We are all one race: the human race. We all live on one planet. We all need to pull together and help each other out in times of need.
Turn on thread page Beta
Haiti: Why should we give a damn? watch
- 25-02-2010 17:42
- 25-02-2010 17:51
Our unsustainable way of life is causing many developing nations to suffer, so helping Haiti is the least that we can do.
- 25-02-2010 18:03
out of sight out of mind
(Original post by Salt_)
- 25-02-2010 18:05
We shouldn't care about Haiti, it's not something we ought to do. But if you want to do that it's entirely your choice, I only disagree that people are slamming it in my face 24/7 saying "CARE FOR THESE HAITIANS NOW. GIVE US MONEY BECAUSE THEY ARE DYING".
Would you be saying the same if that earthquake devastated your country instead? Would you sit in the rubble that used to be your house and think "oh well, It's my fault I didn't see this coming so I shouldn't expect any help." You wouldn't, you'd expect every piece of help you could get your hands on.
In my college, there were people pressuring me into buying cakes and all sorts of stuff, all in the name of Haiti. It was very annoying, they wouldn't leave until I took some. In future I'll just give them money and not take the cake. By doing "cake sales" in my college, we're only encouraging students to eat junk. Besides, we already have the vender machine which is full of chocolates, the coffee place where we can get cookies and croissants of all sorts, and the canteen. It's all very unhealthy, and unjustifiable no matter what the cause is, though I disagree with what the OP said about letting nature take its course. Thank god the cake sale is over, but there will always find another cause to bring it back.
- 25-02-2010 18:34
i have been steady reading this for a while
someone said i would help those in europe but not the caribbean?
why is that?
do not forgot about the involvement from the caribbean we had not that long ago.
I think we should help because it is within our power. By helping my quality of life is not reduced. If you seen someone take a nasty fall gettin on/off a bus would you help?
I would because I couldnt just turn a blind eye that person would need help and I would be in a position to give it. Would you help? Or would you be like its not my fam/friend so why should I bother? Either is fine im not here to judge anyone just speak about what motivates me.
I believe Haiti was in a bad position before this disaster but some were not aware of this, infact I dare say alot of people especially younger people probably didnt have any knowlege of haiti bar the stereo types thrown around by films/computer games.
The bad position I speak of was nothing to do with natural disasters either but more to do with outside partys.
It seems like alot of the people who are doubting whether to help or not are mainly british, with no ties to the caribbean who have no idea what life is like out there.
Now im not saying you are racist by any means (hope i dont sound like that) but alot of people were happy for migrant workers to clean up our country after the war, an i think its fair to say most where happy for them to do the jobs that most brits did not wanna do.
Some believe what happened to haiti is natures way to kill out the weak. I dont agree. For me it makes more sense to help some one rather that kick them when they're down.
- 25-02-2010 18:38
oh and as for all the help haiti banners everywhere surely its not the fault of the haitians that are sufferin but actually our own media. Why let something as small as that stop you from helping those poor people.
If you dont wanna donate thats fine but dont donate cos you dont wanna help or dont agree with the cause, dont choose not to donate cos the banners get in your way.
- 26-02-2010 00:40
When people came to me harassing me for money for children in need, sport relief, all those charities things that happen. I bluntly told them no. Which apparently makes me a bad person, I don't really care all that much for the opinion of other people, if I did, I'd probably be thinner.
(Original post by Chucklefiend)
- 26-02-2010 04:01
By providing such charity, the nations of the world think themselves empathetic and magnanimous. In reality they simply build Haiti back up so they can fall again and again. By being merciless, nature is inadvertantly kind. Those who do not have what it takes to survive die, they do not survive, and therefore they do not suffer.
Sometimes the humane thing to do is to let nature take its course.
There's an interesting essay entitled 'Lifeboat Ethics' that was published years ago in Psychology Today:
Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor
by Garrett Hardin, Psychology Today, September 1974
Environmentalists use the metaphor of the earth as a "spaceship" in trying to persuade countries, industries and people to stop wasting and polluting our natural resources. Since we all share life on this planet, they argue, no single person or institution has the right to destroy, waste, or use more than a fair share of its resources.
But does everyone on earth have an equal right to an equal share of its resources? The spaceship metaphor can be dangerous when used by misguided idealists to justify suicidal policies for sharing our resources through uncontrolled immigration and foreign aid. In their enthusiastic but unrealistic generosity, they confuse the ethics of a spaceship with those of a lifeboat.
A true spaceship would have to be under the control of a captain, since no ship could possibly survive if its course were determined by committee. Spaceship Earth certainly has no captain; the United Nations is merely a toothless tiger, with little power to enforce any policy upon its bickering members.
If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do?
First, we must recognize the limited capacity of any lifeboat. For example, a nation's land has a limited capacity to support a population and as the current energy crisis has shown us, in some ways we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our land.
Adrift in a Moral Sea
So here we sit, say 50 people in our lifeboat. To be generous, let us assume it has room for 10 more, making a total capacity of 60. Suppose the 50 of us in the lifeboat see 100 others swimming in the water outside, begging for admission to our boat or for handouts. We have several options: we may be tempted to try to live by the Christian ideal of being "our brother's keeper," or by the Marxist ideal of "to each according to his needs." Since the needs of all in the water are the same, and since they can all be seen as "our brothers," we could take them all into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat designed for 60. The boat swamps, everyone drowns. Complete justice, complete catastrophe.
The harsh ethics of the lifeboat become even harsher when we consider the reproductive differences between the rich nations and the poor nations. The people inside the lifeboats are doubling in numbers every 87 years; those swimming around outside are doubling, on the average, every 35 years, more than twice as fast as the rich. And since the world's resources are dwindling, the difference in prosperity between the rich and the poor can only increase
"But it isn't their fault!" Some kind-hearted liberals argue. "How can we blame the poor people who are caught in an emergency? Why must they suffer for the sins of their governments?" The concept of blame is simply not relevant here. The real question is, what are the operational consequences of establishing a world food bank? If it is open to every country every time a need develops, slovenly rulers will not be motivated to take Joseph's advice. Someone will always come to their aid. Some countries will deposit food in the world food bank, and others will withdraw it. There will be almost no overlap. As a result of such solutions to food shortage emergencies, the poor countries will not learn to mend their ways, and will suffer progressively greater emergencies as their populations grow.
(Original post by Stalin)
- 26-02-2010 08:46
You pathetic, selfish ********.