Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Earthquake strikes again leaving thousands dead

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    390

    Question Earthquake strikes again leaving thousands dead

    Haiti hits by Earthquake.

    Nature plays its role once in a while, thousands
    of people are dead and many homeless.
    Do you feel you are very fortunate to be not in this situation?
    http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/201...TIQUAKE_4.html

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: Earthquake strikes again leaving thousands dead

    Haiti is in a bad spot anyway. They're usually hurt by hurricanes but this was worse that several hurricanes for them.

  3. #3
    Member 9V-Orion Images's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Autenticate ALGRN @ 7987.8270
    Posts
    1,760

    Default Re: Earthquake strikes again leaving thousands dead

    People are able to spent millions of dollars to rescue a single canine adrift in the middle of the ocean and yet view millions of suffering men, women and children affected by a major natural disaster as nothing that they should be concerned with, why is that so? For more insights please read...

    Beyond Comprehension: We know that genocide and famine are greater tragedies than a lost dog. At least, we think we do.
    Posted by Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post Staff Writer on the 2010.01.17, Sunday.

    ...

    There are a series of disturbing questions, however: Eight years before the Hokget saga began, the same world that showed extraordinary compassion for a dog sat on its hands as hundreds of thousands of human beings were killed in the Rwandan genocide. The 20th century reveals a shockingly long list of similar horrors that have been ignored by the world as they unfolded. Why have successive generations done so little to halt suffering on such a large scale?

    The philosopher Peter Singer once devised a dilemma that highlights a central contradiction in our moral reasoning. If you see a child drowning in a pond, and you know you can save the child without any risk to your own life -- but you would ruin a fine pair of shoes worth $200 if you jumped into the water -- would you save the child or save your shoes? Most people react incredulously to the question; obviously, a child's life is worth more than a pair of shoes.

    If this is the case, Singer asked, why do large numbers of people hesitate to write a check for $200 to a reputable charity that could save the life of a child halfway around the world -- when there are millions of children who need our help? Even when people are absolutely certain their money will not be wasted and will be used to save a child's life, fewer people are willing to write the check than to leap into the pond.

    Our moral responsibilities feel different in these situations; one feels immediate and visceral, the other distant and abstract. We feel personally responsible for one child, whereas the other is one of millions who need help. Our responsibility feels diffused when it comes to children in distant places -- there are many people who could write that check. But distance and diffusion of responsibility do not explain why we step forward in some cases. Why did so many people feel an abandoned dog on a stateless ship in international waters was their problem?

    I want to offer a disturbing idea. The reason human beings seem to care so little about mass suffering and death is precisely because the suffering is happening on a mass scale. The brain is simply not very good at grasping the implications of mass suffering. Americans would be far more likely to step forward if only a few people were suffering or a single person were in pain. Hokget did not draw our sympathies because we care more about dogs than people; she drew our sympathies because she was a single dog lost on the biggest ocean in the world. Our hidden brain -- my term for a host of unconscious mental processes that subtly biases our judgment, perceptions and actions -- shapes our compassion into a telescope. We are best able to respond when we are focused on a single victim.

    ...

    Beyond Comprehension: We know that genocide and famine are greater tragedies than a lost dog. At least, we think we do.
    Posted by Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post Staff Writer on the 2010.01.17, Sunday.
    Last edited by 9V-Orion Images; 18th January 2010 at 11:56 PM.
    CS Aviation / Flickr
    Per aspera ad astra

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •