People don't care when hordes of people get hurt

[Pekka]

yeah, what che says is what I really think also. We can't take that stuff inside ourselves unless we have to, that is when it happens to people we know or are somehow tied in other ways closely.

The world is so filled with all kinds of crap, you can pick up anything from any single given day and start killing yourself over it.

I bet anyone of us would not turn away if we were certain, that a person would face death if we didn't help them, but it has to be personal. Like.. someone comes to you and asks for help, and there's no risk for you, all you need to do is help and you save that person's life. If you were certain this was true, you would help. Of course, most likely we'd pick up signs that tells us it isn't true and it's just some hobo asking for a buck, but if we knew it to be a fact, I'm sure anyone in here would definitely help.

So what a man can do is help when someone asks for help in a reasonable way. Of course a person can always do volunteer work as well.

So I don't think it's a problem really, but there are cases where the international community could act faster and with conviction. For example Darfur, I mean, there's no debate about it even. There are other events that are controversial, but that one isn't really controversial when it comes to international community and intervention, so in cases like these, I think we could and should act strong and decisively and not wait around and sit, because we all know what will happen, it's a trivial matter. Yeah it would cost some money, but it shouldn't be a problem, when the situation is that clear, and if it's up to me, I'll vote my tax money helping the situation and intervening.

[Sirotnikov]

I think I've got a formula down.

Let Ggrief be the grief a person feels. This is measured in GU's (grief units).

Let Mgrief be one's Maximum grief capacity. This is also measured in GU's.

Let Npersons be the number of persons we feel grief towards. Measured in persons.

Let T be the Minimum grief threshold - meaning - the minimum grief one has to feel for a single person, to be motivated to help them. This is measured in GU/P (grief units per person).

Meaning that if Ggrief/(Npersons) >= T then we act.


Then follows that if there's a single very sad case, happening to a single person, then:


Ggrief = really big number. lets suppose Mgrief.
Then Ggrief/(Npersons=1) = Mgrief > T.
So we act.

But if a holocaust has happenned to 1,000,000 people then:
Ggrief = is really big number, but is topped out at Mgrief.
However Npersons = 1,000,000
Then: Ggrief/(Npersons=1,000,000) = Mgrief/(Npersons=1,000,000).

This means that more often than not, for most persons - Mgrief/(Npersons=1,000,000) < T.

So we do nothing.

How sad is this?

[Pekka]

So you assume the grief builds up in a linear fashion?

[Sirotnikov]

I don't assume how it is built up - rather how it is distributed to G per Person.

I do assume that large holocausts all build up to Mgrief pretty darn quickly.


If I were to break down Ggrief it would look similar to: S^2 * sqrt(Npersons) * H

where S = a person's natural sensitivity multiplier (girls would have a large one!) It is squared because the sensitivity you are born with has a huge effect.

Npersons is the number of persons involved. It is square root, because the number of persons is not that defying.

If you have 1 person hit on the head it is not nice. If you have 2, it is worse, but not as bad as a single person getting hit on the head two times - because then the single person would be really in a bad shape. But now, instead, he has a partner with whom he shares his bad fate, so it is better for him.

H would be the perceived horror of the event.
For example, getting hit on the head slightly would have a low H score (Except for crazy mothers), while getting your guts spilled would get a high H score (except for sci-fi horror flick lovers).

[Sirotnikov]

We could also break down the T threshold.

It would be something like ( S * sqrt(M) ) / L

Where S is the previously mentioned sensitivity.

M is money, where I assume that if you have more money, you're more likely to either donate some (and not starve) or at least, take a vacation from work and go to africa and help someone.

While L is the natural laziness factor.

[Dauphin]

I would say a better model is based on whether people feel they can make a difference. As problems get bigger (any problem, not just the one of others' suffering), they start to lose the belief that it's worth trying to solve it if all they are doing is a drop in the ocean. Therefore it's not some kind of grief per person logic, from my perspective.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Stalin summed it up....

Yup. People simply can't contextualize the magnitude of such events. If you can't really imagine it, you can't really feel anything about it. Empathy and Sympathy only work if you can place yourself in that situation. Most people can't or won't imagine themselves caught in that kind of situation.

[Dr Strangelove]

I care, don't I count? See the problem is that people just don't care that people care.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Stalin summed it up....

My thoughts precisely...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Stalin summed it up....

QFT

[Dis]

it's only because when you see problems in the millions of people, the situation seems hopeless, and we give up easily.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap


Yup. People simply can't contextualize the magnitude of such events. If you can't really imagine it, you can't really feel anything about it. Empathy and Sympathy only work if you can place yourself in that situation. Most people can't or won't imagine themselves caught in that kind of situation.

If we can't contextualize the magnitude of mass suffering then how is the magnitude greater than if one person suffers . IMO, it's the same magnitude. All it is is a feeling that we experience because we imagine the event happening to ourselves. Sympathy = fear.

This is different if the number of events increase. Then we keep having the emotional reaction and the magnitude of our sympathy will increase.

edit: I'm assuming that you were making a comment about the magnitude of the sympathy that we should have not the magnitude of the suffering. The magnitude of the suffering for mass suffering is certainly more than if it just happened to an individual. Sorry, that probably wasn't clear.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well, considering that almost everyone else insists telling the individual what is best for them, yes, we care about the individual. We think everyoen should be treated with equal respect, and that they are the masters of their own lives.

Unlike some others

I don't need anyone to tell me what is best for me. Unfortunately I'm bombarded with it, at work, on television, here. But oh well, I know what is best for me, because I know all that is is crap. What's best for me is freedom, but not that stupid crap freedom for capitalists that you believe in. I need freedom from that crap.

[Straybow]

It has nothing to do with that. 200k dead and 2.5m homeless in Darfur = way too big a problem for me to do anything about.

Even on a national scale, who is responsible? Do we invade Sudan and try to weed through the whole population and somehow find the murderers and put them on trial? With what evidence do we do this?

Easier to nuke them back to the stone age.

[Kidlicious]

That's doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it's suppose to be funny.