplished. Inclusion of the challenges of care for the differently-abled of our global community among the inception-to-completion planning procedures of humanitarian projects might sound glib and facile, but in many of the best global healing traditions, the differently-abled, from child to elder, maintain some sort of role or status in the community, involved with not only healing rituals and shared responsibilities for self- and assisted- care, but non-exploitative work or social-value contributions are encouraged, with opportunities offered, and assistance provided, so each, child to elder, can feel a part of the community network. This not only mitigates the tensions and tolls of care for the immediate family, but affirms the awareness, acceptance, and encouragement of the extended family, larger community, and provides backup links and support for interactions with the professional care-providing community.

While community and family-based care cannot provide extreme interventions which may be required for specific cases, the value of an inclusive social network, which does not disparage the efforts of the differently-abled to live their lives at whatever level might be best for them, which does not disparage nor diminish the efforts of the family and community of care-givers to diminish the stigma, discrimination and exploitation associated with extraordinary needs and the differently-abled, and which does uphold the best of the traditions of healing and humanitarian care in a manner which can lead to greater productivity of all the networked family-and-care-circle members, lead to lowered costs and attendant costs, in time, money, resources, and quality of life, and which can help bring greater stability, through increasing reliance on networks of care, and on internet-communication reinforcement of care and life-partnering, and a lowered consumption of resources, time and money, as well as lowered costs.

And where extreme interventions and extraordinary levels of care are required for specific circumstances, there will be a more globally-equitable availability of measurably-reliable care available, rather than supporting a huge network of procurement-management-specialists, rather than the actual providers of care. In our increasingly interdependent global society, the importance of sustainable mental and physical health can be an overwhelming burden, top-heavy with high-end corporate and associated-costs and charges, or a challenge and opportunity to actually deliver sound services and care, needed for the health and well-being of each of us, in the smaller and larger circles of community surrounding the differently-abled.