Should every person on Apolyton feel extremely guilty?

[Kuciwalker]

Let me say it again: I have never said you SHOULDN'T do the RIGHT thing; in fact, you SHOULD. However, the crux of my argument is that that is not the same as you MUST.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
People don't have to help *all* the time to be of assistance to others. If they help just some of the time, that's better than never. Ideally, all the time would be nice, but then we begin running into the very nature of what it is to be human. And that debate is one that's been going for thousands of years ...

Gatekeeper

Yes, it is a NICE thing to do. It should NOT be a legal requirement.

[Pekka]

I think if you see injured person, you should help the person the best you can, if you don't have SERIOUS reasons why you wouldn't do it. In fact, we do have a law to that. For example if I see someone lying on the ground, injured, and I just walk by, I'll be sued automatically. And that's the way it should be.

It's different if you can't help this person. But you can't just keep walking if no one is helping this person. If someone is shot, it's ok not to help this person immidiately because you might get shot too. So if you are in danger yourself by helping, then there shouldn't be a law that forces you to do that. But if there are no reasons for not helping, then it doesn't only make you human garbage if you don't help, it makes you getting sued in here, and that's they way I like it.

[Kuciwalker]

I think if you see injured person, you should help the person the best you can, if you don't have SERIOUS reasons why you wouldn't do it.

Right. You SHOULD do it, I agree completely. I am completely opposed to saying that you MUST do it.

[Pekka]

And this is the problem too with for example Africa. If I see injured man before my eyes, I just can't walk by. I need to help this person, or get help to him right there, no matter if the hot date with stripper is taking place.
Sure you see misery thought television, but you can easily just forget about it. You go 'oh man that sucks.. what are we doing to help these people' and then forget about it soon after that. You don't HAVE to confront it.

Perhaps we should arrange free tours to Africa or something..

OR maybe we should think about new strategy to get people helping them seriously. Forgetting the guilt trip, which is obviously the current strategy. We should make helping Africans interesting option. Somehow, that people who really help, then benefit more than getting good feeling about it. Something.. bonus.. something. That people would fight to get there to help them.. I bet there are some ways to do this.

[Kuciwalker]

It's called tax deductible

[Ned]

As Lincoln's post suggests, foreign aid intended to help the starving typically lines the pockets of corrupt government officials who then have no incentive to improve the lives of poor as that would render unnecessary the foreign aid that makes them rich. Bypassing these governments and getting aid directly to the starving people also props up the corrupt governments and renders unnecessary reform. Thus there is a growing consensus that the only solution to global poverty is to improve governments.

Think about Saddam's Iraq for example. Saddam was was able to ignore his people because international food aid was able to feed two thirds of Iraq's population.

(Isn't it also interesting that the vast majority of the world's poor are located in countries hostile to the United States?)

[Pekka]

sure, that is one. But even more.. to really make it worth the while.. and to make people actually go there and help there at the location. Skilled people that is. Also think about how we could set up profitable businesses there.. but that they'd be in control of it, we'd help to set it up and loan the money for it, and give specialists to help them and give those specialists good salaries, so it would be interesting option to skilled specialists... something like this.

[Pekka]

Everything should be monitored, and corrupoted ****s shot. Show warmongering folks few videos how nukes work and say 'start war, we nuke your asses sooner than you can run 400 meters'. With stick, and with carrot.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, we should make it worth their while for their PEOPLE to make their OWN lives better. Reform their governments and you're nine-tenths of the way there.

There's a chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

[Pekka]

skywalker, yeah. With skilled people that should get there I mean this. Teaching stuff. And with controlling I mean beating their silly dictators. And others who make this task more difficult. With stick and carrot! We need to get hardcore here..

YOu know, I bet.. let's look at this situation again after 30 years.. I bet my left testicle, that it's exactly the same IF NOT worse. Actually I bet on the even worse one.
So we should get hardcore right now.

[Kuciwalker]

I bet my left testicle

and

So we should get hardcore right now

are not thoughts that should EVER be combined

[Pekka]

you have very selective reading..

[Kuciwalker]

I have my own corollary to Murphy's law (which works very well on the bus ride home ): if you catch any snippet of a conversation, it will be the most disturbing one. Apparently, it works when glancing at a page as well

[Pekka]

skywalker, but do you agree with me that:

1. after few decades, situation will be the same if not worse.
2. the amount of money we give to Africa is at least two times bigger at this point, and we help less and less people in reality.
3. The collective misery only continues to grow. Continuos and new wars will give it's own tribute to this as well as sickness, viruses and stuff. Dying rate is still horrible and worse than now.
4. Birth is uncontrolled and even worse than now. Meaning bigger.

You agree?

If you do, then what are we going to do about it? It is clear to me, that we need to think about hardcoreness.
It means killing some people with brute force, it means helping some people even if they don't want it. It means invading something. It might even mean blowing some places up. It means putting our effort to at least 3 times bigger than now. It will be more expensive later. The suffering will be lesser if we start being super duper tough.

Because we can't continue like this, if we REALLY honestly and sincerely want to help. Another question is, do we really want to? I don't know. I'd support hardcoreness.