Let's discuss...

Mr. Mike

New member
Mar 24, 2010
532
0
0
As mentioned by certain other Escapists, we need more discussions. So I'd figure I'd get one started. Let's have some fleshed out responses and plenty of quoting.

Whenever something tragic happens in your local community, state, or even country, you hear about it; it's in the media. People raise a great deal of money to support the cause, whatever it may be, to help the victims get back on their feet. But why is there always such support for a comparatively minor incident when there is very little for the far greater atrocities being committed overseas in third-world countries?

Do people only feel like supporting a cause when they can see the effect of their generosity? Is there an underlying sense of patriotism that causes one to reach out and help their fellow countryman?

For example, in Australia last year there was a bushfire that ravaged the state of Victoria, killing 173 people, not to mention injuring over 400 and causing millions of dollars of damage. A music festival was held to raise money for this (Sound Relief), and it felt as though the entire country got behind the victims of the bushfire. Why then is there not this kind of country-wide support behind other incidences overseas?

* * * * *

I had a list of other questions I was going to ask, but the above questions just came to me, and I've never really been able to answer them. If I'd given it more time, there's be more to talk about, but that's all I've got for now folks.
 

Meggiepants

Not a pigeon roost
Jan 19, 2010
2,536
0
0
You know, I hate to say it, but I think the media has a lot of control over this kind of thing here in the states.

If the media chooses to cover a certain tragedy, more people will be aware of it, and thus more people will chip in to help out. Many of the atrocities that happen all of the time all over the world don't get the kind of coverage that say, the Haitian relief effort received.

I think the fault lies with both the media and the people. The media in the states has become profit oriented, 24 hour entertainment. You can no longer flip on CNN or Fox or MSNBC without encountering some kind of opinion based show that is an attempt to garner higher ratings. Because of this, these shows tend only to cover the things that have been sensationalized, be it a tragedy or a political scandal or a marriage breakup.

And we. the consumers, are to blame as well because this is what we want to see. If we tuned in every night to watch serious discussions regarding the atrocities committed in Rwanda for instance, the news shows would air that stuff. But in an age where people have the attention spans of gnats, these types of stories are old news. No one wants to hear about ongoing tragedies. They only want to hear about fresh tragedies.

Obviously I feel rather cynical about the whole thing. But it does strike me as sad that horrible things are happening every day in certain third world countries, but because there was just a brush fire in California or a Hurricane in Florida, it's just not exciting enough to talk about Darfur.
 

kurupt87

Fuhuhzucking hellcocks I'm good
Mar 17, 2010
1,438
0
0
Hmm, America seems to have a much tighter and more widespread community spirit than anything I've ever experienced in England. Of course this is the impression I've been given by the media, but I think it is generally a fact, especially in suburban and rural America.

Now, because of this tight-knit community, people help other members of it because they see themselves in them, can put themselves in the position of the victim, can easily relate in other words. They know that they'd want help in that situation, and do so to look after what they see as their way of living, and an unconscious and selfish belief that they'd get the same help were they the victim. (An unwritten part of the social contract maybe?)

Also, as @meganmeave said, the media has alot of control. The media however, is controlled by politics and "popular" opinion though, both of which are often bad influences. It is easy to morally recognise the plight of millions in the third world. It is harder to, at cost to yourself, help people and cultures that you will never see or be exposed to and that are so alien to your way of life.

Finally, the difference that an individual feels he can make is very small. While in reality, if every individual did contribute then huge differences could be made, it doesn't really change the individual opinion.
 

TheBritish

The really, quite jolly rascal
Nov 12, 2009
99
0
0
There is a sense of charity fatigue which I think it a main issue. Big events attract a lot of attention to a particular cause, but if they happened every week, people would give less attention to each one.

People know that there are tragedies happening in "developing nations" as I think we're supposed to call them now, but people also need to worry about things such as paying their own bills. From this comment we can start to think about what people consider a standard of living. To me, having an internet connection comes before donating to charity, for others buying a new car every week might, but to people in these developing nations, fresh clean water and medicine are their regular needs.

There is also the degree to which, when, for example, six people are killed in America, it is more upsetting than when six people are killed in South Africa or Zimbabwe, because it seems like such things happen all the time and we forget that the fact that they happen all the time "is a problem to be fixed" rather than a reason to stop caring.

A quote from Stalin comes to mind about a single death being a tragedy but a million being a statistic.

The last point I'd make would be how, seeing someone starve to death is suburban America is upsetting because we feel that this is something that "shouldn't happen" (Not that it should happen anywhere). It's seeing that someone just like our neighbours was suffering.

I think I forgot the point of my post :)
 

Mr. Mike

New member
Mar 24, 2010
532
0
0
TheBritish said:
There is a sense of charity fatigue which I think it a main issue. Big events attract a lot of attention to a particular cause, but if they happened every week, people would give less attention to each one.

People know that there are tragedies happening in "developing nations" as I think we're supposed to call them now, but people also need to worry about things such as paying their own bills. From this comment we can start to think about what people consider a standard of living. To me, having an internet connection comes before donating to charity, for others buying a new car every week might, but to people in these developing nations, fresh clean water and medicine are their regular needs.

There is also the degree to which, when, for example, six people are killed in America, it is more upsetting than when six people are killed in South Africa or Zimbabwe, because it seems like such things happen all the time and we forget that the fact that they happen all the time "is a problem to be fixed" rather than a reason to stop caring.

A quote from Stalin comes to mind about a single death being a tragedy but a million being a statistic.

The last point I'd make would be how, seeing someone starve to death is suburban America is upsetting because we feel that this is something that "shouldn't happen" (Not that it should happen anywhere). It's seeing that someone just like our neighbours was suffering.

I think I forgot the point of my post :)
I'll agree with you here in that people seem to view it all relatively. People view it as a "requirement" to have a car in many of the richer areas of the world, whilst it is normal to not have one at all somewhere else. Whilst the moral and ethical injustices are apparent in ANY of these wealth gaps, and we know we should do something about it, we just don't. We care too much about our own skin.

This is the problem in my eyes, and I believe this is the biggest hurdle that ever needs to be overcome. But it's human nature to put yourself before someone else, to make sure you're okay before you check up on the next person. That story in the Bible of the old widow who gave her last coin versus the pharisee who gave plenty more but still had plenty more to give. Who's going to make the bigger impact? The pharisee. Who was more generous? The widow.

I propose that we are in the position of the pharisees in this situation. We have plenty of money. We could give even half of it and still live decently. And yet even this does not regularly happen. This sense of greed has only accumulated over history. But why? What is it about the modern age, the psyche of the modern man/woman is so geared towards self-wealth and hoarding?

(Note: not trying to start a religious debate, but it was the best example I could find. It's relevant, don't read into any religious connotations)
 

cuddly_tomato

New member
Nov 12, 2008
3,404
0
0
Money was once a means of facilitating society. A farmer needed a blacksmith, and a blacksmith needed food. They could barter without money. But once they needed wheel makers, loggers, stone masons, and miners into the mix they needed a method of exchanging labor with each other in a manner which made their jobs viable, thus money was born. The problem is that over time it has become something else. It isn't just about making sure everyone gets their due, it is about status. Someone with more money is deemed more successful and more desirable than someone without, so greed isn't just about money anymore. It is about how you will be judged by the people around you.
 

TheBritish

The really, quite jolly rascal
Nov 12, 2009
99
0
0
cuddly_tomato said:
Money was once a means of facilitating society. A farmer needed a blacksmith, and a blacksmith needed food. They could barter without money. But once they needed wheel makers, loggers, stone masons, and miners into the mix they needed a method of exchanging labor with each other in a manner which made their jobs viable, thus money was born. The problem is that over time it has become something else. It isn't just about making sure everyone gets their due, it is about status. Someone with more money is deemed more successful and more desirable than someone without, so greed isn't just about money anymore. It is about how you will be judged by the people around you.
It is a point that you can find sadly ironic. The notes that we exchange are simply paper. They're promisary notes, nothing more. It's the equivalent of me buying a car on the promise that I'll give someone X amount of gold. Money itself has no value except that which we place upon it.

Then again, I'm not saying that people should bankrupt themselves to give money to charity... especially not after I just spend $10 on an Escapist subscription, but it's always been something that bothered me that we have these sudden bursts of money when events such as Children in Need and Comic Relief come up. Surely these plays would do better with a small influx of money over the year rather than these sudden bursts... but as I said... people get fatigued and the more time goes on, the more they begin to feel like they've "done their due".
 

TheBritish

The really, quite jolly rascal
Nov 12, 2009
99
0
0
Akira Fumi said:
I'm fairly new here, and I wasn't aware of this. Now saying I should be would be really illogical beings I just registered, but I have been visiting the website since Zero Punctuation started to air, which was quite awhile ago. This website always seems to have a fresh, interesting array of discussion topics going on. That might be me though, but I've always felt it would be nice to post here as a member and discuss all the myriad topics I see or occasionally read through.

I'm glad I was right. A+!

On topic though, I feel that most people would be more enthusiastic about helping out if they could very well see that their efforts are making a direct impact to something. A cause, for example. With so many others doing it, it may be hard to really feel like you are making a dent in the issue itself. If everyone could see this somehow on a bar graph or something more explanatory, it may help them understand exactly how their helping rather then ''click here to donate, walk away''.

Not everyone is the same though, obviously. Some people could care less about it. The same thing goes for disasters or otherwise horrible happenings. People are very different from country to country, and because of that they may not band together as a whole entity or even as a community when tragedy strikes. It's sad, but that is really the world we live in. Evidence of this is when one country has a disaster but doesn't really do much about it, in general terms anyways where other, completely unrelated countries rush in with donation and aid. I don't think I would like living in a country the only real help you would get is from an outside source.
Well, welcome to the community :)

I don't know if you're in Britain, but here we have Comic Relief (a bunch of commedians go on TV and do things for charity. "If we get up to five million I'll shave my beard" and "If we get up to ten milllion we'll break the record for naked people on TV" come to mind :)) A big part of this show is that every year, the commedians go to the places the money went to the previous year and see how it was spent (and then show us during the show). This is great to show the commedians why they do it, but I think it misses out on another one of the problems that I think, with society as it is, we're going to see more of in coming years. The need for instant gratification. I imagine that a lot of people would like to give to charity in person for that look on the person's face as they give. That feeling that they've done something to help. (Depending on your cynacism level you may believe that this is everyone's private motive for doing things.)

I do think that when something happens in America, for example, you're more likely to see donations from Americans than from anywhere else, because it would be seen to be "capable of handling it itself", wheras if something happens in a developing nation, such as the recent tsunami or earthquakes, it's a lot easier for "developed nations" to feel like they're contributing.

Another aspect to consider is with the recent Haiti appeal, where money was being spent protecting both the supplies and the troops protecting the supplies. In the end there were stories about the supplies just ending up going to smugglers and dealers on occasion. This kind of thing makes people far less likely to contribute. I know recently charities have started announcing things such as "All the money goes to charity" to show that they're not using it to pay for the show or the appeal.

As a final note, whilst I hate the current celebrity culture, if there's one thing it has done, it's that there seem to be constant shows on TV in Britain now where celebrities do things with money going to charity. (Admitedly, based on the declining level of television in Britain this could be seen as a bad thing :))
 

TheBritish

The really, quite jolly rascal
Nov 12, 2009
99
0
0
Akira Fumi said:
Mmm, I see. We have a lot of that here in the states, you will see it in the news. This celebrity donates x millions to this cause. It happens a lot, and frankly I'm glad some of the money that Hollywood rakes in is going back to the world and not into the limelight of the Hollywood movie scene. :)
It's a bit different from that actually :) Celebrities do things like... a quiz show, where the winner gets 1 million pounds to donate to a charity of their choice, or a reality show where the winner gets the same. Publicity for a cause, publicity for the star and money for the cause. Seems great :) Oftentimes they seem to genuinely care, picking for example, Alzeimer's Relief if their father died of it or some sort, but even if they don't care, it's money to the charity :)

Another thing I really like in Britain The Big Issue. It's a silly idea, really. It's a magazine that's sold by homeless people in the street. They do however get to "earn" their money, which can sometimes mean a lot to someone and perhaps more importantly, people get to see these people. See what they look like and if they choose to purchase, they usually get a real thankyou from someone who really cares. It's... I think £1.70, but I don't doubt that such an unusual price point was chosen because it's difficult to ask for your 30p back from someone who's homeless.
 

TheBritish

The really, quite jolly rascal
Nov 12, 2009
99
0
0
It's actually not what you might imagine :)
It's not really "about" the causes (although they often talk about various causes in the magazine.) It's just a really popular magazine with everything from music and film news through to political news. The idea is that it sells to the kind of people who might not ordinarily care about charity, but want something interesting to read. The "charity" aspect of it is more that it's sold by homeless people, who can hopefully provide enough income to get them out of the classic "homeless rut".

I don't know if there's a technical term for the "homeless rut", but I'm talking about when people can't get a job because they don't have a home address, telephone number, they can't afford expensive clothes, or they have to basicly "wear" everything they own or lose it and they can't get any of these things without a job. It's a tragic cycle really.

If you saw the Will Smith film or read the book The Pursuit of Happyness that raises a really interesting question. It's based on a true story (though in the book, the fellow explains that the movie glosses over some of the worst parts of his life), about a guy living on the street and trying to get a job, all with a child. Then again, the guy is aiming for very... difficult to attain job. It would be entirely reasonable to leave the cinema or finish the book and feel like the man is entirely in the wrong for living on the streets with a child all because he's not willing to accept anything but the job he dreams of. The moral of the book however, is that everyone deserves a chance to pursue their dream. You can make up your own mind of course.

Why was I reviewing the movie? Oh yes, because he is at one point living in homeless shelters and at one point a public bathroom. He's trying every day to make himself presentable in the one suit he has every day for a job.

I get distracted easily :)
 

Spoonius

New member
Jul 18, 2009
1,659
0
0
Just read this story: Woman Falls Off Wii Balance Board, Turns Into Nymphomaniac
Here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99974-Woman-Falls-Off-Wii-Balance-Board-Turns-Into-Nymphomaniac

She (a woman in the UK) was playing Wii Fit at the time, and damaged a nerve when she fell, resulting in a case of Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder. Basically, she's turned on all the time, and even the tiniest vibration can lead her to orgasm...

: |

In the "Related News" section down the bottom, there was this: Wii Fit Selling Out In U.K. and Ireland
Here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/83244-Wii-Fit-Selling-Out-In-U-K-and-Ireland




Just thought it was funny, that's all...



OT: It's a hard but necessary condition. Whilst most of us dislike the thought of fellow humans in distress, our parent nations cannot afford to help less-fortunate countries to the extent that we'd all like. Personally donating money is less effective than advertised, as only a small percentage of the contribution reaches or benefits the people it's intended for, and there isn't really any other way of contributing to the cause. And no nation on Earth wants to spend money that won't help to develop itself in some way, that's just the way it is.
 

Mr. Mike

New member
Mar 24, 2010
532
0
0
I_am_a_Spoon said:
Just read this story: Woman Falls Off Wii Balance Board, Turns Into Nymphomaniac
Here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99974-Woman-Falls-Off-Wii-Balance-Board-Turns-Into-Nymphomaniac

She was playing Wii Fit at the time, and damaged a nerve when she fell, resulting in a case of Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder. Basically, she's turned on all the time, and even the tiniest vibration can lead her to orgasm...

: |

In the "Related News" section down the bottom, there was this: Wii Fit Selling Out In U.K. and Ireland
Here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/83244-Wii-Fit-Selling-Out-In-U-K-and-Ireland




Just thought it was funny, that's all...
How is this relevant at all? We're discussing the motives behind what makes people donate or hoard money and how the whole concept of wealth has changed. Please, if you're going to post, contribute.
 

Spoonius

New member
Jul 18, 2009
1,659
0
0
Mr. Mike said:
How is this relevant at all? We're discussing the motives behind what makes people donate or hoard money and how the whole concept of wealth has changed. Please, if you're going to post, contribute.
Cool it mate. The OP wanted interesting discussion, and the "motives behind what makes people donate or hoard money and how the whole concept of wealth has changed" topic is just what came up. So technically, I'm posting relevant material.

However, if you still want an "on topic" contribution, then finish reading my bloody post.
 

TheBritish

The really, quite jolly rascal
Nov 12, 2009
99
0
0
I know it might seem like an odd thing to say, but I've never noticed any competition for customers :) According to wiki... *looks up* it's sold in a lot of places, but nowhere too near Canadia :)

Seeing as Mr.Mike reminded me of the original topic... :)
I remember I started to really care about homelessness in particular when I was in school and an author came in to visit who'd written a lot of books about homelessness (particularly among children). It was actually really scary to me to think how easily some perfectly normal person could be homeless in a day. Reading some of his books made you really realise how harsh things could be. So... caring about this issue comes from basically hearing a lot of specifics about life for these people. Maybe that would make people care about Haiti and Dafur, if people truly got to see a day in the life of these people instead of just media snippets in the news.

This may however, just be me. I tend to be much more interested in things when I get all the details about it rather than just "what I need to know".
 

Mr. Mike

New member
Mar 24, 2010
532
0
0
I_am_a_Spoon said:
Mr. Mike said:
How is this relevant at all? We're discussing the motives behind what makes people donate or hoard money and how the whole concept of wealth has changed. Please, if you're going to post, contribute.
Cool it mate. The OP wanted interesting discussion, and the "motives behind what makes people donate or hoard money and how the whole concept of wealth has changed" topic is just what came up. So technically, I'm posting relevant material.

However, if you still want an "on topic" contribution, then finish reading my bloody post.
No need for hostilities. When I posted, the rest of your "bloody post" wasn't there. Just a couple of links to other Escapist content, which seemed like a random plug indeed. Sorry for the confusion.

To respond to what you said, I'd say that it's a pity that the only way we can really help those in developing countries is either through charity or physically going there and giving assistance. I don't really have any "middle ground" ideas, but there needs to be one. It's either give your money to some organisation in the hope the money reaches where it's supposed to, or go there yourself.

It doesn't help that the media doesn't give any of these issues the attention they deserve. Apparently the lives of some rich dopes are more important.

Another random thought; why couldn't the US build 5 less fighter jets or tanks and send that money to a developing country? They have enough nukes to scare off anyone bar Russia, and if those two super-nations fought, goodbye world. Although this could just be the human psyche telling me that it's easier to blame someone else than to look into what I'm not doing right.