« Don't Support This Market! | Main | How to Save the World Part. 2 »
June 08, 2005
For the Children
Upon a reader's suggestion (thanks Tim. M), I decided to read the article, The Singer Solution to World Poverty. Yes, he does make a good point that "no one can argue that children have brought their poverty on themselves." The whole article places a certain responsibilty on your hands. Singer offers two links; first to UNICEF and then to OXFAM, both dedicated to the injustice, education, poverty, and hunger of children in developing and third world countries. How smart, as he follows that with, "Now you, too, have the information you need to save a child's life. How should you judge yourself if you don't do it?"
But the truth is that you and I would love to give money. Maybe we already do. Okay, if we do, we would love to give more. But singer suggests we spend all of the money that we do not spend on necessities to help other people. Well, we would love to do that too, wouldn't we? It drives me crazy that yes, yes, yes I have a heart for the world, I want to help everyone, but... I can't. I can't even give 50 cents a day? Or $1 a day, or anything? For the most part, it's a little inconvenient. Or the organization would like $30+ in advance it seems or you are just cynical about where that money is actually going.... and when you see the images of children on T.V. you...turn the channel? I confess, I do! It's hard to watch, it's easier to turn away, in my head I'm saying "I'm sorry", and I literally just can't watch it. Forgive me if I am just confusing you.
Basically, I intend on giving more to these charitable organizations as I get older and maybe have a career. During this time, I have to allow myself to be a little selfish because I have other dues as a college student such as utilities, food, clothes, rent, etc. When financially able, these organizations will definitely have a place in my pocket. Til then! Although, if you are able to and want to, they are wonderful organizations to support, so I encourage that too.
Posted by thao0226 at June 8, 2005 03:32 PM | How to Save the World
Comments
Singer's argument presents quite the challenge. money, after all, is the bottom line. As I've just commented elsewhere, we live in a society that constantly tells us that we are what we buy, and indeed that we only "truly are" when we buy. Most Americans (unlike the fictional Bob) by all accounts aren't even saving enough for their own retirements, let alone giving to life-saving charities. We're too busy buying stuff we don't really need. Surely nearly all of us who aren't exclusively self-interested could do better about sharing our wealth. But such charity alone won't change the world. We also need to be advocating for structural and political changes to try to reduce the need for organizations such as OXFAM to even exist. So I would count money contributed to organizations that work for change, groups that organize and empower the powerless, groups that educate (political and otherwise) as part of what the "haves" can do. Time is money--at the very least, time is also valuable--time spent engaged in the political process to work for better housing, education, and healthcare in one's own community and the larger world. Sweat equity is also valuable: Habitat for Humanity (and the Peace Corps) come immediately to mind, as do research into the causes and possible remedies for unjust social structures. All that is quite the challnge. That and giving more money to good charitable organizations like OXFAM.
Posted by: Tim G. at June 8, 2005 04:53 PM
You make a good point about being in college. Singer's point about giving everything above what you need probably falls on deaf ears for college students, many of whom already have less money than they need, by which I mean they take out loans. One way to look at it is that you are investing your money now so that when you do graduate your earning power will be increased, and thus your ability to give.
However, Tim G is right that donating money to charity groups is not a panacea - ultimately the goal should be to make groups like that obsolete, because everyone is able to provide for his or her own needs. Some of the other things mentioned on this blog (vegetarianism, volunteering, improved justice system, birth control, and many more) also can play a large role in "saving the world."
Posted by: Tim M at June 8, 2005 10:44 PM