We
have talked about the importance of philanthropy throughout the first two weeks
of class, and Singer's book added to the conversation other ideas on where we
should be giving our money. Our discussions brought me to particularly question
the actions of Paul Allen, as I mentioned in class. His unnecessary and
frivolous spending on items such as a 200 million dollar yacht could not only
be better put to use to help starving families in poor parts of the world, but
it also is damaging the environment. I just feel that the environment is
something precious to us as human beings, and it makes me wonder if it would be
better to put money towards helping the environment rather than trying to maybe
save a starving child in Africa.
The obscene amount of fuel that his
yacht uses damages the environment more so than any one of us could even if we
were trying to damage the
environment. The environment is extremely important, it's where we live, and we
only get one. If we continue to degrade it at the rate that we are, how much
longer will it be until the conditions are unbearable and nobody can live a
healthy and comfortable life? I think that the superrich should eliminate their
immense spending on environmentally damaging activities, like Paul Allen's
yacht, and that they should use their money to help clean up the environment as
well as looking into alternative energy sources. It would be beneficial to the
world as a whole because if sustainable energy sources could be expanded to be
affordable and implemented across the globe then we could move away from fossil
fuels. Fossil fuels are beginning to run out as it is now, and finding stable
alternative energy sources could be the best thing that philanthropists could
do to help the most people as well as future generations.
Now this is not to say that we should
all of a sudden neglect the children in need, but we also have to think about
the future. In my group in class this week, we all agreed that family would
come first, and if this is true, then isn’t it important to make sure that the
world that our children and our children's children are going to grow up in is
a healthy a safe one?
During the past two weeks I've also been contemplating the question you pose in your post, about whether or not saving the environment and saving the life of a person are comparable to each other. Reading Singer's book, he makes some mention of the environment, but lists almost no charities or causes that are working to help the Earth and our atmosphere. However, I think it is comparable to saving a person's life, for various reasons. First, I'd like to reflect on the question of how much longer we can continue degrading the Earth until nobody can live a healthy and comfortable life. Already, people in the world are suffering due to global climate change. Many of the superstorms that have been recorded in recent years completely overshadow the storms the earth used to see in the past, and this can definitely be linked back to climate change. The people in Haiti and the Philippines already can not live a "healthy and comfortable" life, as hundreds of thousands of their people have died and their lands are destroyed. The storms that have ravaged their countries are terrible effects of the damage that not only the super rich, but the developed countries in general, have done to the environment. So to me, focusing on the environment is not neglecting children in need, but helping future children and communities by hopefully preventing future superstorms and other harmful effects of climate change.
ReplyDeleteI had not considered this question until now, but after putting some thought into it, I believe philanthropic actions to help the environment are just as important as donating to help save the life of an individual.
ReplyDeleteWhile people throughout the world are all very different and face a variety of independent struggles, one thing we all have in common is the planet on which we live. Everyone contributes to global warming and other environmental issues, but some have had a larger impact than others. Clearly, Paul Allan contributes more so than most individuals with his ridiculously expensive, fuel-guzzling yacht, but everyone is responsible for taking care of the environment.
While donating to save an individual’s life is undoubtedly important, giving to better the environment could indirectly help save the lives of many individuals. Improving the conditions of our environment could help every person that has been negatively affected by global warming, as well as many generations to come. In addition, it could prevent natural disasters caused by global climate change from occurring and therefore prevent us from having to make future donations to disaster relief programs.
As Dina pointed out, Singer did not suggest any environmental organizations to donate to. However, they do exist! Greenpeace, for example, is a nonprofit that looks to find solutions for the environmental issues we face today. Greenpeace is an international organization, so our class cannot donate to this specific agency. However, I believe we should keep local environmental organizations in mind when considering where to donate the $10,000, as these groups can indirectly help a large number of people around the world by saving the environment which we all share. Therefore, I believe they are just as important to support as organizations that save the lives of individuals.
I am pleasantly surprised to see that both of you supported my view. I agree that climate change is a huge issue, and that we need to reduce our carbon footprint, but I'm afraid that climate change may be too far gone that these storms are still going to occur. Nonetheless, there are some positives to work towards. If sustainable sources of energy can be implemented worldwide, it could do wonders for the economy, the environment, and our future. Here in our own state programs are starting up to help encourage sustainability and renewable energy sources. Check out http://www.nyserdasolutions.org/ it is a great example of what we can do to help!
ReplyDeleteI love this post because its presents a really challenging question but a serious one to think about. Our environment is a serious concern and its getting worse. It's just hard to equate a human life with nature. I'm not saying nature is not important. But it is humans who made the world like this.
ReplyDeleteIt's just terrible to see all the ways we are harming our environment when we know there are people who can help it and things we can do it improve it. Paul Allen's yacht is ridiculous and its absurd that he owns it. To me though whats even crazier is that someone came up with it, designed it and profited off it. And maybe thats where people should begin. People are creating all sorts of new things for luxury with no environmental concerns in their minds. Why isn't that type of thinking stopped or looked down upon. Plus whats also frustrating is that people want to spend the money on something like Paul Allen's yacht.
If all the superrich stopped buying their toys and everyone contributed to solving environmental issues then we'd be so much better off. And so will our children. If there's no future then there's no starving kids in Africa to help because no one of us will be here. This is not to say that we should just stop helping other people and focus only on our environment. But we really need to improve our situation on this earth. There's just too much money going around but not in the right places and its extremely frustrating. I personally think we can do both: help the environment and save children in Africa and everywhere else.
I think this is an incredibly important topic. At face value, it seems that saving a child isn't comparable to saving the environment but reading this blog post made me question just that. In his book, Singer pointedly focuses primarily on the need to save the lives of the impoverished, on finding ways to improve the lives of those people who we don't interact with - the truly impoverished, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteBut, in my opinion, and as has already been brought up by some of these comments, the environment is something that is our obligation to maintain and it is our obligation to undo the damage that our society continues to make. Environmental issues impact everyone - and our health and livelihoods are dependent on our environment.
I think the biggest issue with this is that at face value - it seems like saving the life of a child is something that cannot be quantified. When we think about saving lives, that strikes us as much more important than saving (really, restoring) the environment. We can all acknowledge that we need to live in healthy conditions, conditions that are dependent on human activity and (for the most part) we can all acknowledge that saving the environment is crucial to our livelihoods. The real difficulty comes in being forced to come to that decision between saving a child or helping the environment.
I think that an argument can be made that by not helping the environment, we are standing by and watching damage be done that will impact all of our lives and harm us in unquantifiable ways. Action is equivalent to inaction in this sense though. Standing by helplessly is much the same as being a part of the problem and contributing to global warming and so, working to save the environment becomes not only a good thing but a necessary thing.
On one hand, I completely agree that the rich should not solely be using their money to invest in commodities which contribute and help encourage a lavish lifestyle; however, on the other hand, this argument can and should be applied to all individuals. Not just the rich. I believe that all individuals, no matter how far off they may be in the economic spectrum, have a duty to give to a beneficial cause, whether it be alleviating the intensely harsh situations that children in a third-world country experience or giving to a cause that replenishes and reutilizes natural resources. Aside from the aforementioned points, I enjoyed reading this blog post as it imposed upon me, a question, a question of whether there is such a thing as a "best" organization to give to. After giving it some thought, I do not believe that one particular cause holds more weight than another. It is hard to directly pinpoint which acts are most favorable. Truth is, there will always be a cause to donate to. So long as a cause is important and dear to an individual, as well as beneficial to some sort of party, that donation of time/money/etc should be commended as a charitable act. Having said that, I do believe philanthropic acts directed towards the environment do not seem to be prevalent throughout society and thus we should try and promote such actions to take place.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Heawon's point about including all individuals in causes to help the environment and not just the rich. The current environmental decline is man made, and not just made solely by big yachts. All people, (well the developed world but at least a few billion people) have contributed to the environment's decline with cars, boats, trains, airplanes, and factories just to name a few major ones. In some large Chinese cities, the air quality from the fuel inefficient cars and factories has made the air quality 26 times worse than acceptable levels. People walk around 24/7 with surgical masks on so they don't die from inhalation. This problem was caused my billions, and needs billions to fix it.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I don't think it is possible to accurately equate the "worth" of saving a child vs. an environmental endeavor. All I can say with certainty is that they're both very important. Donating to an environmental cause is more of an implicit cause, because though you can't exactly see the person you're helping, the benefits garnered from research and technological advancements could extend the lives of many. Both endeavors have great worth and are great ways to be philanthropic.
I have thought a lot about the issue that you present in this post, and I have very conflicting opinions on the topic. First and foremost, ending world hunger and saving the environment differ greatly, but they do relate in a few ways. We, as people living in the developed world, don't see the effects and damage that either one leaves because it is not necessarily a "local" issue. Also, one of the main arguments presented by people who refuse to help is the same: We can't solve the problem fully, so why even try? Furthermore, the way to solve both problems is the same: If everyone did a little bit to help, we could make vast strides towards a solution.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I am not fully supportive of the movement to put more effort into saving the environment, is the difficulty that exists in making people believe that the environment needs helping. I know for a fact that my own family doesn't believe in global warming. They use the argument of "How could global warming exist when we just got 15 inches of snow?!" Maybe this is just their excuse to take 45 minutes showers, but, then again, they obviously don't see the environment as a real concern. So I inquire: How far does this ignorance spread? We hear everyday that the environment is in danger, but there are also (very convincing) sources that offer counter arguments. For example, this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iodJ0OOdgRg - claims that overpopulation is a myth. And, there are many other sources that denote a similar mythology to other issues that environmentalists are trying to help. So, although I believe that (for the same reasons that you do) the environment is as pressing a concern as world hunger or any similarly life threatening issue, I don't believe it is possible to get other people to believe that it is nearly as serious. Who can deny the statistics of the life expectancy, malnutrition, hunger, poverty, etc. that exist in the developing world? Maybe, these are just "sexier" issues. They can use the sad faces of starving children to prove to us that they need our help. The environment is simply less attractive. Sadly, I believe it is much more likely to gain support for the issues that Singer argues for, therefore these are the problems that we should be putting the majority of effort into solving.
I agree that the environment needs saving too, even if some people are too blinded by their ignorance to work to save it. Similar to how Singer claimed you can't just only save one child and walk away assuming other people will help, or that the responsibility is no longer yours, just because many ignore environmental problems they are still pertinent and need to be addressed. Poverty and hunger may get more attention through the media, however as the environment worsens more will catch on and either try to save it or innovate means of surviving the changes. The environmental problems will inevitably make themselves known, however we can't just wait for when that time comes around. I guess what I am trying to say is that if we work towards means of energy efficiency and environmental preservation, then when more people pick up on the fact that it is an issue, there will be more people to help. And just maybe we will be able to protect ourselves and hopefully keep from destroying the environment too badly.
ReplyDelete