Those 'starving children in africa'
Yesterday in my public speaking class we were talking about persuasive speeches. About three or four times, the instructor (who I happen to like in general) mentioned in an off-handed way "starving children in Africa," almost as a joke.
Ok, not a joke. But in that "yeah yeah yeah starving africans I've heard it all before its the easiest example to think of when talking about charity/etc" kind of way. This is an awful thing to do because not only is it insensitive to the plight of people whose suffering is incomprehensible & unimaginable for us, but it further writes off the problems of Africa, DESENSITIZES us, makes it even more routine. The more this happens, the less sincere attention will go to causes like Africa.
Now part of this isn't our fault. We're all desensitized about things. Our civilization circulates millions of photos, videos, and other information of all kinds every day. Violence isn't novel anymore, but it is still unknown. No one (myself included) can ever imagine what it's *like* to deal with these issues first hand. I don't even think the aid workers who go there understand completely, because they will always be removed by their institutional connections; that is, when all is said and done, they will be taken care of.
There's an expression that I like, "Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value." This holds here. This is is an issue that is pretty black and white for me. I don't want to hear how someone "feels sorry" for those suffering in the world. I want to know how much of THEIR time they've spent helping these causes, or how much money they have donated, end of story. To me, feeling sorry for someone for a fleeting instant and moving on once your mind moves to something else is not noble, it's weak and meaningless.
I want to live a good lifestyle. I like nice stuff. I want to have a boat, organic food, I want an island, I want nice china and I want great colognes from Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus. I like to think I'm fancy like that. So I'm not advocating that in order to be good, everyone needs to sell all their nice stuff and donate every spare penny to some charity and sew their own clothes. No, I think there's nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of work, wealth, life, and a developed economy. But it comes with a price and a moral responsibility, I'd say.
When someone spends $50,000 on a BMW and that's that, then it's gluttony.
In economics there is a concept called the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. In an extreme nutshell, this states that once you've got enough of something, the pleasure it generates tends to diminish the more you have. The more times you eat out at the Thai food place, the less you want any more. Common sense stuff; so really, consider how much tangible joy that a BMW or massive plasma television generates for someone. Yes sure, you go out to your driveway and see your beautiful car and LOVE it, feel like a playa getting in, love that great luxurious car smell, the great handling and horsepower, love the looks you get from the ladiez when you have that top down... all this is true. But how long does it last? About thirty seconds. Your mind only thinks about something for so long, that's just the nature of our consciousness and brainworks. After just a dozen times of riding in your new car, you stop noticing it at all, you get used to it, it's not a remarkable possession anymore, it's just your car that you're occasionally reminded is really kool. So basically, you've paid $50,000 for a combined time of a few minutes worth of real pleasure, if that.
That's how we humans deal with *things*. But when it comes to basic needs, that aint how it works. When you are starving so severely that your shins are beginning to get a little bit mushy and your stomach's enzymes are beginning to digest the lining of your intestines, that doesn't go out of mind. That will cause you constant misery until it goes away or until you die. That's one reason that I think that our gluttonous pleasure should not take precedence to human suffering.
My point with all that is just to make this next final sweeping ungeneralized step: When someone spends the extra $33,000 for the BMW convertible (on top of the $17,000 you would pay for a perfectly functional brand new Saturn), they are quite literally making the statement that their five minutes of shallow pleasure isn't just worth an extra $33,000, but also is more important than the immense human suffering that can easily be relieved by donating that full $33,000 to some effective charity. Now I know that nobody actually makes that decision consciously, I'm not one of those people who thinks that human nature is even remotely evil. But it doesn't matter whether someone consciously makes that statement or not, it's still made and it still affects us.
Yes, that's extreme, but it's how I look at it. So yeah, I can't wait to have my pearl black A8 hybrid Audi with black tinted windows and leather interior... but if I am going to be such a dick as to pay $70,000 for it, then it's a moral obligation to pair that kind of money with a charitable donation, maybe even matching that amount. Period. We'll see if I have the balls to go through with it, do you?
So now I'm going to step off my moral high horse, sleep the afternoon away, and have an indulgently fun night at Doug Fir with Lara.
Ok, not a joke. But in that "yeah yeah yeah starving africans I've heard it all before its the easiest example to think of when talking about charity/etc" kind of way. This is an awful thing to do because not only is it insensitive to the plight of people whose suffering is incomprehensible & unimaginable for us, but it further writes off the problems of Africa, DESENSITIZES us, makes it even more routine. The more this happens, the less sincere attention will go to causes like Africa.
Now part of this isn't our fault. We're all desensitized about things. Our civilization circulates millions of photos, videos, and other information of all kinds every day. Violence isn't novel anymore, but it is still unknown. No one (myself included) can ever imagine what it's *like* to deal with these issues first hand. I don't even think the aid workers who go there understand completely, because they will always be removed by their institutional connections; that is, when all is said and done, they will be taken care of.
There's an expression that I like, "Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value." This holds here. This is is an issue that is pretty black and white for me. I don't want to hear how someone "feels sorry" for those suffering in the world. I want to know how much of THEIR time they've spent helping these causes, or how much money they have donated, end of story. To me, feeling sorry for someone for a fleeting instant and moving on once your mind moves to something else is not noble, it's weak and meaningless.
I want to live a good lifestyle. I like nice stuff. I want to have a boat, organic food, I want an island, I want nice china and I want great colognes from Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus. I like to think I'm fancy like that. So I'm not advocating that in order to be good, everyone needs to sell all their nice stuff and donate every spare penny to some charity and sew their own clothes. No, I think there's nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of work, wealth, life, and a developed economy. But it comes with a price and a moral responsibility, I'd say.
When someone spends $50,000 on a BMW and that's that, then it's gluttony.
In economics there is a concept called the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. In an extreme nutshell, this states that once you've got enough of something, the pleasure it generates tends to diminish the more you have. The more times you eat out at the Thai food place, the less you want any more. Common sense stuff; so really, consider how much tangible joy that a BMW or massive plasma television generates for someone. Yes sure, you go out to your driveway and see your beautiful car and LOVE it, feel like a playa getting in, love that great luxurious car smell, the great handling and horsepower, love the looks you get from the ladiez when you have that top down... all this is true. But how long does it last? About thirty seconds. Your mind only thinks about something for so long, that's just the nature of our consciousness and brainworks. After just a dozen times of riding in your new car, you stop noticing it at all, you get used to it, it's not a remarkable possession anymore, it's just your car that you're occasionally reminded is really kool. So basically, you've paid $50,000 for a combined time of a few minutes worth of real pleasure, if that.
That's how we humans deal with *things*. But when it comes to basic needs, that aint how it works. When you are starving so severely that your shins are beginning to get a little bit mushy and your stomach's enzymes are beginning to digest the lining of your intestines, that doesn't go out of mind. That will cause you constant misery until it goes away or until you die. That's one reason that I think that our gluttonous pleasure should not take precedence to human suffering.
My point with all that is just to make this next final sweeping ungeneralized step: When someone spends the extra $33,000 for the BMW convertible (on top of the $17,000 you would pay for a perfectly functional brand new Saturn), they are quite literally making the statement that their five minutes of shallow pleasure isn't just worth an extra $33,000, but also is more important than the immense human suffering that can easily be relieved by donating that full $33,000 to some effective charity. Now I know that nobody actually makes that decision consciously, I'm not one of those people who thinks that human nature is even remotely evil. But it doesn't matter whether someone consciously makes that statement or not, it's still made and it still affects us.
Yes, that's extreme, but it's how I look at it. So yeah, I can't wait to have my pearl black A8 hybrid Audi with black tinted windows and leather interior... but if I am going to be such a dick as to pay $70,000 for it, then it's a moral obligation to pair that kind of money with a charitable donation, maybe even matching that amount. Period. We'll see if I have the balls to go through with it, do you?
So now I'm going to step off my moral high horse, sleep the afternoon away, and have an indulgently fun night at Doug Fir with Lara.