A Conversation for Clicking for Peace
Anneke Started conversation Jun 2, 2000
Is this kind of donating not just another way to make us feel good? It's something to keep our feeling of guild under control without the need of actually giving something.
I believe that we need to help third world countries and this might be some way keep the worst problems under contol, but it does not solve those problems. We should try to actually solve some of the problems by not buying wood from topical rainforests or by giving women in third word countries the chance to learn to read and write for example.
I think this kind of raising funds works a little better for the cancer thing, but I still have my doubts.
Princess Bride Posted Jun 2, 2000
There is actually a website that is very much like the hunger site and actually connected with it that buys/saves reainforest acres. www.therainforestsite.com.
We do also need to do more but this is a good way to easily help the world.
Anneke Posted Jun 3, 2000
I know about that site. Buying an acre of rainforest is a way to save that particular acre (hopefully). But giving people living in that area some alternative to burning to earn their living, it would be even more effective. And of course you should know what companies are destroying the rainforest and try to avoid buying their products.
Princess Bride Posted Jun 5, 2000
The problem with trying to avoid products of companies with malicious practices is that then you wouldn't be able to buy very much at all! Almost every company I can think of has done something bad, and if it didn't get to the news, they still probably did something. We are human, and therefore there is no perfect company. But I wouldn't buy a T-shirt from a drug dealer, so you have a point. I guess what I'm trying to say is that avoidance is not the answer. The only one I can see is to help out in any way I know how. Did that make sense? Probably not. But I'm not trying to argue with you, just be the devil's advocate. Sorry if I'm too pushy.
no worries Posted Jun 13, 2000
Must be some funny drugs, selled with T-shirts. Or do you mean alcohol (for drugs) and major storehouses (for T-shirts) where both is sold without any known problems?
Problem seems to be that people thinks companys to be nice (or not) and thinks not companys to be interested in profit.
Therefore avoidance might be a good idea once and then. In general we'll have to change the interests of companys (= society and social behaviour)
Princess Bride Posted Jun 13, 2000
Yes, we do need to try to change attitudes and society.
John the gardener says, "Free Tibet!" Posted Feb 15, 2004
We shouldn't use the idea that more needs to be done to do nothing at all. People sometimes seem to suggest that the sheer quantity and variety of problems somehow cancels itself out. If clicking a website helps even a little, then why not do it? It requires very little effort, after all. At the very least it keeps our own concern fresh and alive.
The danger, as has been mentioned, is that we become too self satisfied as a result of clicking a few times.
This sort of thing should be viewed as a daily practice to commit ourselves more to making things better however we can. Just as we can't change the world with one mighty effort, similarly we can't change ourselves in one step. The trick, as I see it, is to use whatever tools we can find, including things like hungersite.com, to make gradual changes in the world and in ourselves. It's just like physical exercise : The more you do, the fitter you become, and the more you are capable of achieving. The added advantage, in this case, is that it does help materially as well.
I look at it as being being something like spinning a prayer wheel: If it only does some good for the people who are doing it, then it is worthwhile because better people are capable of doing more good.
Recumbentman Posted Jul 26, 2004
Hello John the Gardener. Strange things come up in a discussion like this. One is the assumption, obvious enough until you think about it, that people are basically good and corporations are basically bad. Easy assumption to work by, but is it based in any truth?
In my entry on gambling, A1060552 "How to gamble and win", I make the point that it is better to give a tiny sum to a person or cause of your choice than to a randomly-created millionaire who is virtually certain to be nobody you know or would approve of: which is what you are donating to if you do the lottery.
People make the mistake of thinking that a tiny sum makes no difference. How wrong can you be?
The "corporations are evil" ethic has a good argument in its favour, if we regard corporations as self-perpetuating evolved entities with a life of their own. Their objectives are not identical to our personal objectives. But then, neither are anyone else's.
John the gardener says, "Free Tibet!" Posted Jul 26, 2004
People are 'good' when they choose to live their lives in a way that doesn't adversely affect my chances of having a happy life. Corporations become 'bad', in my view, when they are allowed to thrive at my expense and that of my fellow human beings.
Corporations are assuming lives of their own in many ways. I seem to remember coming across something recently about corporations (not the people who run them) being given protection under the law as living individuals. That's a bit frightening when they have needs that conflict with those of puny humans like us. It's like sharing the planet with a new class of mega-predator.
The difference between individuals and individuals and corporations is that the basic needs and desires of individuals are essentially the same on a very basic level, I think, whereas corporations often thrive on conditions that are the opposite to human requirements for health and happiness.
Recumbentman Posted Jul 27, 2004
Ahem, John: the corporation has been defined as an individual with legal status since its inception in the seventeenth century. That may be frightening, but it's not new.
You can turn your point "People are 'good' when they choose to live their lives in a way that doesn't adversely affect my chances of having a happy life. Corporations become 'bad', in my view, when they are allowed to thrive at my expense and that of my fellow human beings" around and say "Corporations are 'good' when they choose to live their lives in a way that doesn't adversely affect my chances of having a happy life. People become 'bad', in my view, when they are allowed to thrive at my expense and that of my fellow human beings."
It's just not that simple. Lots of corporations enhance my life, not least the BBC.
John the gardener says, "Free Tibet!" Posted Aug 1, 2004
Good points. Sorry for the delay in replying. The evil corporation () responsible for providing a decent steady flow of electricity cooked my computer.
You're right, of course. It's silly to paint a cartoon picture of the world. Real life is far more complex.
The question in my mind is whether there are enough safeguards to protect people from corporations which choose to act in ways that are harmful to the ant-like masses and to their environment they inhabit. There's nothing new in that either, I suppose; but the global implications now seem larger.
I share your view that the BBC is the source of all happiness.
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: Anneke (Jun 2, 2000)
- 2: Princess Bride (Jun 2, 2000)
- 3: Anneke (Jun 3, 2000)
- 4: Princess Bride (Jun 5, 2000)
- 5: no worries (Jun 13, 2000)
- 6: Princess Bride (Jun 13, 2000)
- 7: John the gardener says, "Free Tibet!" (Feb 15, 2004)
- 8: Recumbentman (Jul 26, 2004)
- 9: John the gardener says, "Free Tibet!" (Jul 26, 2004)
- 10: Recumbentman (Jul 27, 2004)
- 11: John the gardener says, "Free Tibet!" (Aug 1, 2004)