I must admit I am quite a big fan of Henrik Edberg’s positivity blog. His research and simple words have definitely helped me in difficult times. After something like 4 years of blogging around happiness and positivity, he’s released an ebook that sums it up called “the 7 timeless habits of happiness”.

This ebook is really brilliant and that’s what you could expect of him. Some of the advice in there might sound obvious but I guess that’s because they are obvious that we tend to overlook them.

I won’t go into details regarding what’s in there because I think you should read it for yourself. What I would like to do is add my two cents in the conversation. What I think Henrik could have pinpointed. There are 4 elements that I think are crucial for one’s happiness.

Smoking and addictions first and that’s a never quitting smoker who speaks to you now. Beyond anything that can be said about smoking or any other addiction there’s a fundamental mechanism that stops you from reaching bliss. When you’re a smoker or into something else you’re constantly living in a craving-relief cycle. That clutters your mind in vicious ways. I believe it’s not only a burden but a true obstacle to piece of mind.

Now and I am actually very surprised but there’s no mention of love in the ebook. I’ll spare you clichés here, however I do have a theory about it. In the past I used to think you could only be whole and fulfilled once you had found someone. Happiness to me was conditioned by having as the saying goes “another half”.

Now I believe that’s not true. Happiness isn’t the result of love but a condition for it.

If you’re at peace with yourself and not in the need of anyone then you’ll be able to build solid foundations for a loving life with someone. If you’re not at peace or haven’t worked on what stopped you from being happy then you can find the perfect match but you’ll screw up eventually.

Third and still around people: Giving to others as mentioned in the book is essential but there’s a prerequisite and that is not being afraid of others. Now I have fallen many times in this trap and that’s still something I am working on. You can blame the media and also the lack of experience. I have come to realize that 95% of people are honest and potentially nice people. A good image for this is the iceberg. What we only see are the bad. The good people are the majority under water, the ones we don’t see because they don’t make so much noise. It’s sad because we’ve come to be very wary of each other and it really shouldn’t be the case. Try to ask what time it is on the street in London and see if anyone stops. (By the way that’s a good test: what happens in your city if you ask people for something on the street? Do they stop? Do they walk /run away?)

Finally and now that might be me only but my happiness is somehow linked to the weather. Sunshine is crucial to my mood no matter the temperature. I really feel alive and happy in the street when I get sun rays on my face. Don’t you?

Four months down the line and you are now more than a thousand helping each other on Karmawish!

As always, even if it takes time to implement new features, we’re always trying to fine tune the concept according to what you have to say. As a result they are big changes coming. Why and what? Well we’ve noticed that our system was not always ideal for some requests. When someone is asking for tips he/she should be able to give immediate reward for a good answer, no need to go through a long process of accepting and processing help.

Besides, you are a few who like to receive cards and that’s great. Problem is that it becomes difficult when several people want to get involved. Same applies to someone who needs help from many people. This can be the case if you’re moving out for instance. Karmawish will be ready for this in the coming version.

Now onto something that has triggered a lot of thinking. Should we give value to wishes? Does a 3 page translation should require a bigger reward than fixing a window? Well we’ve come to the conclusion that you should decide for this.

Here’s what you can expect in the coming version:

There will be two types of requests:

• Request for help: you’re moving out, you need a translation, someone to help you paint a wall. In this case, you will be able to set the number of karmacredits you will give to each of your granters once help has been provided. Obviously it will all depend on karmacredits you have at your disposal. Remember:  the more you help others the more karmacredits you get the more help you can get.
• Information requests, advice, and cards: This will be out of the karmacredit system. You’ll reward people who give you good tips or send you cards by giving them “stars”. 5 stars equal one karmacredit. This will be a fantastic way for people to help each other in a more immediate manner.

What else will you see?

We’re implementing communities. Now hold on tight because that’s great. You will be able to create or join communities. OK where is the revolution you might be asking? Well this will be a fantastic tool for like minded people to help one another. Let’s say you need photography tips or maybe to borrow a lens, by joining the let’s say “Berlin photography group” you will have your wishes broadcasted to the right people, multiplying your chances to get help.” On the other end you will also be able to bring your expertise and help others where you’re good at.

The twist is that a community can be about a topic but also for a geographic location. Have you heard about SELs, LETS or other Tauschringe? Well that’s pretty much what these communities can become but online thus taking advantage of the Internet ability to reach people.

There’s a lot more that will be included in the new version: ability to message members directly, 3 new languages, sub-categories etc…

We’re aiming at 2 months from this day.

Last October, the successful Turkish academician Dicle Koğacıoğlu commited suicide leaving a note behind. “ There is too much pain, I cannot hold on” She was working on “honour killings” and how women are killed, tortured under the discourse of  honour and decency, how religion is used as a weapon on women.It is true that Turkey is a modern country and has strong ties both with Europe and Middle East. But we can say that despite modernization we are trying to deal with problems based on old traditions such as honour killings and vendetta. It’s also true that today, people, especially women, die because of honour killings.

 When you search on the internet, you cannot find an explanation for the term “honour killing”. Let me try to explain briefly. People especially women in some cases have not the right to choose the person they want to marry. They cannot disagree with the decision made by (tribal) family members upon their marriage, it is also admitted that women should not lose their virginity until the wedding night….

 What if they do? What if they defend their right to choose? What if they don’t obey?

 The answer is simple. They should be punished. Even with death.

 In Turkey if someone rapes a women, the guiltiest person is the woman. She should marry the  rapist, if not her fate is determined: death. A statistic made by Police Headquarters of Turkey shows that at least 1091 women died because of honour killings between 2000 – 2005.  In 2008 Turkish Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Directorate’s report insists on the fact that at least one woman dies every week because of honour killings.

 Tragically, the person who undertakes the “killing duty” is a relative. Father, brother, husband even a son sometimes. Do you know why they have choosen to kill? “To save their honour.” If a girl disobeys the rules or is touched in the case of a rape her honour is “dirty” and should be cleaned.

 There are several reasons why honour killings are still going on. Tribal families have a very strong influence in some regions and this influence on people should be alleviated. Also Education is crucial to relieve “pressure inflicted by society”.Sure, this is mostly the state’s responsibility. The government should fight against the inhumane rules of  tribal families. The state should also provide security to the people who want to escape from those traditions. The State should protect women, its citizens. Additionally, honour killings should be punished by law. Unfortunately, we still can not see the law being fair and strong. Perhaps one could mention the fact that the government mainly consists of men and therefore, sexism is reproduced.

 A honour crime case was held in Diyarbakır Court in May 2009.The court reduced the punishment invoking “a result of the beliefs in the region”. According to the judge, “ If the family does not react its members might be alienated by the society”

 We can see that the law differs according to the gender. For example a young girl, Rabia was compelled to marry her rapist. The man abused her for 13 years and she killed him. Her punishment was 24 years in prison.

 Per Contra, Nurcan’s case is different. Her family decided to marry her with a man she didn’t want. She was having an affair with someone else but she couldn’t resist to marry. In the wedding night her husband realized she had lost her virginity. Family members decided to kill Nurcan to save their honour. Her husband’s brothers shot her 11 times. The court punished them only with 7 years in prison. Furthermore, the family also decided that Nurcan’s affair, Ferit, also had to die. To prevent “blood revenge” between families, Ferit’s 15 year old brother had the duty to kill his elder brother.

 What is to think when a judicial system is sexist like this one?

Can’t we rightly think that if this system carries on more women will die in the name of “honour”?

“Honour killings” are not just Turkey’s problem. Nearly all countries in the Middle East are facing with those kinds of problems. A UNICEF report from 1999 shows that 2 in every 3 murders in Gaza relates to honour killings. Additionally, in Europe there are cases related to honour killings like Heshu Yones murdered by her father in London in 2002.  Women there have no name, they are simply not considered as human beings.

The statistics are sad but they express the truth. Honour killings remain  a must-be-solved issue.

United Nations, Women Rights Organizations and many other associations are working on honour killings trying to prevent them but still we need much more effort on this issue.

The conception of the human minds in tribal families should change and as Hannah Arendt says, “ The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to  be either good or evil.”

Gözde, is a foreign news correspondent lives in İstanbul, Turkey. She actually has her Bsc in engineering but couldn’t escape her passion in journalism. Her future aim is to work on Middle East issues. She spends her free time on traveling and photography.

Development aid workers, human rights activists and environmentalists have long demanded the abolishment of EU farm subsidies. UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon and the Pope both consider it an important measure to be taken in order to fight famine in Africa effectively. It is not a secret that these agricultural aid payments, which take a large share of the EU budget, are negatively affecting local farmers on African markets. Some claim it to be one of the main reasons for the severe underdevelopment of many African countries.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) first came into existence in the late 1950s when the six EU founding states were suffering from a decade of war-induced shortages. Its implementation was then crucial to provide enough food for the European people by rebuilding the war-damaged agricultural sector. Basically, the CAP provided incentives to increase production of agricultural products by paying subsidies that awarded highly productive farmers whilst at the same time guaranteeing high prices for the produced goods. This subsidy policy was very successful and within a short period of time the initial goals were met, the EU managed to increase its agricultural productivity decisively and the Western European market could be satisfied. However, very soon European productivity started to exceed local demand resulting in the production of surpluses. As a consequence, the farming industry started to export its surpluses of basic food products, mainly to Africa. Due to the governmental subsidies, European farmers can offer their products on African markets below the actual production costs and still make a profit. Local African products cannot compete with the cheap imported goods which leads to local farming businesses being ousted from their domestic markets.

Unlike most of the EU member states, the agricultural sector is still of high importance in most African countries.  In some countries, Uganda being one example, up to 80 per cent of the work force is engaged in the agricultural sector. Usually a large number are smallholder farms. In Zambia, for instance, small scale farms represent 90 per cent of the rural population. Smallholders usually depend on the agricultural production with regard to their own consumption. Therefore, the EU policy is not only endangering their businesses but also their general food access. 

Apart from that, small agricultural businesses in Europe suffer from the policy as well. Since EU subsidies depend on the size of the cultivated area, the largest businesses receive the highest amount of direct payments. It truly is a policy privileging huge agricultural companies. Naturally, the over-cultivation also harms the environment.

Due to much criticism in the previous years, countries are now obliged to publish the recipients and the amount of subsidies they received. A requirement that Germany for instance only met a couple of months ago after a procedure was opened against the country for refusing to publish the subsidy beneficiaries. A glance at the list of receivers explains who might have had an interest in the delay. The top of the list consists almost exclusively of large food producing companies that received direct payments amounting to millions during the past year. 

It is a step towards the right direction that today everyone can easily look up recipient  companies and the amount of money they get. However, this is not getting us anywhere if the knowledge that is available is not being used and people, especially EU citizens who are financing the subsidies with their taxes, are not aware of the negative impacts this policy is causing. Even then, it seems impossible to actually influence European policy making that most of us do not really understand and do not even consider it worthwhile to take part in the elections.

It is true that due to reforms within the past years expenses for agriculture decreased relative to other EU expenses. From a peak of 70 per cent of the total budget, the amount has now declined to 43 per cent. Nevertheless, this is still a lion’s share compared for instance with the 3 per cent expenditure on development aid. Even though the European Union does not spend too much money on this crucial issue anyway, the spending can still be considered completely useless. The EU is trying to compensate deficits which it is causing by its own policy. If the EU pursued a more sensible policy regarding agriculture, a lot of money that is now ineffectively spent on development aid could be saved.  European tax payers are currently financing the misled agricultural policy that amounts to approximately 50 billion euros per year and costs each tax payer about 100€ annually. Out of this sum, 30 billion euros are used for direct payments to mainly large companies. According to some estimates, 30 billion euros is approximately the sum needed to effectively boost the African agricultural production. This is an essential measure to be taken considering the growing world population which is said to rise to nine billion people by 2050. If Africa does not succeed in building up a functioning agricultural sector, it will be impossible to feed all these people. The other 20 billion euros remaining from the budget should be used for a more sensible policy within Europe, supporting environmental friendly production, food safety and animal welfare. 

It is not hard to see that there is something seriously wrong with the EU farm subsidies. It has been criticised so many times, many ‘experts’ are demanding its immediate abolishment, especially in order to stop the negative impacts on Africa. At one point, the EU discussed cancelling the agricultural payments by 2013 and now they have set the goal to reduce the expenses to 32 per cent by that time. While the complete abolishment is postponed to some unknown point in the future, the issue is far too crucial for Africa’s development to be put aside.

I’ll have to be honest with you. I didn’t have a clue about the answer until very recently. This is something very simple yet worth knowing because the whole financial system relies on it. Here’s how it works.

To achieve this you need a bank. The dictionary will probably give you the following definition: “A place where lenders and borrowers meet” You put your money there so that you don’t have to deal with the stress of having it under your mattress, plus you make a little extra over time with interest. Or you can go to the bank and borrow some money to finance a purchase in exchange for a little interest on top for the bank so that it also gets its reward.

Mr. X and Mr. Y go to the bank today. Mr. X makes a deposit of 100 dollars and Mr. Y wants to borrow 100 dollars. The bank uses Mr. X’s money. In 10 years time Mr. Y will have repaid let’s say 150 dollars. Mr. X for his loyalty will get 120 dollars back and the bank will be happy with a 30-dollar profit.  Easy. But that’s not exactly how you create money because the 50 dollars existed somewhere else.

Here’s how money creates money:

Let’s say you have 20 people who give 100 dollars to one bank. The bank has 2 000 dollars at its disposal. Person number 21 comes along and asks to borrow 100 dollars. “No problem let’s open an account for you sir. We’ll make a mark on your account and here you go, you have 100 dollars.” Question: How many people think they have 100 dollars? You guessed it: 21. There is now 2100 dollars.  Money has just been created! Magic. That’s obviously as long as not everyone wants their money back at the same time. This won’t happen as long as everyone trusts his or her money is safe with the bank. This is why an imposing building and plenty of people wearing suits is important. It helps you trust them!

But it can go further than that. Banks are allowed to lend 90% of the money they have. That same 21^st customer goes to another bank and deposits his 100 dollars. The bank lends 90% of it creating 90 dollars for Customer 22 who will go to a third bank to make a deposit for the 90 dollars. This third bank lends 81 dollars out of it etc… Basically 100 dollars can create 1000 dollars in the end.

Money supply depends heavily on credit, our most beloved modern lending mechanism. Changes in interest rates can affect greatly the amount of money available and lead to a financial crisis. But that’s another story.

There’s this fantastic book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett called The Spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better that I can only recommend.

I was always been under the (false) impression that the goal of capitalism by creating wealth was to increase the whole society’s standard of leaving bringing comfort and wellbeing to the majority of us. Turns out I am completely wrong and this book, result of 30 years research, gives us a completely new insight on the link between a nation’s wealth and the well-being of its inhabitants.

There is a minimum economic level a country must meet for its inhabitants to enjoy decent life expectancy food availability and lodging. No one argues with this. But when it comes to social problems such as teenage pregnancy, imprisonment, obesity, violence and mental diseases no one has ever been able to pinpoint the reason why richer countries suffer more of these than poor countries.

It appears that it’s inequality within one society that triggers these problems.  “Low social status itself, or low relative income compared to others in the same society” is the problem.

“In Japan and Nordic countries incomes of the top 20 per cent are three or four times as big as the incomes of the poorest 20 per cent. In more unequal countries such as the US, Portugal and Britain the richest 20 per cent are 8 or 9 times as rich as the poorest 20 per cent.” Now the impact of this is tremendous looking at the figures. “Mental illness is three times more common in more unequal countries than in the most equal, obesity rates are twice as high, rates of imprisonment eight times higher and teenage births increase tenfold!”

Why such difference? Well in the race for more and more and more than my neighbour comes the status craving. We look at who has more than us and make it a personal goal as to which caste we should belong. All of this comes fuelled by envy and mistrust. Not exactly what’s recommended for piece of mind! Not achieving a certain status leads to self-deprecation seeds of anxiety and depression. Isolation entailed by this pursuit reinforces the latter. The only way to attain this status is through consumption, buying more, saving less, more debts more work and overall an endless pursuit of a goal destined to upgrade at mid-race.

The mistrust is an important element. When you look at more equal societies you can see that they are more collaborative with less emphasis on status. In Nordic countries redistribution and benefits are more prevalent. In no competition with your neighbour you feel closer to him, understand his issues as he understands yours. The other becomes ally, support and not an enemy or a fantasised model that requires cloning in order to achieve happiness.

We’ve witnessed how some insane inequalities have triggered problems for the entire society. Think of the traders and their bonuses, their raison d’etre being creating more wealth whatever the risks to take with our money. 

This book is not about setting up a utopian community, defending communism or anything like this. It simply pinpoints that the common trend for wider and wider gaps between rich and poor in any given society is the source of a lot of social issues. A trend the political could reverse and control should we all take full conscience of it and press for a change.

With the gap between the rich and poor nations widening relentlessly, an old idea has resurfaced in the midst of current economic turmoil: the Tobin Tax.

The tax is named after the economist Tobin, who came up with the idea of taxing all financial exchanges at a minimal percentage – so small that it would be invisible to most of us – while reaping a huge amount of money. His idea was to avoid speculation (i.e. the quick money made by those who play with exchange rate fluctuations) but a lot of people and organisations discovered a great way to create a worldwide fund destined to solve the biggest issues mankind is facing.

Every day over 3,000 billion dollars change hands in the global currency market. With just 300 billion dollars a year it would be possible to eradicate poverty all over the world – that’s 0.027% of the world market! So what are we waiting for?

Well it’s a bit like the Kyoto protocol syndrome, it works only if all parties respect it. As British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, “If one or two countries refuse to adopt a common levy or action or taxation, then it makes it very difficult to implement… If flows are under supervision in one set of countries, but not under supervision in other countries, then it makes it easy for people to avoid the action that even is agreed by most of the countries in the world.”

Criticism mainly comes from governments with a large international banking sector (how surprising!). They find it “impossible to implement” and think it “would destabilize foreign exchange markets”. In fact it would act as a great regulatory tool against speculators; from a pragmatic point of view it’s interesting to note that detractors would rather pay taxes from which a palpable part goes to global aid but won’t accept an invisible micro-cut to their transactions. 

More and more countries through political figures are calling for action on this. French President Nicolas Sarkozy mentioned it recently and wants this tax to become a G20 measure.  In the end this boils down to a political measure to put in place, as taxation after all is the realm of governments.

It’s important to note that the UN still aims to completely eradicate global poverty by 2015 according to the “millennium development goals.” The Tobin Tax may provide the answer!

For more information visit this website

Why is it that sometimes we just cannot believe that others have opinions that differ so much from our own? We take something for granted and are completely surprised when others don’t.

Well, the thing is, we have to understand our own way of thinking in order to understand how other people think. We are the centre of our universe. Literally. What we think and how we grew up is the way we imagine everybody else would think, because it is the only way of thinking we know. What we need to be aware of, though, is that everybody is doing it. We can say this about a certain culture or nation, but it starts even in small groups like families. Just think about the way you celebrate Christmas. Every single family has their own tradition, their traditional food, their time of opening the presents, songs they sing etc. But then there are of course many families all over the world who do not celebrate Christmas at all because they are not Christian. Others celebrate Christmas without being Christian, turning it into an end of the year holiday to be with the family and to exchange gifts, even if the original idea of Christmas is gone.

So even within one village the traditions of celebrating a holiday can vary greatly.

A different example on a much larger scale is geography. We all had some form of geography at school, and usually we would start learning about our city and state and then our country. After that we’d move on to the continent we live on and then eventually study the world’s other continents and countries. It’s basically like looking for your house on Google maps and then zooming out until you have the whole world on your screen.

The thing is, we all start off with OUR country. And of course we do. Why would we learn about a different country first? What we need to know is what rivers run through our country, how the mountains in the north are called, which countries border on ours.

If I’d ask you now to draw a map of the world, you would, most certainly draw your country within your continent into the centre of your sheet of paper. Or, if you don’t put it into the centre, you would draw it where you think it belongs from studying the world map in school.

I might guess that you will know the shape of your country and your continent pretty well, and if you haven’t exactly studied it, you would be a bit less sure about the shapes of the other continents, let alone other countries.

But now think about how someone from the United States or Brazil might draw their map differently from an European country. Have you seen the difference in the two maps? In Europe, the world is displayed in a way that every country can be seen in its entirety. The Americas are on the left, Europe and Africa are central and Asia and Oceania are on the right side.

In America, the Americas are in the centre, and Europe and Asia are neatly split in the middle. Africa and the western part of Europe as well as a good part of Asia are to the right of America and the rest of Asia is on the left.

In Asia, Asia is in the centre. Completely shocking to most Americans, The US and Canada are split in the middle and while South America is to the left of Europe, Asia and Africa, the American West coast is on the right.

Australian maps can be especially tricky to Europeans or Americans. Down under is not always down, but sometimes up. In various Australia centred world maps, the world is flipped upside down, North points down and South up. Australia is also in the centre of the map. 

So, I think we can all agree that there is no right or wrong map. Each country would feel weird to see their own country split in half, which it wouldn’t matter at all if a country on the other side of the world is separated on paper or to be squished into the upper right corner.

It just shows that we all see ourselves and our countries and cultures and moral values in the centre. To us it’s normal and it is only natural to be concerned with ourselves first. However, it is important to be aware that every country will do the same. Every culture sees itself as being the norm, while others are different, abnormal. So many misunderstandings and intercultural conflicts could be avoided if we’d remember that there are very different traditions in all countries all over the world and that what seems normal to us, might be completely strange, funny or even offensive. Have you ever tried shaking hands with a Japanese person and wondered why they wouldn’t really warm up to you afterwards or have you been glared at after refusing a free tea at a bazaar in Egypt?

I have been recently pondering over the notion of Trust and Internet. A friend of mine was underlining the fact that things could get sour with our website concept. She was trying to get someone to do a bit of work for her flat but dark thoughts stopped her from using Karmawish. I can understand why she thinks this way. But I think cautiousness shouldn’t be a hurdle in what we want to do.  It should be an ally.

One thing that always amazed me is EBay and its mechanisms. Send me the money and I’ll send you the goods. How fishier could this be? But it works! Why so? Maybe for two reasons: one obvious one more unconscious. My credibility will be compromised if I fail to deliver. As an after effect, I won’t be able to use this system anymore. I’ll have trouble gaining others’ trust and won’t be able to make as much money if I play with this trust. The second one I feel is more hidden. To me it refers to the psychological need we have to be trusted. Being the recipient of trust is empowering and a feel good factor somehow.  

Take a look at Couchsurfing now that I use from time to time. What makes a 22 year old Danish girl come to my house to sleep when she never ever spoke to me in person, experienced how I would look at her, know how I could react after a couple of glass of wine? Is it about being reckless? Just having faith in mankind?

Trusting someone is a bit like letting go of control and wait to see what the recipient will make of it. Ultimately it’s about asking the question:  Are you able to respect someone you know nothing of?     

I think trust is a wonderful mechanism that makes us believe all is not so gloomy and disheartening down here. Despite all we can see on the media, all this ruthlessness some men live by, it is still common and natural for a lot to care for others and help when they can. Somehow I feel trust is just like hope except it’s a fulfilled hope so something even mightier.

This being said I am also realistic and know that some are plain malevolent people. That’s why especially for women you shouldn’t meet a stranger at your place unaccompanied. But isn’t that common sense instead?

What do you think? Do you trust people over the Internet?

Realistic? I think they are. Politically correct? Probably not all of them. In no particular order.

•1. English as a universal compulsory language.

I think this first element is a key factor for mutual understanding and tolerance. I could probably write a whole post about it. The fact is that not being a native speaker and learning it has opened unheard-of doors to me. You can really understand a nation and its people when you are able to speak to them. What’s being brought to us (or not) by the media is not good enough.

•2. Blood donation

I suspect all countries have this problem. Most hospitals are always in need of blood donations. Would it be difficult for the government to make it a legal requirement that healthy citizens donate blood?

•3. Your organs at the society’s disposal when you die.

I can already hear some people cringe here. What about a nationwide database attached to your ID that says if you want to give or not your organs? A quick police check after an accident could make it quicker to save lives. I also don’t understand how relatives can choose for you if you’ve never expressed your will anywhere. I think Australians have a system to express their will on their driving licence.

•4. First aid lessons compulsory at school

How difficult is that seriously? How many lives could we save?

•5. The teaching hour.

Now that’s a concept to be worked on I think. We can all teach something. We all have one area of expertise. What about we dedicate one hour per week for those willing to learn about it? That would for sure require a bit of organisation but what a great way to rise up everybody’s skills. You teach and also you’re taught on what you need, should you want to participate as a student. All free of course.

•6. 3-day week end.

That probably sounds like a joke for some but I do think it’s possible. I’ll definitely post on this soon. There is a lot to say about it. For now all I can say is that I am convinced our efficiency could be crammed in 4 days instead of 5. I know a lot of “busy” people who spend a fair amount of time on facebook each day for instance. (Nothing against facebook, don’t take me wrong) 3-day week end would mean a proper time off for people. Some time to engage in personal projects, more time for the family, week ends away and the assurance to be more refreshed on Mondays and thus more effective! I don’t think many will argue with that one but I think it’s feasible.

•7. One good deed a week

What a better place it would be if people could strive to selflessness once a week, one good deed without expecting anything in return. Examples you might ask! http://www.dontalmostgive.org/ActsOfKindness/ or http://www.karmawish.com

•8. Religion day

What about one day during scholarship when all different members of all religions send someone to explain what their faith is about. Kids could freely ask questions and think for themselves. This could only lead to better mutual understanding and tolerance.

1. Food store waste

Where I am from food store throw away food approaching expiry dates leading to arguments and fights on the street between homeless and beggars. Mc donalds goes as far as pouring detergents on the food before throwing it away. Nonsense. What about a collecting system every night that would bring all this unwanted food to one place where it could be handed away properly?

1. What’s yours?