|
Edited on Thu Jan-14-10 07:05 AM by Locut0s
I can't help but feel that Haiti is just yet another example of temporary global charity. I'm not arguing that the charity that's being given and that will be given won't be heart felt. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be given, quite the opposite. I'm saying that it's a tragic commentary on humanity that it takes tragedy on a scale like this for people to wake up and give. All the while Haiti has been one of the poorest most crime ridden nations on earth for decades right at our door step. Sure Haiti will be on CNN for some weeks to come and billions of dollars in aid will be pledged by countries around the world, the US will lead the pack. But in 6 months this will be all but completely forgotten and Haiti will be worse off than before. It's going to take billions of dollars just for the humanitarian effort to say nothing of rebuilding the city which I have a very dim prospect will ever really happen. Remember the boxing day Tsunami several years back that killed almost 300,000 people? Same story there. There was an immense outpouring of much needed support temporarily then when the story left the front pages the funds just dried up. Much of the worst affected areas in Indonesia are still make shift shanty towns to this day.
The amount of suffering that goes on in the world DAILY in Africa, South East Asia, South America, and elsewhere make disasters like this seem small. I'm not trying to play down the horrors that are going on in Haiti here. 25,000 people die on average every day world wide due to hunger and many more due to other disease and neglect. If Haiti's death toll reaches 100,000 that's equal to only 5 DAYS of average deaths due to hunger.
The global need is so staggering but the solutions are so cheap and affective on a per capita basis that it's mind numbing that people (especially the rich) aren't willing to do more on a consistent basis. We are talking about dollars and pennis a day to save peoples lives. I'm also not arguing that everyone should adopt a child or something (though that would be great). I'm arguing for countries around the world to be more compassionate on a political level. How many B2 bombers to we REALLY need? The US spends more money on it's military than the rest of the world COMBINED! For ONCE IN A BLOODY LIFETIME IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE THOSE FIGURES GO DOWN AND THE MONEY DIVERTED TO GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN CAUSES. Just do it for ONE FUCKING year and see if world war III breaks out. Trust me it won't. Quite the opposite will happen, you will need to spend LESS money on the military the next year! And I'm not arguing that the US should shoulder the burden along, every country should. The US already does give more charity than any country this I do know.
I'm not arguing for let's all hold hands around the world or some hippy dippy notion of world piece here (I am hippyish myself though). I realize the solutions are FAR FAR FAR more complex than that. I'm saying that the amount of money needed to drastically cut world poverty and the amount wasted by governments around the world on things like military and wall street spending are much closer than you might think. And it's a tragedy that more is not done.
|