My hero Peter Singer just wrote a nice little piece about conspicuous consumption called Why Pay More.
I often blog about conspicuous consumption, but rarely name it. To me, it is perhaps the most disgusting and most damaging way of being selfish. In a nut shell, conspicuous consumption is "keeping up with the Jones's" - spending resources on unnecessary or luxury items as a way of signaling status. Examples of conspicuous consumption include purchases of designer clothing/accessories/furniture, oversized living spaces/cars, pedigree companion animals, weddings, lavish vacations, and any purchase you'd want to brag about or that would impress your peer group. Think about purchases or experiences you post on Facebook. Think about your boards on Pinterest. Can you see conspicuous consumption at work in your own life?
The reason that I believe conspicuous consumption is worse than private indulgence is conspicuous consumption places social pressure on others to spend as you spend. Not only do you use your own resources selfishly, but you encourage others to do the same. Even worse, there's a "one-upping" that's expected - you spent 5 days in London, but I spent 5 days in London AND 3 days in Rome. And all that unnecessary spending could have saved lives.
Extremely large, public gifts to charity are also considered conspicuous consumption, as they raise the status of those making the gift. This is the one form of conspicuous consumption I support and applaud, for exactly the reason I stated above: it encourages others to do the same. The charitable gifts made by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet have made way for other billionaires to follow suit.
Conspicuous consumption is deeply embedded in American culture, self-identity, and group-identity. It is extremely important to recognize the way in which conspicuous consumption directs our spending habits, and thus "ties up" money that we should be free to give away.
To change our culture, to value compassion over selfishness and altruistic actions over "stuff", we must celebrate and elevate those who defy conspicuous consumption, like Uruguay's 'poor' president Jose Mujica. And we should feel disgusted and outraged by public displays of luxury and indulgence, not envious.
-Selfish Blogger
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Saturday, April 27, 2013
What the world eats
Check out these images of a weeks worth of groceries for families in various countries. Fascinating. I assume that when the image shows a family of four, the groceries are for four people. And when the image shows a family of eight, the groceries are for eight people. Not sure if that's the case or not, but interesting to see anyway. Pay attention to the food available for the African countries. Easy to guess who is living below the global poverty line.
-Selfish Blogger
-Selfish Blogger
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Why you should talk about giving
I just listened to a BBC radio interview with Toby Ord, philosopher and founder of Giving What We Can - a charity that encourages people to give away 10% of their income or more. Toby has pledged to give away a little over 50% of his.
Toby, and others from Giving What We Can, talked about the moral argument for donating much of their income. He earns close to £40,000 per annum but lives on only £18,000, including saving for retirement and his mortgage.
Most of those who called in to BBC radio during the interview were quite hostile. Callers said Giving What We Can does nothing but make people feel guilty, and that giving should only be done privately. Some accused Toby and his colleagues of coming on the radio to brag, and insisted they were lying about what they give or how much money they actually have. No one can live on £18,000 a year, one caller insisted.
I'd like to reframe this conversation.
First, the issue of guilt. Your money belongs to you. You can choose to spend your money in whatever way you see fit. Everyday, you are influenced about how to spend your money: from advertisers (buy this new flavor of coffee), from associating with peers (ooo, I like Carrie's new sweater...), and from cultural expectations (it's important to own a three bedroom house in a safe neighborhood). You can spend money according to those influences. You can also spend your money to improve the lives of others. Giving What We Can, like this blog, is hoping to influence you to do just that. Giving What We Can is just one more suggestion in a sea of suggestions about what to do with your money.
So why the hostility? Toby isn't just suggesting a way for you to spend your money. He's asking you to help solve a problem. He is asking you to save lives. If you ignore a commercial advertiser's spending suggestions, you forgo a new item. If you ignore Toby's, someone dies. Someone your money could have saved.
If that makes you feel guilty, congratulations! You have a conscience. You are not a sociopath. And if you want that guilty feeling to go away: donate a little bit of money to a highly effective charity. You'll even feel good about yourself. But don't shoot the messenger. Extreme poverty exists, whether you choose to admit it or not, and you can alleviate suffering by giving to charity, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Next, the issue of bragging. Why go on the radio to publicly state you are giving money away, if not to impress others and toot your own horn? Why, to influence peers and change cultural expectations around giving, of course! Most people do what their friends and family do, and they adopt the traditions of their community. It's why most of us wear clothes similar to our friends. It's why most engagement rings are (still) diamond. It's why most Americans (still) delight over the corpse of a bird on Thanksgiving. We are a social species. We follow the rules of our tribe. And if everyone in your peer group was talking about extreme poverty and giving money to Deworm the World, wouldn't you look into doing the same? If every leader in your community was publicly supporting Mama Hope, do you think others would follow?
There is a growing movement of compassionate people who believe giving money is only the first step to a solution: we have to encourage others to give too. And the best way to do that is to engage in conversation. Simply share information about your own giving, and how you came to the decision to support the charities you support.
I hope to join Giving What We Can by pledging 10% of my income to highly effective charities. Until then, I'm happy to be part of The Life You Can Save where I have publicly pledged 1% of my income. Take a look at all the others who have pledged. I'm in good company.
-Selfish Blogger
Toby, and others from Giving What We Can, talked about the moral argument for donating much of their income. He earns close to £40,000 per annum but lives on only £18,000, including saving for retirement and his mortgage.
Most of those who called in to BBC radio during the interview were quite hostile. Callers said Giving What We Can does nothing but make people feel guilty, and that giving should only be done privately. Some accused Toby and his colleagues of coming on the radio to brag, and insisted they were lying about what they give or how much money they actually have. No one can live on £18,000 a year, one caller insisted.
I'd like to reframe this conversation.
First, the issue of guilt. Your money belongs to you. You can choose to spend your money in whatever way you see fit. Everyday, you are influenced about how to spend your money: from advertisers (buy this new flavor of coffee), from associating with peers (ooo, I like Carrie's new sweater...), and from cultural expectations (it's important to own a three bedroom house in a safe neighborhood). You can spend money according to those influences. You can also spend your money to improve the lives of others. Giving What We Can, like this blog, is hoping to influence you to do just that. Giving What We Can is just one more suggestion in a sea of suggestions about what to do with your money.
So why the hostility? Toby isn't just suggesting a way for you to spend your money. He's asking you to help solve a problem. He is asking you to save lives. If you ignore a commercial advertiser's spending suggestions, you forgo a new item. If you ignore Toby's, someone dies. Someone your money could have saved.
If that makes you feel guilty, congratulations! You have a conscience. You are not a sociopath. And if you want that guilty feeling to go away: donate a little bit of money to a highly effective charity. You'll even feel good about yourself. But don't shoot the messenger. Extreme poverty exists, whether you choose to admit it or not, and you can alleviate suffering by giving to charity, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Next, the issue of bragging. Why go on the radio to publicly state you are giving money away, if not to impress others and toot your own horn? Why, to influence peers and change cultural expectations around giving, of course! Most people do what their friends and family do, and they adopt the traditions of their community. It's why most of us wear clothes similar to our friends. It's why most engagement rings are (still) diamond. It's why most Americans (still) delight over the corpse of a bird on Thanksgiving. We are a social species. We follow the rules of our tribe. And if everyone in your peer group was talking about extreme poverty and giving money to Deworm the World, wouldn't you look into doing the same? If every leader in your community was publicly supporting Mama Hope, do you think others would follow?
There is a growing movement of compassionate people who believe giving money is only the first step to a solution: we have to encourage others to give too. And the best way to do that is to engage in conversation. Simply share information about your own giving, and how you came to the decision to support the charities you support.
I hope to join Giving What We Can by pledging 10% of my income to highly effective charities. Until then, I'm happy to be part of The Life You Can Save where I have publicly pledged 1% of my income. Take a look at all the others who have pledged. I'm in good company.
-Selfish Blogger
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
The Christmas wish list
When I was a kid, I loved putting together a Christmas wish list. My parents were pretty good about getting me what I asked for, and they made certain I'd get one big ticket item along with some toys, clothes, and sweets.
By the time I was out of college, the Christmas wish list had lost its fun. It has become an exercise in finding items with a range of prices suitable to the varying income levels of my friends and family that I wouldn't hate having around if someone actually ended up buying them for me. I enjoy living a simple lifestyle, and I really don't want more stuff. Some of my friends feel the same way, and we have enjoyed a pleasant I-won't-get-you-anything-if-you-won't-get-me-anything holiday truce for years. Some economists agree that skipping gift-giving all together is a much more efficient allocation of resources.
For friends and family who insist on keeping the obligatory tradition to spend money on loved ones I've found an alternative to the wish list: the fundraising page.
Set a goal to raise money for they worthy cause of your choice, and direct your friends and relatives to spend their money on something useful - like moving a family in Kenya into the middle class - instead of on another ill-fitting sweater. Shift your gifts to someone who could really use a little something extra, and enjoy the warm feeling of making someone else's life better.
Your loved-ones may be more receptive to learning about the struggles of others around the holidays - it's a great time for outreach. Set-up your fundraising page and spread the word about what you want for Christmas. This year, I've set up a page with The Adventure Project. In addition to doing great work, their message is upbeat and presented in digestible graphics with short, punchy descriptions. Perfect for enticing giving from those who may not be familiar with the struggles of families in extreme poverty.
If the fundraising page may not go over well in your family, think of other approaches to moving money spent on gifts to money spent on charity. My best friend and I created our own tradition for birthdays and holidays after reading The Life You Can Save. We donate to a charity in the other's name and also give each other an affordable item under $10.
-Selfish Blogger
By the time I was out of college, the Christmas wish list had lost its fun. It has become an exercise in finding items with a range of prices suitable to the varying income levels of my friends and family that I wouldn't hate having around if someone actually ended up buying them for me. I enjoy living a simple lifestyle, and I really don't want more stuff. Some of my friends feel the same way, and we have enjoyed a pleasant I-won't-get-you-anything-if-you-won't-get-me-anything holiday truce for years. Some economists agree that skipping gift-giving all together is a much more efficient allocation of resources.
For friends and family who insist on keeping the obligatory tradition to spend money on loved ones I've found an alternative to the wish list: the fundraising page.
Set a goal to raise money for they worthy cause of your choice, and direct your friends and relatives to spend their money on something useful - like moving a family in Kenya into the middle class - instead of on another ill-fitting sweater. Shift your gifts to someone who could really use a little something extra, and enjoy the warm feeling of making someone else's life better.
Your loved-ones may be more receptive to learning about the struggles of others around the holidays - it's a great time for outreach. Set-up your fundraising page and spread the word about what you want for Christmas. This year, I've set up a page with The Adventure Project. In addition to doing great work, their message is upbeat and presented in digestible graphics with short, punchy descriptions. Perfect for enticing giving from those who may not be familiar with the struggles of families in extreme poverty.
If the fundraising page may not go over well in your family, think of other approaches to moving money spent on gifts to money spent on charity. My best friend and I created our own tradition for birthdays and holidays after reading The Life You Can Save. We donate to a charity in the other's name and also give each other an affordable item under $10.
-Selfish Blogger
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Some thoughts on baby-making
I've been wanting to post about something for a long time: children. Or rather, making new children. I haven't posted until now because my thoughts on the matter are unconventional, and I didn't want to hurt the feelings of my close (usually pregnant) friends. I had to wait until all the babies were born. I think I've found a special moment in my life (20 months later) where my facebook page is sans pregnant bellies. So this might be my only shot to say something that others may find horribly offensive (I'm sorry!) without insulting my loved ones too (I hope!).
Ok, here goes... I think making babies is selfish.
::cringe::
I'm sorry!!!
I know. You're thinking "Selfish!? That's the complete opposite of what it means to be a parent. Being a parent is the most self-less thing you could possibly do. It means always putting yourself last. It means making huge, painful, personal sacrifices for another person. It means loving someone else so completely, that your own needs don't matter. How on earth can you think parenthood is selfish?!"
Well, I don't. I don't think parenthood is selfish. I think making babies is selfish. And these are two very different things.
Before I continue, let me just say I love my friends' children. Turns out, awesome people raise awesome kids. I'm glad I will get to know these kids over time and watch them grow and be present in their lives. I'm happy they exist! Nothing I'm going to say is meant to be retroactive. I'm talking all about future choices, not past choice. I love the kids I've met: I love you Emily and Roy and Elenore and Maya and Dade and Jacob! I love the kids I haven't met yet. That's right, I'm facebook stalking you with love Dex and Katie Sue. If you are reading this, and you have children, I want the absolute best for them and for you. I mean it.
So let's continue.
There is a lot of need in the world. A lot. Every existing person has needs that must be met if they are to enjoy a happy life: food and water, education, healthcare, basic shelter, access to culture and community, meaningful work. Every time a new person is created, a little more need is added to our world of finite resources. With so many people already in need - little boys and girls without anyone to care for them - why do we feel entitled to create more need?
In the face of 13,000,000 children who have lost both their parents, and countless more who have been abandoned or sold, is it fair that our basic instinct to reproduce goes unquestioned and unchallenged?
I haven't come across a compelling moral argument for creating a new child instead of adopting an existing child.* The reasons I hear for creating a bio-baby (that's what I call a child who inherited 50% of your genes/your partner's genes through traditional methods, in-vitro, surrogacy, or another method) fall into two categories:
(1) Genes are important
(2) Adoption is hard
In category (1), I hear things like "I want my child to look like me", "My family will die out if I don't reproduce", and "I don't want to risk getting a child with physical or behavioral problems." On the surface, these sound sort of reasonable. Then I picture sitting down with a 4 year old girl who has no family, who desperately hopes to come home with me, and saying "I'm sorry sweetie, but you don't look like me so you have to stay here" or "you might be a real problem in school some day, and I just can't take that chance." I don't even know how you'd explain the importance of keeping your specific genetic line alive, but these are really selfish reasons to leave that little girl behind.
Category (2) I know very little about, but I know there are real, systemic problems that make adoption an emotional and financial burden, and sometimes impossible. I'm grateful that some college friends started a blog called Orphans and Widows to share their journey into the system. And I am so humbled by their compassionate, self-less reasons for working to adopt. Hopefully I'll know a lot more about adoption-process-problems, real or perceived, by following their progress.
But even if adoption is impossible, it comes back to the same thing: creating a new child creates new needs. Those needs take resources. Those resources could have been used to meet existing needs. If you can't adopt, then use the money you would have spent on a child to support organizations helping orphans or organizations working to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I'm not suggesting the desire to have a child and build a biological family is bad or wrong. Rather, this desire should be considered and evaluated against the needs of the wider world. All our decisions should be made this way. What type of home you will have, the cost of living in the places you want to settle, the career path you choose all determine how much help you are able to offer to others, and what resources you will have to offer that help.
I've made the incredibly selfish choice to live in Los Angeles - a city with a terribly high cost of living that practically requires I drive a car daily. That choice means I have fewer resources to give to those in need, and my carbon footprint is higher than it need be.
We all make selfish choices, and even if we ultimately continue to make them, I think it is only fair we recognize them for what they are.
-Selfish Blogger
*That doesn't mean they don't exist - please share.
Ok, here goes... I think making babies is selfish.
::cringe::
I'm sorry!!!
I know. You're thinking "Selfish!? That's the complete opposite of what it means to be a parent. Being a parent is the most self-less thing you could possibly do. It means always putting yourself last. It means making huge, painful, personal sacrifices for another person. It means loving someone else so completely, that your own needs don't matter. How on earth can you think parenthood is selfish?!"
Well, I don't. I don't think parenthood is selfish. I think making babies is selfish. And these are two very different things.
Before I continue, let me just say I love my friends' children. Turns out, awesome people raise awesome kids. I'm glad I will get to know these kids over time and watch them grow and be present in their lives. I'm happy they exist! Nothing I'm going to say is meant to be retroactive. I'm talking all about future choices, not past choice. I love the kids I've met: I love you Emily and Roy and Elenore and Maya and Dade and Jacob! I love the kids I haven't met yet. That's right, I'm facebook stalking you with love Dex and Katie Sue. If you are reading this, and you have children, I want the absolute best for them and for you. I mean it.
So let's continue.
There is a lot of need in the world. A lot. Every existing person has needs that must be met if they are to enjoy a happy life: food and water, education, healthcare, basic shelter, access to culture and community, meaningful work. Every time a new person is created, a little more need is added to our world of finite resources. With so many people already in need - little boys and girls without anyone to care for them - why do we feel entitled to create more need?
In the face of 13,000,000 children who have lost both their parents, and countless more who have been abandoned or sold, is it fair that our basic instinct to reproduce goes unquestioned and unchallenged?
I haven't come across a compelling moral argument for creating a new child instead of adopting an existing child.* The reasons I hear for creating a bio-baby (that's what I call a child who inherited 50% of your genes/your partner's genes through traditional methods, in-vitro, surrogacy, or another method) fall into two categories:
(1) Genes are important
(2) Adoption is hard
In category (1), I hear things like "I want my child to look like me", "My family will die out if I don't reproduce", and "I don't want to risk getting a child with physical or behavioral problems." On the surface, these sound sort of reasonable. Then I picture sitting down with a 4 year old girl who has no family, who desperately hopes to come home with me, and saying "I'm sorry sweetie, but you don't look like me so you have to stay here" or "you might be a real problem in school some day, and I just can't take that chance." I don't even know how you'd explain the importance of keeping your specific genetic line alive, but these are really selfish reasons to leave that little girl behind.
Category (2) I know very little about, but I know there are real, systemic problems that make adoption an emotional and financial burden, and sometimes impossible. I'm grateful that some college friends started a blog called Orphans and Widows to share their journey into the system. And I am so humbled by their compassionate, self-less reasons for working to adopt. Hopefully I'll know a lot more about adoption-process-problems, real or perceived, by following their progress.
But even if adoption is impossible, it comes back to the same thing: creating a new child creates new needs. Those needs take resources. Those resources could have been used to meet existing needs. If you can't adopt, then use the money you would have spent on a child to support organizations helping orphans or organizations working to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I'm not suggesting the desire to have a child and build a biological family is bad or wrong. Rather, this desire should be considered and evaluated against the needs of the wider world. All our decisions should be made this way. What type of home you will have, the cost of living in the places you want to settle, the career path you choose all determine how much help you are able to offer to others, and what resources you will have to offer that help.
I've made the incredibly selfish choice to live in Los Angeles - a city with a terribly high cost of living that practically requires I drive a car daily. That choice means I have fewer resources to give to those in need, and my carbon footprint is higher than it need be.
We all make selfish choices, and even if we ultimately continue to make them, I think it is only fair we recognize them for what they are.
-Selfish Blogger
*That doesn't mean they don't exist - please share.
Extra money
I've yet to come across a person, no matter how wealthy, who thinks "I have so much extra money sitting around, I just don't know what to do with it all." We live a lifestyle according to our means (and sometimes beyond our means). An increase in income means an increase in spending - more dinners out, nicer clothes, a more expensive car, a larger living space in a wealthier part of town. We have wish lists of the luxuries we'll buy, the vacations we'll take, once we get more money. We always want more, so we spend what we make. While our wish list things are nice to have, they are far from necessities. And more to the point: you could spend that money to save lives instead of marginally improving yours.
June Walbert over at USAA has some simple ways to save $1,000 a month (and it doesn't mean moving to a small apartment or getting rid of your car). Her article is written in the context of saving money for an emergency fund, but the concepts apply to saving money to reach your philanthropic goals. What will you do with the money you save?
-Selfish Blogger
June Walbert over at USAA has some simple ways to save $1,000 a month (and it doesn't mean moving to a small apartment or getting rid of your car). Her article is written in the context of saving money for an emergency fund, but the concepts apply to saving money to reach your philanthropic goals. What will you do with the money you save?
-Selfish Blogger
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
It's Giving Tuesday!
Good morning! Have you ever found yourself sitting around the house thinking "I need a good excuse to give some money away"? Well today is your day! Giving Tuesday is here! Now you can give away your money with bunches of other people on the same day. Lookayou!
And if you find yourself saying "I don't have any extra money to give away," consider one of these quick money-finding tips: skip Starbucks, make your lunch a PB&J, sell that thing you've been meaning to put on Craig's List. With any luck, you've scrapped together $5-10 that you can donate to the worthwhile charity of your choice.
I might make a gift to The Adventure Project, or perhaps The Fistula Foundation, or maybe even International Planned Parenthood Federation... Where will your money go?
-Selfish Blogger
And if you find yourself saying "I don't have any extra money to give away," consider one of these quick money-finding tips: skip Starbucks, make your lunch a PB&J, sell that thing you've been meaning to put on Craig's List. With any luck, you've scrapped together $5-10 that you can donate to the worthwhile charity of your choice.
I might make a gift to The Adventure Project, or perhaps The Fistula Foundation, or maybe even International Planned Parenthood Federation... Where will your money go?
-Selfish Blogger
Monday, April 11, 2011
Fighting My Selfish Drive
Last week I had two bummer moments: my TV died and someone hit my car.
I don't watch much TV and what little I do watch, I can get online. When I lived without a TV in the past, my house was cleaner, I got more sleep, and I read more books. If I'm honest with myself, I don't really want to replace my TV. But when I think about how other people will react, I change my mind. Professional 20-somethings are supposed to have a nice size flat screen in their home.
The damage to my car is minimal and entirely cosmetic. But no doubt it will eat up my $500 deductible to repair. It bugs me a little - seeing this "black eye" every time I get in the car. But it bugs me more to think about what other people think. Do other drivers look at me and wonder why I haven't gotten this fixed? Do they wonder if I'm poor? Do they think I'm a bad driver?
I have money in my checking account to replace my TV and fix my car. I could take care of both of these problems with no strain on my budget. But if I have that much money just sitting around - not in a retirement account, not set aside for emergencies - why on earth haven't I given it to people who really need it?
If I feel so much shame over a broken TV and a dinged up car, but I can only imagine the emotions felt by a women living with a fistula. A fistula is a hole between the vagina and the bladder, often caused by early childbearing or violent rape, and 2,000,000 women in the developing world have them. A fistula means a lifetime of urine constantly dribbling from the vagina, where you can never get clean, where you always smell foul. A woman with an untreated fistula will never be married or will be left by her husband: she will have no financial stability. Each of these 2,000,000 women in the developing world live a life of incredible suffering and shame due to untreated fistulas, forced into lifelong poverty because they were forced into sex or forced into pregnancy before their bodies had fully developed. The reason we don't hear about fistulas in developed countries is that they are easily treatable through surgery.
The surgery costs $450.
I am sick to my stomach that I know about this problem, I know how to help, and I'm still thinking about fixing a cosmetic problem on a car. Is there one good reason, one sound argument, why I should choose to repair a car instead of repairing a human life? And if there is, does it make it right? Does it make it moral? Does it help me be the person I think I should be?
I'm disgusted at my own selfishness - that I've been thinking about this choice for a week, and haven't acted in the way that I know to be right. I can't help but think that this would be easier if I lived in a culture that valued action over appearance, that valued lives over things.
I think I just need some encouragement. Tell me to give!!!
If you want to learn more, NOVA did an incredible documentary called "A Walk to Beautiful" on this issue.
If you want to help, consider giving to The Fistula Foundation, a highly ranked, transparent, and effective nonprofit funding doctors and hospitals that repair fistulas. That's where I know I need to give, if I can just find the moral courage to do it.
-Selfish Blogger
I don't watch much TV and what little I do watch, I can get online. When I lived without a TV in the past, my house was cleaner, I got more sleep, and I read more books. If I'm honest with myself, I don't really want to replace my TV. But when I think about how other people will react, I change my mind. Professional 20-somethings are supposed to have a nice size flat screen in their home.
The damage to my car is minimal and entirely cosmetic. But no doubt it will eat up my $500 deductible to repair. It bugs me a little - seeing this "black eye" every time I get in the car. But it bugs me more to think about what other people think. Do other drivers look at me and wonder why I haven't gotten this fixed? Do they wonder if I'm poor? Do they think I'm a bad driver?
I have money in my checking account to replace my TV and fix my car. I could take care of both of these problems with no strain on my budget. But if I have that much money just sitting around - not in a retirement account, not set aside for emergencies - why on earth haven't I given it to people who really need it?
If I feel so much shame over a broken TV and a dinged up car, but I can only imagine the emotions felt by a women living with a fistula. A fistula is a hole between the vagina and the bladder, often caused by early childbearing or violent rape, and 2,000,000 women in the developing world have them. A fistula means a lifetime of urine constantly dribbling from the vagina, where you can never get clean, where you always smell foul. A woman with an untreated fistula will never be married or will be left by her husband: she will have no financial stability. Each of these 2,000,000 women in the developing world live a life of incredible suffering and shame due to untreated fistulas, forced into lifelong poverty because they were forced into sex or forced into pregnancy before their bodies had fully developed. The reason we don't hear about fistulas in developed countries is that they are easily treatable through surgery.
The surgery costs $450.
I am sick to my stomach that I know about this problem, I know how to help, and I'm still thinking about fixing a cosmetic problem on a car. Is there one good reason, one sound argument, why I should choose to repair a car instead of repairing a human life? And if there is, does it make it right? Does it make it moral? Does it help me be the person I think I should be?
I'm disgusted at my own selfishness - that I've been thinking about this choice for a week, and haven't acted in the way that I know to be right. I can't help but think that this would be easier if I lived in a culture that valued action over appearance, that valued lives over things.
I think I just need some encouragement. Tell me to give!!!
If you want to learn more, NOVA did an incredible documentary called "A Walk to Beautiful" on this issue.
If you want to help, consider giving to The Fistula Foundation, a highly ranked, transparent, and effective nonprofit funding doctors and hospitals that repair fistulas. That's where I know I need to give, if I can just find the moral courage to do it.
-Selfish Blogger
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The Life You Can Save... if you care to try
The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer changed my life. And that was by design.
My best friend, the common catalyst for most of my moral-lifestyle-shifts, gave me her copy of The Life You Can Save in December. I read through it quickly, often fighting back tears as Singer carefully lays out a solid case for giving to the world's poorest people. The commonly heard arguments against giving (like aid creates dependency and aid encourages poor people have more babies) are honestly and fairly addressed. Before I was half way through the book, one thing was entirely clear to me: my daily choices are unforgivably selfish.
The opportunity cost of my lifestyle, my spending choices, is a human life. Every dollar I spend in a restaurant, on faster internet, or for new clothes is a dollar spent with heartlessness, because I don't need any of those things. I live in a world where 10 million children die each year from poverty - and I am in a position to help. How can I justify what I spend to maintain my comfortable middle-class lifestyle when I could instead pay for oral rehydration therapy (some salt and sugar dissolved in water) and save one of the 3 million who die of diarrhea each year? What kind of a person am I if I have the ability to save someone's life, but choose to turn away?
This blog is an exploration of a consumer culture that tells us to define personal worth by accumulation of wealth rather than good deeds; institutions and religions that claims to serve the poor but whose actions say otherwise; the giving and spending habits of the mega-rich, celebrities, and politicians; and my own morality.
It is my hope that a thoughtful, public discussion of the issues surrounding poverty and the role of the wealthy (that's us) will encourage me to do more, and encourage others to join me.
-Selfish Blogger
My best friend, the common catalyst for most of my moral-lifestyle-shifts, gave me her copy of The Life You Can Save in December. I read through it quickly, often fighting back tears as Singer carefully lays out a solid case for giving to the world's poorest people. The commonly heard arguments against giving (like aid creates dependency and aid encourages poor people have more babies) are honestly and fairly addressed. Before I was half way through the book, one thing was entirely clear to me: my daily choices are unforgivably selfish.
The opportunity cost of my lifestyle, my spending choices, is a human life. Every dollar I spend in a restaurant, on faster internet, or for new clothes is a dollar spent with heartlessness, because I don't need any of those things. I live in a world where 10 million children die each year from poverty - and I am in a position to help. How can I justify what I spend to maintain my comfortable middle-class lifestyle when I could instead pay for oral rehydration therapy (some salt and sugar dissolved in water) and save one of the 3 million who die of diarrhea each year? What kind of a person am I if I have the ability to save someone's life, but choose to turn away?
This blog is an exploration of a consumer culture that tells us to define personal worth by accumulation of wealth rather than good deeds; institutions and religions that claims to serve the poor but whose actions say otherwise; the giving and spending habits of the mega-rich, celebrities, and politicians; and my own morality.
It is my hope that a thoughtful, public discussion of the issues surrounding poverty and the role of the wealthy (that's us) will encourage me to do more, and encourage others to join me.
-Selfish Blogger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)