I learned today that about 3000 kids die of malaria every day. Many other children and adult deaths are also related to curable diseases. Over 90 000 children will die this month because they won’t receive the medicine they need.
Isn’t this a much, much worse disaster than what is happening in Japan? It’s not a one-time disaster, either. It’s ONGOING! This many children die EVERY MONTH! Over a million children will lose their lives in 2011. The disaster in Japan pales in comparison, in my opinion.
I’m having strange thoughts. Japan is wealthy enough to provide medicine to 100% of these 3000 kids that die every day. They can do this month after month, year after year, and it wouldn’t put a dent on their budget. Japan probably spends more than that cleaning public buildings’ windows in a month. The same goes for all wealthy countries.
The disaster in Japan is what everyone talks about and people are crying all over the place. The kids in Africa aren’t in the news so it’s no big deal. :no-no: It doesn’t make sense. I feel sufficiently brainwashed. :s
The reason you are trying to put this in perspective is because the sheer magnitude of the disaster has gotten to you. It’s like when a family member dies: do you tell yourself that everyone must die, and even that thousands more did in fact die the same day, and so it is senseless to expend so much emotion on only one person? Do you tell yourself that?
Actually yes, at some point you will say this to yourself. Does it help? No of course not because it isn’t a genuine question. It’s a deflection.
[quote=“finley”]About the same number again (adults & children) die in car accidents, mostly in developing countries. Fifty times that number are seriously injured.[/quote]Yes, but it’s very difficult to prevent such accidents. The deaths I’m talking about can easily be prevented with medicine. They’re no accidents. The medias are brainwashing us into caring for all kinds of other things and the poor kids are left to die. Before you have time to spare a single thought about these kids, you get bombarded with all kinds of bad news from around the world. Currently, it’s the crisis in Japan.
What happened in Japan is heartbreaking, no doubt, but the gravity of it really pales in comparison with the ongoing disaster in Africa. The news keep ignoring this disaster. We are brainwashed into ignoring the plight of millions of people on a daily basis because our attention is constantly diverted to less significant issues around the world. I suppose it depends where your priorities lie, but I find the news do a really good job at shaping our priorities and as a result, we’ve got it all backward.
This will sound very crude, but I can’t help asking this question. The people in Africa cannot even care for themselves. They are left in the dark as if they don’t even exist. Even if they wanted to offer assistance to the Japanese, they couldn’t because they don’t even have enough resources to feed themselves. On the other hand, a country like Japan has more than enough resources to save 3000 kids on a daily basis. EASILY. So why don’t they? And why should I be brainwashed into caring so much for them while ignoring those who have consistently needed help decades after decades all the while being left to die by the Japanese and other wealthy countries? It’s not right. I’m tired of the medias trying to brainwash me into having such skewed priorities. I’m snapping. The wife and I sent a bit of money to help people in Japan, but we decided that if we are to spend more to help others, we will simply sponsor one more child through World Vision instead because that’s where a much worse disaster is taking place.
[quote]The reason you are trying to put this in perspective is because the sheer magnitude of the disaster has gotten to you.[/quote]I’m not making a conscious effort to put things into perspective. It simply struck me that a great nation is in crisis, but years after years the same filthy rich nation ignores the plight of poorer nations in crisis. I’m not saying that the people in Japan deserve what happened. No one deserves that, but perhaps they could take a moment to reflect on the disasters that are ongoing around the world which they keep ignoring years after years while they actually have the resources to put an end to it, or at least, to greatly impact it in a positive way.
[quote]it isn’t a genuine question. It’s a deflection.
[/quote]I don’t think it’s a deflection. In fact, I would really like to see a real piece of journalism putting all this into perspective because if it happened, perhaps all eyes would change direction toward the more pressing disasters. It won’t happen, though. The media will just keep shaping skewed priorities that are perfect images of a perfectly dysfunctional society.
What the world collectively spends in one week on the military would end starvation and global hunger permanently if the money was redirected into food supply and distribution.
[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]I learned today that about 3000 kids die of malaria every day. Many other children and adult deaths are also related to curable diseases. Over 90 000 children will die this month because they won’t receive the medicine they need.
Isn’t this a much, much worse disaster than what is happening in Japan? It’s not a one-time disaster, either. It’s ONGOING! This many children die EVERY MONTH! Over a million children will lose their lives in 2011. The disaster in Japan pales in comparison, in my opinion.
I’m having strange thoughts. Japan is wealthy enough to provide medicine to 100% of these 3000 kids that die every day. They can do this month after month, year after year, and it wouldn’t put a dent on their budget. Japan probably spends more than that cleaning public buildings’ windows in a month. The same goes for all wealthy countries.
The disaster in Japan is what everyone talks about and people are crying all over the place. The kids in Africa aren’t in the news so it’s no big deal. :no-no: It doesn’t make sense. I feel sufficiently brainwashed. :s[/quote]
Empathy is a strange human feature.
If you work in a psychiatric hospital or a while, you will meet clients who start to cry when they hear a news about some accident far away, unrelated to their lives.
As hard as it might sound. The fact that there are so many children dying of all kinds of reasons has no direct affect on most peoples lives. If all people would feel compassion and have empathy to the adequate degree for every single tragedy, we would be crying for ever and not go to work or function anymore.
The difference with Japan is that it will affect all our lives. And if things get worse create new facts that can’t be changed and stay with us for a long time. Eventually it will be impossible to help the Japanese children there. The only way to help the children in Japan will be to evacuate all pregnant woman and mothers with young children if a nuclear fallout hits Tokyo.
Depending on the amount of contamination maybe all people should leave.
[quote=“Hamletintaiwan”]
Empathy is a strange human feature.
As hard as it might sound. The fact that there are so many children dying of all kinds of reasons has no direct affect on most peoples lives. If all people would feel compassion and have empathy to the adequate degree for every single tragedy, we would be crying for ever and not go to work or function anymore.
[/quote]Your thought is valid, but you’re aside my point. I’m not talking about crying and being unable to go to work. No one stopped going to work around the world because they are so sad about what happened in Japan. My point is human empathy for certain disasters is very much controlled by the medias. I am made to feel empathy for Japan (they deserve it) while completely overlooking other far greater disasters for the simple fact that these disasters aren’t sensationalized and shoved down my throat every day. It’s intellectual dishonesty, it’s too transparent and I find it insulting. Perhaps more so in times like these.
[quote]The reason you are trying to put this in perspective is because the sheer magnitude of the disaster has gotten to you. [/quote]Absolutely. But is it a bad thing? When I read a post like what cfimages wrote, I think some perspective would actually be a good thing. I KNOW it would. Do not count on the medias for a balanced perspective of what is actually happening in the world, though.
Criminals have their own show on National Geographic now. They get to tell you nice anecdotes about their crimes and how they broke out of jail, etc. Have you seen that show yet? It’s called “Jailbreak” or something like that. Dying kids don’t get to have their own TV show. I HAVE to put all this into a healthy perspective. I have to process it somehow.
where are you getting your statistics from, the tv news, or one of those send money infomercials? the statistics are a funny creature. do some research on the issue. the numbers are normally manipulated to further certain causes.
I get my numbers from the most reliable sources, in my opinion. I first found out when reading a rant online about Africa. I knew things were bad down there, but I didn’t know it was that bad so I read up on it. Even if the numbers were manipulated… It’s an ongoing disaster. Why don’t we hear about that in the news?
This is from the WHO (World Health Organization):
From UNICEF:
[quote]About 29,000 children under the age of five – 21 each minute – die every day, mainly from preventable causes.
More than 70 per cent of almost 11 million child deaths every year are attributable to six causes: diarrhoea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth.
These deaths occur mainly in the developing world. An Ethiopian child is 30 times more likely to die by his or her fifth birthday than a child in Western Europe. Among deaths in children, South-central Asia has the highest number of neonatal deaths, while sub-Saharan Africa has the highest rates. Two-thirds of deaths occur in just 10 countries.
And the majority are preventable.Link[/quote]
I don’t know that it would be all that easy to prevent malaria deaths in some of these countries. Money sent to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, would presumably either end up in the Swiss bank accounts of its officials, or go to funding the civil war and its accompanying horrendous war crimes.
I also think it is partly the viewers fault that we are so manipulated by the media. Disasters that are well-photographed evoke an outpouring of support; whereas equally horrific disasters that are not well-covered are ignored. It is like we need to see the effects of a tsunami or a famine or ethnic cleansing before we really care. Why? People severly criticized Kevin Carter for taking a phote of a starving toddler being stalked by a vulture, but the fact remains that until that photo was published the average person in the West had no idea there was a famine in that area of Africa, and didn’t care.
[quote=“finley”]About the same number again (adults & children) die in car accidents, mostly in developing countries. Fifty times that number are seriously injured.
I’m not so sure. The car accidents aren’t accidents either. You only need to look at the streets of Taipei to see that - and compared to the drivers in Abuja or Brazzaville, Taiwanese drivers are paragons of virtue. Malaria is a complex disease, and it’s not as simple as just providing drugs. It needs to be prevented, and to do that you need to consider social, environmental and biological factors. Acquired resistance to antimalarial drugs is now very common, and handing them out like Smarties would probably precipitate a crisis rather than prevent one. All things considered, I’d say it’s easier to prevent car accidents - for example, by ensuring that bad driving is routinely punished - than to fix malaria. Also, consider that in some African countries, people have a very fatalistic attitude to life. Even when the drugs are available (which they often are, at a price) they will simply choose to let a family member die. I don’t pretend to know why, but it appears to be a commonly-reported theme. I know there are some people from SA here who might be able to shed some light on this?
Well, why should they? Not that long ago, Africa was home to advanced civilisations and empires of worldwide renown. Today’s complete basket-cases, such as Ethiopia and Nigeria, were major world powers. WTF happened? Well, European colonisation, obviously, but Africa’s pitiful condition today is largely Africa’s own fault. Handouts from “rich” countries - the very same countries which pillaged Africa’s resources fifty years ago and continue to exploit them even now - do more harm than good (that’s not a random assertion - search the internet and you’ll find studies by clever people which demonstrate how and why). There are certainly times of crisis when others should intervene (various nasty civil wars spring to mind) but each African country has its own unique set of problems and it’s up to them to sort it all out.
I’d agree with that … but to ‘impact in a positive way’ is not going to be easy. Rich countries have poured countless billions into Africa, not just in aid but also as loans and oil/minerals income. Pretty much all of it has disappeared into the Swiss bank accounts of a privileged few, and I don’t just mean African government officals: when loans are provided in US dollars (for example), those dollars must ultimately flow back to American companies for American goods. It seems to me that the only way to make any positive impact on misery is to encourage and enable the little guy to do things for himself instead of waiting forever for the gubmint to wipe his ass for him.
[Edit: oops, bababa just said something similar.]
Also … what’s a “rich” country? If 2008 showed us anything, it’s that rich countries are not nearly as rich as they thought they were. They just have a generous credit limit.
[quote=“finley”]All things considered, I’d say it’s easier to prevent car accidents[/quote]I guess it’s fair to say that you’re not going to have an accident anytime soon.
Well, why should they? [/quote]Why shouldn’t they?
[quote]Not that long ago, Africa was home to advanced civilisations and empires of worldwide renown. Today’s complete basket-cases, such as Ethiopia and Nigeria, were major world powers. WTF happened? [/quote]Who cares what the corrupted “elite” in these countries did to mess it up. The people who suffer living in rural areas have nothing to do with any of what you are talking about and they are the ones who suffer.
[quote]each African country has its own unique set of problems and it’s up to them to sort it all out.[/quote]Japan also has its own set of problems. Should we let them sort it out for themselves, too? I don’t agree with you at all.
[quote] It seems to me that the only way to make any positive impact on misery is to encourage and enable the little guy to do things for himself instead of waiting forever for the gubmint to wipe his ass for him. [/quote]This doesn’t seem impossible to achieve, but it’s a bit off topic. There are more than only one way to make a positive impact on misery, in my opinion, but this is not the discussion I initiated. The point I’m trying to make is that nothing can be done about it if people aren’t aware of it.
One poster already asked me to back up statistics I had posted. He/she obviously didn’t have a clue that things are that bad in Africa. The medias are doing a great job if the average poster on this site has no clue that 21 children under the age of 5 lose their life to curable affections for every minute that goes by. Japan is what everyone is thinking about instead. There’s nothing wrong with empathizing with the plight of Japanese people. It’s ignoring the 21 kids that lose their life every minute we spend worrying about Japan that poses a problem. Our priorities are backward and I blame the news for that.
You’re absolutely right, of course - which means it’s all the more important for them to do something about it by themselves. Their thieving officials are so busy stealing money from foreign donors and corporations they probably wouldn’t care if the entire populace completely ignored the government and just got on with their own lives. I may be completely wrong - but I have an idea along those lines that I want to present at Loretta’s next entrepreneur meeting, so the public reaction there will be informative.
er … well, yes. Sort of. I suspect the last thing they need is a bunch of Birkenstock-wearing do-gooders who can’t speak Japanese cluttering up the streets while perfectly competent Japanese agencies are trying to do their job. No doubt they’d appreciate some rapid deliveries of important kit, but that’s about all.
I think they’re very aware. They’re so aware, they’ve completely lost interest … the general public doesn’t have much of an attention span (hence the sudden media interest in Japan). Tragedy overload. Warp core breach imminent. The point I was trying to make is that Africa’s problems are so deep and broad that nothing can be done about it (at least not by meddling foreigners) regardless of the level of awareness. What’s a real pity (to me) is that the average Congolese (to pick a random African country) is unaware of the cheap, simple and effective solutions which could make his life ten times better; and if he is aware of them, his instinctive reaction is to expect them to be donated for free.
[quote]Our priorities are backward and I blame the news for that.
[/quote]Can’t disagree with that … but I solve that one by not watching the news
On last Fridays “Real Time With Bill Maher” they discussed what they termed “Disaster Porn” and how we all become transfixed by the repeated showing of waves hitting cars, houses etc while being turned off by death in Africa etc as we don’t get a thrill from it - not that we like to see peoples lives ruined, but we are now so used to seeing disaster (real or of the Hollywood variety) that we can stomach watching it again and again.
I also read (but cant recall where) that during the last Tsunami, the networks had no problems showing Indonesians, Sri Lankans, Indians being swept away by the waves, whereas this time they have been very careful not to show Japanese suffering the same fate. Not that the networks are overtly racist, more we are fine seeing the 3rd World being swept away but don’t want to see it happening to “civilized folk”.
er … well, yes. Sort of. I suspect the last thing they need is a bunch of Birkenstock-wearing do-gooders who can’t speak Japanese cluttering up the streets while perfectly competent Japanese agencies are trying to do their job.[/quote]
Finley, I generally like your input on various topics but… What is this? First you said that Africans should be left to die because it’s their own problem and it’s theirs to sort out for themselves. When questioned as to whether we should also let the Japanese sort it out for themselves, you wrote the above. What is this? Are you following the discussion? I don’t believe for a second that you actually think that helping these affected countries means to hop on a plane to their rescue wearing birks. I think you know without any ambiguity that what I meant is help from the government of wealthy nations. International relief efforts, you know? What exactly are you doing, here?
Also, discussing what actually is a “rich” country is but semantics. Some governments fare better than others and we all know which ones they are.
[quote]Africa’s problems are so deep and broad that nothing can be done about it (at least not by meddling foreigners) regardless of the level of awareness.[/quote]You’re doing it again. Missionaries/meddling foreigners have long played an important part in international relief efforts but without financial backup from capable governments, their work is only scratching the surface years after years. UNICEF, World Vision, Doctors without borders, etc, are a few well-known entities that have been scratching at the surface for decades with little or no improvements. They are able to make a positive difference in the lives of many individuals but they lack the funding to make a lasting difference for rural communities as a whole.
Classifying Africa as a lost battle is only washing your hands clean and giving you a moral ground to comfortably continue ignoring their plight for help from the international community. I strongly disagree. I believe the world governments have plenty of resources to build health clinics, rural hospitals, schools, and other necessary infrastructures. They have the resources to man these infrastructures until the local people get the education they need to get involved and continue operating them.
There are solutions available and the resources are there to make it happen. Between the medias ignoring this disaster and people like you who believe nothing can be done about it, it’s no surprise that these people remain in the dark living the same disaster years after years. Out of sight, out of mind… I know I won’t be thinking about this all day, but I wonder of I’d be able to forget about it if I read about it every day in the news… Would the international community also forget about it if it was in the news every day? I doubt it.
There is an interest in Japan because the outcome will directly affect you. If Japan suffers a catastrophic meltdown at any one of those reactors you are going to be directly affected. It might mean your job, or your income, or you having to move to a safer spot on the planet, so besides the obvious human interest story there is a broader story. There is also the shared possibility of a large destructive earthquake and associated dislocation and nuclear involvement in Taiwan and other states. There is the energy story – the biggest story of our times leading to wars, environmental disaster etc. If a child dies of malaria in Africa or Cambodia you are not going to be affected or perhaps even care (maybe in the abstract to make a point on a discussion forum). You may have been brainwashed on the financial meltdown scandal into voting for Obama as a proper alternative government to Bush, but on this story you are not being brainwashed, you are being educated and overly cynical.
I second that.
We can pick up umpteen times more useful information from a well written summary or analysis than from a video clipping of which we don’t even know what important things it does not show.
And anyway, assessments of what constitutes a problem are rather subjective. Take, for example, malaria: on one hand there are those who think of it as a problem of catastrophic proportions while others consider it a manifestation of the natural balance between life forms within the dynamic system we call “nature”. And for many among us, it only becomes a problem when it affects us. That’s the way things are…
[quote]on this story you are not being brainwashed, you are being educated and overly cynical.[/quote]I think you are missing my point. I understand the logistics involved in the Japan disaster. I’m merely saying that ongoing disasters that are much worse than what is happening in Japan are consistently ignored by the medias. As a result, we don’t see it so we don’t care. Essentially, my attention is diverted away from the more pressing disasters taking place in the world. I don’t care for sensationalism. I would simply prefer to see coverage that touches on the real and ongoing human calamity because I think relief efforts only happen when people are reminded that their help is needed. It’s a matter of having your priorities at the right place and I think the medias do a great job to make sure that it won’t happen.
Corruption and the need for sensationalism in order to get the ratings are two culprits that come to mind to explain why the medias lack integrity. It is their mandate to keep us properly informed about what is happening in the world, but that’s only in theory. The reality is a different beast.
The same goes for all wealthy countries.
Dying kids don’t get to have their own TV show. 
