Quote:
Originally Posted by sworkhard
As for the goal of having people around the world living in equality, I think it's a fool's errand. I would rather 80% of the world live in free, liberal cultures and 20% live under oppression and dictatorships
|
Thats a false dichotomy. Who says the choice is between 80% living free liberal countries and 20% living in oppression vs 100% living in equally corrupt and impoverished conditions. If you understand it isnt a choice between those two extremes then why would you 'rather' 20% of the worlds people live under oppression and dictatorships? I'm genuinely curious to know why you feel this way because I think many people would see that as a carelessness or lack of empathy - so would you mind explaining why you feel that way?
We dont even currently have 80% living in free liberal countries. Its actually more like 20% living in free countries and 80 percent under varying forms of oppression
I also dont see how skeptic is antithetical to activist..
Most activists I know are skeptics.
I get it, you dont really care as much about people as a whole but those who you've met and have an importance to you. But you dont need to explain it away as some conflict of percentages ie - we either keep 20% of the world in poverty or it becomes 100% corrupt. I dont think there is any proof for that.
Nobody was really implying they are 100% selfless and care more about starving children than their own families. Why does it have to be - either you are a 'skeptic' who thinks humanitarianism is a fool's errand or be some person who has donated all of their life to a cause like poverty.
I think there can be infinite shades of grey in between. For example I dont think one has to be an all out super humanitarian or some selfish person who only cares about what effects them. One can take care of their own community and at the same time work (from their own community) to support the developing world, not just financially but politically, socially, technologically, educationally etc.
I'm curious if you would think of global equality as a fool's errand if your family lived in a violent, poor 5th world country rich in natural resources but ruled by a corrupt government. Maybe you would see it as something other than a fool's errand if you stood to gain something (freedom, peace, prosperity) from it.
Also the whole 'I want to focus in my own backyard' isnt really an excuse. People can take care of their local communities and still have an interest in spurring change in the developing world. Thats like saying I cant be bothered with the well-being of other children, I've got my own. One can be a watchful father of his own family and still assist a broader community or volunteer with other children. I've hear the whole 'lets focus in our own communities first' as if being active in ones own community is incompatible with inspiring change on a global scale. Not to mention one can even effect the world through their own community - by voting for leaders who push for change in these regions rather than ones who turn a blind eye to these things. I think its a poor excuse personally. I'd prefer if people just came out and said - look..I've got my own stuff to deal with in my life and im stretched too far as it is trying to keep my head above water so I've got no extra time or ability to change things currently. Or even I dont really care about those people because they arent important to me, or as important as the people who are closest in proximity and culture to myself. I feel like people who arent even involved in their local communities use the we need to start in our own backyard as an excuse for their laziness and lack of interest in helping people they dont know.