It's somewhat interesting how much attention these kids have received, meanwhile how many kids have died worldwide from hunger, disease, and warfare since June 23rd? Probably a bit more than 12. I guess that's not as exciting to read about though.
But that doesn't mean mankind is insensitive to suffering. It just so happens that none of us can do anything about it even if we wished to.
> meanwhile how many kids have died worldwide from hunger, disease, and warfare since June 23rd? Probably a bit more than 12. I guess that's not as exciting to read about though.
Food for thought: there are probably a few million stars dying everyday wiping out possible civilizations and life we may never know about. I guess at some point we need to stop looking at statistics and instead focus on fixing what is possible.
more than 400,000 people die each year from malaria alone, a disease easily preventable by buying cheap mosquito nets. If you donated just 10% of your income each month, you'd be able to save many lives each year.
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/myths-about-aid...
Dispels the most commonly held incorrect beliefs about charities.
(1) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/foreign-funding-of...
(2) https://www.oneindia.com/india/crackdown-on-fcra-violation-n...
(3) https://www.socialpost.news/national/modi-govt-cancels-licen...
If you truly are a "noble charitable cause" then there is no reason to hide your source of funding. Majority of these NGOs (Charities are classified as Non-Governmental Organizations in India) haven't filed their annual returns since their inception. So basically it's unaccounted dollars free-flowing into the country with no mention of source or the purpose for the donations. It could very well be money-laundering or for other ulterior motives. That can only be dispelled if the NGOs filed their annual returns just like every other organization. But the fact that they refused to do it, inspite of it being clearly laid down in law, shows ill-intent. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Stuff like this gets pretty sad if you think about it in utilitarian terms.
People are quite upset about kids getting separated from parents at the border. Yet offer no help for the thousands of children that die every day.
Every person decides what cause is important to them. The hypocrisy is when people who favor one cause judge those who arent interested in that cause.
I'm pro-choice I'm just saying its not fair to compare abortion to child deaths in general.
Wars kill children.
The moral scale of legalized abortion dwarfs that of modern wars
--------
Between 1945 and 1992, there were 149 major wars, killing more than 23 million people.
...
Recent developments in warfare have significantly heightened the dangers for children. During the last decade, it is estimated (and these figures, while specific, are necessarily orders of magnitude) that child victims have included:
2 million killed; 4-5 million disabled; 12 million left homeless; more than 1 million orphaned or separated from their parents; some 10 million psychologically traumatized.4
https://www.unicef.org/sowc96/1cinwar.htm
There have been more than 45 million abortions just in the US since Roe v Wade
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_U...
------- ------- -------
I'm guessing that's not your moral world view, but for the sake of understanding the people you disagree with, you should realize that they view legalized abortion as one of the great humanitarian crises of our time, which easily outweighs most other issues that we squabble about. (And yeah, justifies teaming up with otherwise unsavory bedfellows)
One closely related to the topic at hand: crisis pregnancy centers often supply help to new mothers in addition to counseling them to no seek an abortion. That could mean short term housing, job training, community support (bible studies with other mothers), diapers and other baby supplies, etc...
Just because you can't help everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't try to help someone.
How is any of that hypocrisy?
Read more about this menace here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-goldberg/missionaries-...
Long term problems need long term solutions and benefit from longer attention spans.
Your reminder to think about those problems is well taken. But, aside from heeding your reminder, I'm okay with this.
For example, mortality under five worldwide: https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/U5MR_deat...
From about 12.5 million, about 25 years ago, to 5.5 million. Or about 200 thousand children in the past two weeks, most of them due to preventable causes that require better infrastructure, logistics, institutional capacity and resources to solve. The solutions are not trivial, but are not complex either.
Of course there is massive institutional attention for these issues (which is in part why the number of deaths per year has dropped by about 7 million children, akin to preventing a deadly outcome equivalent to the holocaust every year), but the share of popular media attention is a tiny fraction, probably a rounding error.
This just feels like another Kony2012. That's not to say the efforts should not take place. But it is to say that it's once again confirmed that parts of journalism are a complete joke and part of its raison d'etre is providing for those with a fetish for digital disaster tourism, whether it's this or helicopter views of a police car chase. It like putting the real in reality tv. But it's not what journalists say they are, or how media companies describe themselves as.