Can one man make a difference?

Sleepy

I've been arguing about this with a friend recently so I thought I'd throw it up here to see what others think. Essentially, I'm of the opinion that the ordinary man or woman has very little ability to change anything of significance in this world. Without stacks of money, bundles of charisma or the right connections, I can't see how anyone can have any worthwhile influence on the world.

I mean, looking at NGO's and charities, do they really make a difference in the grand scheme of things? Or are they just putting band-aids on bullet holes which result in the surgeon ignoring the problem? Yes, you can argue that the likes of Goal/Trocaire/Red Cross etc. save lives and you'd have no argument from me on that. However, by doing what imho is the job of international governments aren't they essentially letting them away with sitting back and not taking care of our fellow man?

Another option my friend is championing is the notion of letter/email writing campaigns as conducted by Amnesty, Drop the Debt and other organisations. I can't see that these make any difference. I mean, I can't see Kim Jong Il deciding to stop his nuclear testing because Sleepy and a few thousand of his friends from ireland and wider Europe write him to tell him we think he's a very naughty man?

So, fellow boardsies, what do ye think: can the ordinary (wo)man make a difference in today's world?

mike65

Change in what respect? On Drop the Debt you could make a case for Bono (shockingly) as prior to his taking up the cause few were talking about it in high places.

Mike.

aidan_walsh

You could say there are two discussions in this idea, and I'll try to answer both (and explain as best I can the second).

To answer the question in your context: One person rarely makes a change, but many individuals have inspired it.

IMO, there are always a few traps that people tend to fall into in these trains of thought. First, they assume that making a difference in the world means positive differences. They also assume that a person has to act alone or independently in order to start making a change. And finally there is the wide, traditional definition of "the world" as being humanity as a whole. Is it not enough to be able to change one person's "world" (life, environment, means)? One community's?

To answer it in my context: Yes, and they do it every day.

mike65

Or the butterfly effect with added Chaos Theory.

Mike.

Sleepy

Bono hardly counts as an 'ordinary' man though does he? A massively rich rockstar with a worldwide profile?

Sleepy

aidan_walsh wrote:

You could say there are two discussions in this idea, and I'll try to answer both (and explain as best I can the second).

To answer the question in your context: One person rarely makes a change, but many individuals have inspired it.

IMO, there are always a few traps that people tend to fall into in these trains of thought. First, they assume that making a difference in the world means positive differences. They also assume that a person has to act alone or independently in order to start making a change. And finally there is the wide, traditional definition of "the world" as being humanity as a whole. Is it not enough to be able to change one person's "world" (life, environment, means)? One community's?

To answer it in my context: Yes, and they do it every day.

Ok, taking the world as being humanity as a whole and assuming a positive difference. I'd have a few points:

How can one start something anything but alone?
And if someone inspires change are they not an extraordinary person?

mike65

Well his wife thinks he's ordinary (I belive).

And if someone inspires change are they not an extraordinary person?

An 'ordinary' man/woman might effect huge change but only by accident and that accident might be something small, almost insignificant which then through a chain of events creates significant change.

Mike.

Madge

Sleepy wrote:

Essentially, I'm of the opinion that the ordinary man or woman has very little ability to change anything of significance in this world. Without stacks of money, bundles of charisma or the right connections, I can't see how anyone can have any worthwhile influence on the world.

Mother Teresa.

Sleepy wrote:

So, fellow boardsies, what do ye think: can the ordinary (wo)man make a difference in today's world?

Of course.. my sister has sponsored an 11yr old child from Niger in Africa, and gets letters and photos to see how the child is going. We hope to go out there some time and visit the child's village and see what a difference her sponsorship has made.

Earthhorse

It seems to me you've a bit of circular logic going on here. An ordinary person can't inspire or affect change because if they do, by your definition, they're extraordinary. The point about people like Bono is that they were ordinary people to start with but have managed to make it to a place where they can make a difference.

Sleepy wrote:

Without stacks of money, bundles of charisma or the right connections, I can't see how anyone can have any worthwhile influence on the world.

More important than any of these is hard work. Anybody can change the world if they put the proper amount of time and thought into it.

Sleepy

Madge wrote:

Mother Teresa.

I'm not overly familiar with Mother Teresa's history but how much change was she responsible for? Is she famous outside of the sphere of Catholicism? I know most Irish people know who she is, but then again, most Irish people are educated by the Catholic church so you'd kind of expect us to know of her...

Of course.. my sister has sponsored an 11yr old child from Niger in Africa, and gets letters and photos to see how the child is going. We hope to go out there some time and visit the child's village and see what a difference her sponsorship has made.

Highly commendable of course, but I don't see how sponsoring one 11 year old is changing the world. Furthermore, I'm reaching the point where I'd question the sanity in sending aid to Africa instead of forcing the International Community (i.e. World Governments) to sort out the problems.

Earthhorse wrote:

It seems to me you've a bit of circular logic going on here. An ordinary person can't inspire or affect change because if they do, by your definition, they're extraordinary. The point about people like Bono is that they were ordinary people to start with but have managed to make it to a place where they can make a difference.

Earthhorse, I was referring to the fact that the lead singer of arguably the biggest band of the last twenty years can be considered an 'ordinary man'. Sure he was an ordinary bloke before U2 became the global success story they are today but it's been since U2 became successful that his actions have had an effect. Ditto Bob Geldof (tbh, something of a hero of mine) he was a successful singer who used his contacts and fame to get himself into a position to make a difference. If he was simply Bob the accountant living in Dun Laoghaire, he could never have made that difference.

More important than any of these is hard work. Anybody can change the world if they put the proper amount of time and thought into it.

I have to say, I find that statement quite naieve. It reads like something from Tony Quinn. It's also pretty much the exact question I'm asking: do people actually believe that anyone can change the world if they try hard enough? To me it seems that only the 'chosen few' like Bill Gates, Bob Geldoff, JFK etc. can make any sort of impact. What use is hard work if you're broke, can't find employment and haven't the contacts to help you?

InFront

Sleepy wrote:

I'm asking: do people actually believe that anyone can change the world if they try hard enough? To me it seems that only the 'chosen few' like Bill Gates, Bob Geldoff, JFK etc. can make any sort of impact. What use is hard work if you're broke, can't find employment and haven't the contacts to help you?

They weren't chosen by anyone. They made their own success. No talent scout came to Dun Laoghaire in the 1970s and hand picked the young geldof, yes of course one person can change the world - but never acting completely alone, and as Earthorse said, never without time and dedication.
Not everybody can change the world, but most people would be capable of making significant change I think.

Sleepy

Sorry 'chosen few' was a poor choice of wording but I think my point still stands.

What do you base your asscertation that 'most people would be capable of making significant change' upon?

Earthhorse

Sleepy wrote:

If he was simply Bob the accountant living in Dun Laoghaire, he could never have made that difference.

Why not? Most charities are founded by "ordinary" people. They work as firemen, psychiatrists, architects and yes, probably even accountants. These people aren't special by your definition of the word but their presence made the difference. Geldof may have been very publicly successful but a lot of private successes take place in the world that we are never aware of.

Sleepy wrote:

I have to say, I find that statement quite naieve...What use is hard work if you're broke, can't find employment and haven't the contacts to help you?

Well, I think we have to assume a base level of ability here. If you're penniless and unemployed maybe you can't change the world - though many artists' lives would give the lie to that, but I don't think you're talking about cultural change.

I think if a person wants to affect change in the world the best place to do it is at the seat of power. Politicians, UN workers and so forth, these are all ordinary people who have worked extremely hard, in most instances, to get where they are. That is what I mean when I say, "Anyone can change the world if they put enough thought and time into it". I don't believe that to be a naive viewpoint.

Strictly speaking my answer to your question is that not everyone can change the world but the vast majority can make a big difference.

Madge

Sleepy wrote:

I'm not overly familiar with Mother Teresa's history but how much change was she responsible for? Is she famous outside of the sphere of Catholicism? I know most Irish people know who she is, but then again, most Irish people are educated by the Catholic church so you'd kind of expect us to know of her...

IMO, religion hasn't really got anything to do with it. I was just using her as an example to question your statement of "Without stacks of money, bundles of charisma or the right connections, I can't see how anyone can have any worthwhile influence on the world"

Sleepy wrote:

Highly commendable of course, but I don't see how sponsoring one 11 year old is changing the world. Furthermore, I'm reaching the point where I'd question the sanity in sending aid to Africa instead of forcing the International Community (i.e. World Governments) to sort out the problems.

I read an interesting parable in a magazine the other day-

I awoke to walk by the ocean's edge. I saw a youth dancing on the beach, no doubt in celebration of the perfect day soon to begin.

As I approached, I sadly realized that the youth was not dancing to the bay, but rather bending to sift through the debris left by the night's tide, stopping now and then to pick up a starfish and then heave it back into the sea. I asked the youth the purpose of the effort. "The tide has washed the starfish onto the beach and they cannot return to the sea by themselves," the youth replied. "When the sun rises, they will die, unless I throw them back to the sea."

I surveyed the vast expanse of beach, strectching in both directions beyond my sight. Starfish littered the shore in numbers beyond calculation. The hopelessness of the youth's plan became clear to me and I countered, "But there are more starfish on this beach than you can ever save before the sun is up. Surely you cannot expect to make a difference."

The youth paused briefly to consider my words, bent to pick up a starfish and threw it as far as possible. Turning to me he simply said, "I made a difference to that one."

I left the boy and went home, deep in thought of what the boy had said. I returned to the beach and spent the rest of the day helping the boy throw starfish in to the sea.


Sleepy, I wonder have you heard of the Irish townships program? My uncle, a builder, has gone out in previous years and built houses. I have seen the pictures, it is amazing work what they have done! Yes, ordinary people can make an enormous difference.
http://www.irishtownship.com/

Carcharodon

Madge wrote:

Sleepy, I wonder have you heard of the Irish townships program? My uncle, a builder, has gone out in previous years and built houses. I have seen the pictures, it is amazing work what they have done! Yes, ordinary people can make an enormous difference.
http://www.irishtownship.com/

Can see where you are coming from and agree these are all noble activities that make a difference to some people but i wonder what difference this makes on the grand scheme of things, a couple of houses built today, a couple of million of people are still homeless tomorrow....

Not disagreeing with you that it doesnt make a difference but i dunno..

metrovelvet

Rosa Parks. But she was a woman. Does that count? Your thread title would imply not.

metrovelvet

As far as I can see there are plenty of ordinary people who make differences everyday. They are muscians and artists, in the peacecorp, civil rights activists, teachers, etc etc, sometimes just the arbitrary kindness you may show a stranger or the generosity you may show someone close to you.

We are all affecting each other in indeterminate, invisible and infinite ways, none of us have any idea the extent of how far this reaches.

Havent you ever done something that has had a significant affect on someone's life? If everyone thought small and did something on a smaller scale then we would all be a lot better off.

You need to start with you and being in touch with your own power first. Yes any man/woman can make a difference, they just have to realise it.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote:

Rosa Parks. But she was a woman. Does that count? Your thread title would imply not.

Ah, come on. Give me a break. It's simply a phrase. Note that my first post has never been edited and read my last line, I was clearly speaking in asexual terms.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote:

As far as I can see there are plenty of ordinary people who make differences everyday. They are muscians and artists, in the peacecorp, civil rights activists, teachers, etc etc, sometimes just the arbitrary kindness you may show a stranger or the generosity you may show someone close to you.

We are all affecting each other in indeterminate, invisible and infinite ways, none of us have any idea the extent of how far this reaches.

Havent you ever done something that has had a significant affect on someone's life? If everyone thought small and did something on a smaller scale then we would all be a lot better off.

You need to start with you and being in touch with your own power first. Yes any man/woman can make a difference, they just have to realise it.

Rosa Parks. Great example to make me question my views on this. However, thinking a little further on that (typing as I think here), her actions acted as a spark or as Malcolm Gladwell would argue a 'Tipping Point'. Something we know to only work in exceptional circumstances...

Sure, I can have a positive, occasionaly even profound, effect on the lives of a small number of other individuals and of course I try to do this. I can't really consider this to be a power however (though in part this may stem from a personal aversion to self-help books and the 'personal development' industry). To change the world, however, I think you need to have this 'power' or ability to have that sort of effect on many thousands (millions?) of people. And from what I can see, only the rich, the politically/militarily powerful and the exceptionally charismatic have this ability.

Sleepy

Earthhorse wrote:

Why not? Most charities are founded by "ordinary" people. They work as firemen, psychiatrists, architects and yes, probably even accountants. These people aren't special by your definition of the word but their presence made the difference. Geldof may have been very publicly successful but a lot of private successes take place in the world that we are never aware of.

Small scale private successes, sure, but do these change the world? Even saving the lives of a few thousand people won't usually make a difference to societal structures or world politics. Any major influence would be impossible to keep private.

Politicians, UN workers and so forth, these are all ordinary people who have worked extremely hard, in most instances, to get where they are.

Well, the UN workers are, let's face it, the tools of the politicians so not actually the ones making the changes. I'd have to disagree with your assertion that most politicians are 'ordinary people'. Getting elected is usually as much to do with personal finances, contacts, family bloodlines etc. as it is to do with one's character, policies or work rate.

Earthhorse

Sleepy wrote:

To change the world, however, I think you need to have this 'power' or ability to have that sort of effect on many thousands (millions?) of people.

Sleepy wrote:

Small scale private successes, sure, but do these change the world? Even saving the lives of a few thousand people won't usually make a difference to societal structures or world politics.

I'm not trying to be a pedant, particularly given the time of morning you're posting this, but you're kind of contradicting yourself there. Is affecting the lives of thousands good enough for you to qualify as "changing the world"?

And on the small scale private successes I'd have to disagree. The good work done by charities such as Self Help Development International may not get reported on much but it exists. I'm sure they're not the only ones out there.

I don't know the personal history of many politicians but I don't think the likes of Ahern, McCreevy and Harney do actually come form families with strong networks or deep coffers. It's possible to make these contacts as you go through life and that's what most of these people do. You just have to be willing to press the flesh.

I think that "tipping point" theory is interesting. Would you disqualify, say the people involved in the McLibel case from having had influence as well? McDonald's is going through tough times thanks, in part, to the actions of such people, and their success against a major corporation. But you can just plead "special circumstances" again and say it would have happened anyway. Given the way you are marking this, and I'm not saying it's wrong or anything, just not the way I would look at it, I don't think it is possible for ordinary people to make a difference.

SkepticOne

I think it is probably a good thing that most people don't get a chance to make a difference.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote:

And from what I can see, only the rich, the politically/militarily powerful and the exceptionally charismatic have this ability.

Ive bolded what is the crux of your question, I think. From what you can see! Because a lot of what happens is invisible and its usually one guy who gets all the credit/publicity. For these large scale changes, there are huge teams of people working who never get the recognition.

Look a little closer. All you're getting right now is the long distance shot.

I often wonder what history would look like if one person, just one insane person with bad taste, actually bought and liked some of Hitler's artwork.

Another example: Christina Noble

democrates

Flipping your optic around, consider farmers, teachers, gardai, medics. All ordinary people doing ordinary jobs, but subtract them and what have you got? It's the efforts of the ordinary that make our society extraordinarily better than what it would otherwise be.

Or subtract all those NGO's and the millions of community volunteer groups worldwide and what would the world be like? A hell of a lot worse for sure. The new gets old very quick, but it's good to remind ourselves what an achievement our civilisation is, albeit imperfect with some fundamental improvement required.

The Rossport 5 were ordinary people. But together and with the support of the community they took a stand, and put a trans-national titan on it's back foot. Had the problem not arose they would probably have continued living ordinary lives, but adversity gave rise to extraordinary actions.

The Dunnes Stores girls who refused to handle South African goods also made a difference, again ordinary people can take extraordinary actions, we all have it in us, but mostly we don't have to.

As to whether these specific actions changed the world, yes, they did a little bit. I agree with skepticOne, given 6.5 Billion of a population if everyone was out trying to radically change the world it would be a tad chaotic. Most of what the world needs to function is 'ordinary' activity, most people should stick to their day jobs, and not all 'down tools', so your friend has no right to imply guilt on anyone not going out and doing as they do, theirs is just one specialised job.

That said, by my value system we are morally obliged to give what we can to charity, and to live responsibly - ie not consume and pollute rings around ourselves. Donations save lives, and many other NGO programs are tackling problems as opposed to just treating the symptoms. I'd love if it was happening faster too but that requires more people to believe they can make a difference and act accordingly.

Also, throughout history major improvements occurred with popular support, often demanded by the public, the ordinary people. Activism can change government policy, but it's up to us to take an interest and vote wisely, or march on the streets. We have to take responsibility for our roles in life, if I see myself as a hapless passenger who can't change anything, odds are I won't because I've defeated myself in my mind before trying anything.

The most radical societal changes today are happening in Venezuela. The democratic workers co-operative movement is the only alternative to raw capitalism being attempted anywhere as a national policy, I recently got the dvd '5 factories' and was very impressed, but it's early days yet for that experiment.

You obviously believe the world should change, is there anything in particular you'd like to see that seems hopeless?

Sleepy

democrates wrote:

Or subtract all those NGO's and the millions of community volunteer groups worldwide and what would the world be like? A hell of a lot worse for sure.

Would things be any worse in the long-term? Or might they actually be better without the NGO's and volunteers? Might the short-term devastation that removing these props would cause perhaps force those with the ability to really change things (i.e. to move the third world away from depending on aid) to act?

The Rossport 5 were ordinary people. But together and with the support of the community they took a stand, and put a trans-national titan on it's back foot. Had the problem not arose they would probably have continued living ordinary lives, but adversity gave rise to extraordinary actions.

The Dunnes Stores girls who refused to handle South African goods also made a difference, again ordinary people can take extraordinary actions, we all have it in us, but mostly we don't have to.

Again, examples of concentrated effort, both of which had major political power (the Rossport 5 in the form of the farming community, the Dunnes Stores employees in the form of MANDATE)

As to whether these specific actions changed the world, yes, they did a little bit. I agree with skepticOne, given 6.5 Billion of a population if everyone was out trying to radically change the world it would be a tad chaotic. Most of what the world needs to function is 'ordinary' activity, most people should stick to their day jobs, and not all 'down tools', so your friend has no right to imply guilt on anyone not going out and doing as they do, theirs is just one specialised job.

I'm not so sure that I'd consider either of these things as actions that 'changed the world'. They're small local battles that in the grand scheme of things make little/no difference.

That said, by my value system we are morally obliged to give what we can to charity, and to live responsibly - ie not consume and pollute rings around ourselves. Donations save lives, and many other NGO programs are tackling problems as opposed to just treating the symptoms. I'd love if it was happening faster too but that requires more people to believe they can make a difference and act accordingly.

Or does it require all of us to stop doing what our governments should be taking care of and demanding that they do it?

Also, throughout history major improvements occurred with popular support, often demanded by the public, the ordinary people. Activism can change government policy, but it's up to us to take an interest and vote wisely, or march on the streets. We have to take responsibility for our roles in life, if I see myself as a hapless passenger who can't change anything, odds are I won't because I've defeated myself in my mind before trying anything.

I agree, but look around. Does modern Ireland strike you as a place where the general populace is anyway interested in Activism? It would appear that the only means of having a minority voice heard in this country is to carry out a prolonged period of terrorist activity and bomb one's way to the negotiating table killing hundreds of innocent people along the way.

The most radical societal changes today are happening in Venezuela. The democratic workers co-operative movement is the only alternative to raw capitalism being attempted anywhere as a national policy, I recently got the dvd '5 factories' and was very impressed, but it's early days yet for that experiment.

Interesting. Hadn't heard of that. Thanks.

You obviously believe the world should change, is there anything in particular you'd like to see that seems hopeless?

I'd like to live in a world where people didn't starve to death.
I'd like to live in a world where legal systems provided justice, where the same laws applied to all citizens regardless of race, gender, status or wealth.
I'd like to live in a world without borders, nations or religions.
I'd like to live in a world that understood it's environment was worth protecting.
I'd like to live in a world that invested in it's future, in education, in scientific research, in exploration of our universe.
For now, I'd settle for the first two.

bonkey

her actions acted as a spark or as Malcolm Gladwell would argue a 'Tipping Point'. Something we know to only work in exceptional circumstances...

I think you'll find that changing the world - with the possible exception of scientific breakthroughs - only ever occurs in exceptional circumstances, regardless of whether the individual has money, influence and all the rest of it.

At the end of the day, yes, individuals can bring about entire paradigm-shifts, but only very rarely. However, it would be foolish to assume that they ever do so independantly of the preparatory work of individuals who have come before them - those who bring us to the tippnig point.

Take your list of things you'd like to see. If they are ever to come about, it won't be because everyone goes "I can't fix it so its not worth doing anythnig about. One special person will someday come along and change everything." Rather, it will be because many individuals will either try to be that one person or will simply do what they can which will (hopefully) bring us to that tipping-point at which point someone can step up and be the man/woman who changes the world.

Most of the problems are - to my mind - because people put short-term advantages over long-term ones....particularly when the long-term is outside the expected span of their own lives. Many people who want the world to be a better place unfortunately fall into the same trap - they want it fixed (or significantly improved) within their lifetimes, and get somewhat discouraged when that seems impossible.

You want to live in a world without certain problems. I want to help bring about a world without them whether I get to live in it or not.

jc

metrovelvet

democrates wrote:

That said, by my value system we are morally obliged to give what we can to charity, ?

I have to strongly disagree with that. The majority of funds go straight to admin. Also charity operations themselves are morally questionable. My problem with them is that they never ever hire the same people they are trying to assist. If your going to give, investigate first. Moral obligation? No way.

democrates wrote:

if I see myself as a hapless passenger who can't change anything, odds are I won't because I've defeated myself in my mind before trying anything.?

And that would be one of the greatest and most insidious of victories for the powers that be.

Im glad that change is slow, as we may not all agree on what the world should be like.

turbot

Yes, you personally can make a difference.

The scope of that difference is affected by many things; your dedication, your skill, the sincerity and strength of your intention.

Harnessing these powers and directing them well makes you more powerful. Setting out to become more powerful as you make the world a better place, combines together to have a greater effect. So does teaming up with worthwhile others to do even more.

Holding any other position may give you an excuse for apathy or laziness, or may enable you to escape traps of guilt and imposed ideas. I think you have to choose how you make a difference cleverly, because certainly, some people act as others puppets, and others have poor judgement in how they apply themselves.

At the same time, our world has changed dramatically in the last 100 years, and even in the last 10, it's like being on a different planet. Many of these changes were driven by men who took for granted they could make a difference.

"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the World. Unreasonable men attempt to adapt the World to themselves. Thats why all progress depends upon unreasonable men." (G.B. Shaw)

democrates

Sleepy wrote:

Would things be any worse in the long-term? Or might they actually be better without the NGO's and volunteers? Might the short-term devastation that removing these props would cause perhaps force those with the ability to really change things (i.e. to move the third world away from depending on aid) to act?

It's an interesting point, each step forward the voluntary sector takes, the government takes one back. In fairness the government do fund charities directly too, so it's not completely abandoning aid to the 'free market', and at least in the absence of direct democracy I can elect to fund charities as I see fit, I'd always want the freedom to do that.

If NGO's closed shop what would happen? Maybe that could force governments to act, but given our govt are welching on the 0.7% GDP aid promised before the world, I would not be confident of them living up to their obligations, representative democracy lets them get away with all sorts of behaviour. Whether NGO's exist or not, govt's have the power to solve a lot of problems, but won't because nations are too busy competing to co-operate.

Aid dependance is a problem I agree, so is corruption in places, but a lot is going into building self-sufficency too, not as fast as we'd like it though.

Sleepy wrote:

Again, examples of concentrated effort, both of which had major political power (the Rossport 5 in the form of the farming community, the Dunnes Stores employees in the form of MANDATE)

And that power is there to be harnessed by any ordinary person with a just cause.

Sleepy wrote:

I'm not so sure that I'd consider either of these things as actions that 'changed the world'. They're small local battles that in the grand scheme of things make little/no difference.

Little is not the same as no difference, the ocean is made of drops, any one can be seen as insignificant but together they are powerful and can change the face of the planet.

Sleepy wrote:

Or does it require all of us to stop doing what our governments should be taking care of and demanding that they do it?

I don't think it's an either/or question, both individuals and our collective organisations should be engaged in this work.

The key missing element in the world order IMHO is a roadmap for global socio-economic cohesion. That goal would take generations to achieve, but once we're on the right road people would be a lot more content. A reformed UN would be the agency through which this should be achieved, but capitalists corrupting powerful democracies have effectively neutralised it and instead have used the WTO to further their interests. Except the WTO rounds are now failing as the poor countries have banded together and the rich countries won't agree to fairness.

Only when ordinary decent people in rich countries regain power can this change, which is why I believe in direct democracy and democratic workers co-operatives.

Sleepy wrote:

I agree, but look around. Does modern Ireland strike you as a place where the general populace is anyway interested in Activism? It would appear that the only means of having a minority voice heard in this country is to carry out a prolonged period of terrorist activity and bomb one's way to the negotiating table killing hundreds of innocent people along the way.

This is one of the worst places in the world to argue against capitalism. We're the second richest country in the world and got here through yes hard work, but also allowing corporations to take more profit than they can elsewhere. But this is not the answer to the worlds problems, all countries can't repeat that formula and achieve a higher share of global economic activity per capita than their neighours, we can't all simultaneously out-compete each other.

Sleepy wrote:

I'd like to live in a world where people didn't starve to death.
I'd like to live in a world where legal systems provided justice, where the same laws applied to all citizens regardless of race, gender, status or wealth.
I'd like to live in a world without borders, nations or religions.
I'd like to live in a world that understood it's environment was worth protecting.
I'd like to live in a world that invested in it's future, in education, in scientific research, in exploration of our universe.
For now, I'd settle for the first two.

All achievable if the billions of ordinary people insist upon it, but we have to believe we can do it, and each add our drop to make that ocean of justice.

democrates

metrovelvet wrote:

I have to strongly disagree with that. The majority of funds go straight to admin. Also charity operations themselves are morally questionable. My problem with them is that they never ever hire the same people they are trying to assist. If your going to give, investigate first. Moral obligation? No way.

Regardless of whether governments or NGO's manage aid there is going to be an admin overhead. Many have been inefficient in the past, but are getting their acts together, the practice of stating what percentage of aid directly benefits target recipients has become widespread, and the figures I've seen recently are all well above 50%. Even if they weren't, absenting a better alternative I'd still donate, but also call for improvement.

I believe I have a moral obligation to help the suffering, I see failure to act as wrong. Does your value system include any moral obligation to help others, and if so by what means?

metrovelvet

My value system is very case by case.

Two of the things I'm most proud of having doing is one, worked with Habitat for Humanity and also finding my friends birth mother for him after 17 years of failure trying with Bernardos and private detectives. I also from time to time donate to my friends theatre group in Venezuela which works with poor children in rural areas because I trust him to run it economically and that it will go into the right hands.

In New York City I see A LOT of sufferring -as you can imagine - if i felt compassion for everyone I would be exhausted. No one can do that. You need to be selective and when you are making your choice makesure you are helping the sufferring and not paying for expensive letterhead.

I dont give money to charity ever. I will give my time however, because then I know myself where the commodity or service is going. I hate admin and I wont support it EVER.