jungle

Wanting a Meal

todd1200

That makes me disgusted to be a part of such a selfish society that has such disregard for the suffering of others.

jungle

Don't be disgusted, that society is the only thing that holds the thin red line against the cruelty of nature.

rickair7777

It's not OUR society which is the problem. The problem is the local situation where these kinds of things occur. The US government, western governments (and some non-western), and a plethora of charities contribute billions and billions of dollars of food aid.

The problem is the that food it doesn't make it to the intended recipients. Local conflict, corruption, strongmen, bandits, and transportation shortcomings all conspire to prevent that.

The typical african strongman will skim 90-95% off the top of a donated food shipment so he can resell it for his own profit. He will allow only enough to get through for photo ops to ensure that the contributing organization keeps the gravy train on track.

What's the solution to that? Massive armed intervention in cases where local political power is preventing aid or deliberately marginalizing certain tribal groups. Unfortunately we have our hands pretty full right now as it is...

I have always felt that there was a degree of hypocrisy in the way our leaders select the causes which they will aid. For example if the situations which have existed in africa occurred in say, france or even eastern europe NATO would mobilize an army in a heartbeat to deal with it. But within our society there is not sufficient grassroots political pressure to do the same in africa .It would also be much harder since we don't have established allies, bases, or forces on the subcontinent (we're working on improving that as we speak). It's also so large a landmass that massive airlift might be the only way to reach many hotspots, which is vastly more expensive than the manner in which we normally deliver heavy military forces: large cargo ships and rail.

If I were king for day, we would select the causes over which we go to war over based on
1) National survival (duh!)
2) Sustaining our ability to intervene (this means we need an economy, energy source, and political will).
3) Degree of suffering, ie deal with the really bad stuff first.
4) Practicality. This is a kind of triage, it might not make sense to spend all of your resources on problem A, only to let B, C, and D go unanswered.

Rather than be ashamed of your society (which has done a great deal of good over the last 100 years) maybe educate yourself about these issues and find a way to volunteer.

FDXLAG

I think todd needs to read Black Hawk Down so he can understand why we went to Somalia and how it "helped" after similar pictures were published.

todd1200

There are a number of very effective charities that do real good, and save real lives, and could save more lives if they had more money. I'm not saying that we should just throw money at the poor, or that our government doesn't do any good worldwide, I've been in the military and I respect everyone who has fought over seas. My problem is that, as individuals, those of us living in wealthy nations keep spending our money on lattes and sports cars while millions of kids are dying from hunger and malaria (Americans give 7 cents out of every $100 they make to foreign aid). Rick, honestly, I don't spend enough time volunteering, but I spend a decent amount of time educating myself. I'm a poor (relatively poor, the kind of poor with a flat screen T.V. and a smart phone) RJ FO, and I don't have much disposable income left after paying bills, buying groceries, formula, etc., but I do give what's left to charities like Oxfam and Unicef. FDXLAG, I'll read Blackhawk Down if you read The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer.

FDXLAG

I have read some Pete Singer and am positive that is not a fair trade. You confuse charity with foreign aid. The successfull charities you speak of are more than likely not affiliated with any foreign aid. Foreign aid is the problem property rights is the solution. Although I am sure Mr Singer would not agree.

jungle

It might be tough taking advice from the "Beastmaster":

In a 2001 review of Midas Dekker's Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities.[26] The position was countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex.[27] The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.[28]

Commenting on Singer's article "Heavy Petting,"[29] in which he argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group PETA, argued that, "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." A few years later, Newkirk clarified in a letter to the Canada Free Press that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation of, and all sexual activity with, animals.[30]

Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[31] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes".

wiki

todd1200

I strongly disagree with much of what Singer says on other topics (I don't think we should kill handicapped infants), but I don't dismiss everything he has to say about everything. I apologize if used ambiguous or imprecise terminology -- I did not want to say that Americans give 7 cents of every 100 dollars to charity, because that isn't true, they give much more to charity, but much of that goes to building civic centers, concert halls, etc. -- the 7 cents is what goes overseas to help those living in poverty (through Non-Governmental Organizations). If you refer to foreign aid as taxpayer money that is sent overseas by our government to help those living in poverty, I think the figure is somewhere around 25 cents of every 100 dollars earned. Not to say that we aren't doing any good -- the number of children who die poverty related deaths every year has been cut in half since 1960; however, somewhere around 10 million kids still die every year from entirely preventable causes. I'm no better than anyone else; the money I've spent on single malt scotch could feed a small village. I'm just disappointed that people (myself included) don't voluntarily do more to help ease human suffering.

todd1200

Jungle, I certainly don't agree with strict utilitarianism (nor ad hominem assertions) and I would never try to defend all of Singer's views. However, I think he's made a compelling argument concerning an ethical person's obligation to helping ending poverty.