Comments on: The Illusion of Relevance

By: Dave Donelson

Dave Donelson — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:35:29 +0000

You’ve touched on one of the great questions, Joe. Having spent a great deal of time trying to draw attention to the humanitarian crisis in the Congo, I’ve seen how difficult it is to get people to care about six million dead from conflict that’s dragged on for fifteen years. Looking at it objectively, I’ve come to the a few conclusions about the way our minds work when confronted with these kinds of horrors:
1. Those people on the other side of the world don’t have anything to do with my life, so why should I care?
2. They’ve probably been doing it to each other for thousands of years, so how can they be stopped?
3. They’re ignorant, dirty savages, so why does it matter what happens to them?
4. Even if I cared, I’m just one guy, so what could I do about it?
I can (and have) answered all those questions, Joe, but they are really all just rationalizations for the human tendencies to look out for number one and always seek the easy route. I don’t have to mentally face my unwillingness or inability to do something about a billion people without water when I can occupy my mind with the minutiae of Michael Jackson’s funeral arrangements.

By: horatiox

horatiox — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:35:43 +0000

Britney Spears news vs Clean water for a billion people news.

Say grazi to the corporate media–CBS, MS-NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, etc. as well as blogland really–for keeping the celebrity hype flowing. Water, drought, energy issues, economic crisis and so forth don’t have much appeal for Consumerland: inquiring minds want the latest news on Britney, Jacko, Pitt n Jolie, hot mafia housewives, Star Trek Inc., Bon Jovi news, etc.– which is to say, they crave Simulacra.

By: leland stamper

leland stamper — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:42:19 +0000

Human population has more than quadrupled since 1900. A major part of that is due to a huge increase in food supply. Not a myth. The standard of living for most of the planets population will not increase until reproduction is at least stabilized. We are way past the point where an increased birthrate is beneficial.

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:29:15 +0000

Raising the standard of living without some type of population control is an obvious lost cause

Raising standards is one of the BEST forms of population control! The idea of “feed and breed” has been totally discredited for a long time but it persists because folks don’t look it up. I’d encourage you to look into this as it’s one of the great myths that lead to inaction.

Although I do think we should feel responsibility to help out I agree that guilt may not be a good motivator, so I’m open to alernatives. One reason I like Obama is that he manages to make appeals to the bright side of human nature without pushing the guilt stuff on people.

By: leland stamper

leland stamper — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:10:26 +0000

Raising the standard of living without some type of population control is an obvious lost cause. – Why is Michael Jackson more interesting than 125,000 other people that have recently died? People feel like they know MJ on a personal level. The other dead people, never heard of them. MJ is a marketable commodity, the other 125,000 are not so valuable. Britney Spears or clean water for a billion people. The people choose Britney. Why? Britney provides entertainment, the billion people provide what? A reminder of how guilty we should feel? Not saying it’s right or wrong, just the way it is. File it under “human nature”.