How much do you care?
- Thread starter TheIronRuler
- Start date
I care about some things in the wider world, but I don't care about everything. If I truly cared about all the things that suck in the world from war to pollution to homelessness I would lose my damn mind. I have enough crap and stress to deal with in my own little life, so I don't have an overabundance of energy that I can dedicate to caring about lots of other things.
There was a story in Fargo (TV Series not the movie) about a rich man who gave everything. Basically, he cares so much that he keeps giving and giving until he wishes to donate a second kidney. When the doctor refuses, he takes his own life.
I think it's supposed to illustrate that no matter how much you care, in the end, it doesn't really matter. The amount that you'll effect the overall world is so insignificant, you may as well just care for yourself and your loved ones. I personally agree with this. However, if I see a particularly miserable homeless person, I may be inclined to buy them a meal.
I do not care about the millions of miserable people in the world (or, at least not in the sense that I am emotionally invested in their lives). How could I? I'd be an emotional wreck if I did and probably end up taking my life out of the sheer scale of the misery. I find it much easier to care about people on a case by case basis. At least having seen someone's face, or knowing something about their life makes it a lot easier to form an emotional connection.
This may sound cold, but stating otherwise would simply be untrue. It is not a switch that I can flip, it is who I am. While being able to care about everyone's suffering is a nice ideal, it is simply not possible for me. It's like love. You can't randomly decide that you love someone. You either do, or you don't. It's not really up to you.
I think it's supposed to illustrate that no matter how much you care, in the end, it doesn't really matter. The amount that you'll effect the overall world is so insignificant, you may as well just care for yourself and your loved ones. I personally agree with this. However, if I see a particularly miserable homeless person, I may be inclined to buy them a meal.
I do not care about the millions of miserable people in the world (or, at least not in the sense that I am emotionally invested in their lives). How could I? I'd be an emotional wreck if I did and probably end up taking my life out of the sheer scale of the misery. I find it much easier to care about people on a case by case basis. At least having seen someone's face, or knowing something about their life makes it a lot easier to form an emotional connection.
This may sound cold, but stating otherwise would simply be untrue. It is not a switch that I can flip, it is who I am. While being able to care about everyone's suffering is a nice ideal, it is simply not possible for me. It's like love. You can't randomly decide that you love someone. You either do, or you don't. It's not really up to you.
.A_Parked_Car said:
So you don't care if you can't change it, but you won't try to change it, and it will remain the same. What if you care, and try to change it, and fail? Would you feel bad for failing, or would you feel proud of yourself for caring and doing something about it?
I care about things that I understand because I have the motivation to keep up to date on the latest developments. I study military history at the graduate level and as such there is a lot of overlap with contemporary affairs. I keep up with the advances of IS, the mess in the Ukraine and the disputes in the South China Sea (etc.). Those are the kinds of things I understand and care about. There is also nothing I can do about any of it. I'm not in an advisory role to my government, heck I'm not even a journalist.TheIronRuler said:
As an aside, the quality of journalism in regards to those topics is so bad it kind of makes me want to become one so that I can write stories about strategic issues and conflicts that don't come off like they were penned by someone who's knowledge of military matters comes from watching their son play CoD. Since I know that actually stopping the conflicts is entirely out of my control, I figure that the general public should at least be better informed than they are.
There are plenty of big issues that I really don't care about because I simply do not have the knowledge or understanding to begin to wrap my head around them. I leave them with people that are far more qualified than myself. Things like world hunger, pollution and homelessness suck, but my understanding of military issues is hardly useful and my position as a nobody (a fairly poor one at that) doesn't exactly give me a whole lot of clout.
I spend most of my time caring about things that directly impact me. I care about my handful of friends, finding a girlfriend, finishing my master's degree, finding a stable full-time job, moving out, etc. Many of the same things that I would say the majority of people care about most, whether they want to admit it or not.
I kinda don't care at all. Gaza and Ferguson? Don't care. Yes, the stuff going on in Gaza and Ferguson sucks, but it doesn't affect me, so I don't care. I care if it's someone or something I can help or change directly; I give money to nearly all homeless people and panhandlers I see, the other day at a gas station a guy asked me if I could spare $5 for some gas so I filled his tank up completely for him, stuff like that. But otherwise, I really don't care. Blame it on the Monkeysphere or Dunbar's number I guess.
.And Man said:
That's a pretty realistic approach to altruism, and I like it. I think I have a similar attitude towards everything around me, but I prefer to keep awareness of world events, even though I don't care that much for most of it.
.A_Parked_Car said:
More often than not, the military advisers who do brief journalisms have an agenda of the establishemnt they are supposed to advance, which is why the reporting is so lackluster. That, and reporters not really doing their research well enough.
I too have been following world developments. Today's hot-zones are plenty, but they all share the same thing - it's all a result of a previous conflict's border changes. Today the issue in China is very interesting, with Chine rivaling Japan and the Philippines, which is essentially China Vs. the USA.
ISIS is a part of a much bigger picture in the middle-east, a destabilization effort in the region, coinciding with internal strife, external invasions, succession struggles, civil wars and more. Qadafi, Saddam, Assad, all gone for a reason. Right now the same regions they controlled are in turmoil. When you weaken a people like that, you throw them decades back in terms of human, economic and military progress. It's a part of a grander plan.
