crisis of the moment, or long-term engagement?

Blog

January 5, 2005 at 9:17 pm | In Uncategorized |

Jon says “I Need Some Help in understanding very clearly why “the world” is rushing to aid the surviving victims of the tsunami so enthusiastically (not that we shouldn’t) when there are also thousands and thousands of Iraqis suffering and dying through no fault of their own in the face of a persistent “tsunami” of occupation.”

Tom goes further in his analysis:

It is certainly heartwarming to see the recent response from around the world regarding the Asian Tsunami tragedy. Google lists about 2,000 current news stories on the event, with estimates of 150,000 deaths and several billions in support.

This intense interest, however, will soon fade, and a new one will surely emerge to take its place. This “Spotlight Effect” has several side effects:

It creates an overwhelming spike in resources and attention, possibly away from other deserving causes

As the spotlight fades, and the “long haul” costs of recovery begin to kick in, resources are likely to be short.

It conditions us to react to short term emergencies, at the expense of long term, continuous efforts.

It may draw resources from other causes. An “I gave for the tsunami” attitude could diminish a donor’s gifts to other programs.

As tragic as the death count was in the tsunami, it represents about three weeks’ worth of HIV/AIDS deaths. The Global Fund is struggling to collect $15 billion for an epidemic whose current and future effects are staggering.

December 1st was World HIV/AIDS day, an attempt to generate attention for this issue. It barely made the press. However, a jet crash which killed 2 people got the spotlight that day, collecting 750 articles on Google.

So, while the spotlight is on the tsunami, there are many, many other needs in the world which are less mediagenic, but possibly more important.

So, what can we do to diffuse this spike of attention to a longer term, more effectively allocated flow of resources?

My question here is not about “the world” or “the media” but for you (this is a silent, answer-to-yourself question). What are you doing in your daily life to reduce human suffering among those around you?

And then I found Michael’s post on The Physics of Tsunami Giving where he concludes: “The opportunity now is that when the wave of tsunami news and giving and action subsides, there will be some excess capability that can be directed toward other needs, closer to home perhaps, where little individuals can keep on making contributions to the common good.”

Good stuff.

5 Comments

the trib (amazingly) had an interesting perspective (in the perspective section) on this.

paraphrasing from memory:

count the deaths of the recent wars (going back to the american civil war is good enough)
it’s roughly 19,000,000 — if you count the deaths in the ukraine at the hand of stallin (starvation)…subtract 8,000,000 if you think this wasn’t war…so you’re at 11,000,000 million people dead, at the hands of … people.

now, count the deaths associated with nature. i’ll let you go back to 800 A.D. — Roughly (and who are we kidding, anything beyond 1600 A.D is an estimate anyway) 500,000 dead due to quakes, hurricanes, tornados, tsunami, etc.

so…

we could look at this in two ways:

1. we need to stop sending money to minor incidents
2. we need to start sending resources (including funding?) to eliminate aggression and those that believe that war is an answer to conflict.

we (assuming we are living in the united states) should begin with our local, state and federal government. why my tax dollars are spent on war is beyond me. really strange is why i spent money on donald rumsfeld in 1984 to give (used loosely) saddam H. chemical weapons, only to spend money on donal rumsfeld in 1991 and 2002 to get rid of the same weapons and saddam H.? this is confusing.

am i wrong?

Comment by Steve — January 19, 2005 #
confusing? - yes

you’re wrong? - no

Comment by Ted Ernst — January 20, 2005 #
to unconfuse:

1. spend less money (or none?) on activities that fuel aggression
2. move this unspent money on humanitarian needs (like the tsnuami effort).

That way, it’s a wash.

Imagine: “The US announced it is foregoing the new B-298 bomber aircraft, a program estimated at a cost of $43 billion. Instead, they are implementing an education, sanitation and civil engineering program in XXX country”

Comment by Steve — January 21, 2005 #
Agreed, but just doesn’t seem that likely, that’s all.

Comment by ted — January 21, 2005 #
[…] Andy Carvin posted at omidyar.net about International Blogging for Disaster Relief Day. In January, I wrote about disaster relief in the context of crisis of the moment, or long-term engagement? So now I’m still left not really knowing how to help out in New Orleans and still asking the question I asked then: My question here is not about “the world” or “the media” but for you (this is a silent, answer-to-yourself question). What are you doing in your daily life to reduce human suffering among those around you? […]

Pingback by Humanize the Earth! » Sept 2, 2005: International Blogging for Disaster Relief Day — September 1, 2005 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Humanize the Earth!

Evolutionary weaving of the threads of life