Red Nose Day - Diluting my Pound or not??
Discussion
I have not started a thread here before, but I need some SERIOUS input here.
I am having a huge issue with Red Nose day this year. It's been a heated debate in this household, and we cannot come up with a resolution. Please advise. As a family we believe that all life forms are individually precious, and there is no debate on that - every life is entitled to its life - ant, rabbit, dolphin or human.
We give money to many... MANY reputable charities. Children in need, AIDS charities, World Vision (sponsor an individual child in Africa), Children in need, Sponsor an animal, Tsumani appeal, Poppy day, Red nose Day etc... etc. and we are more than happy to do so on our limited funds.
But :contentious statements coming please read and try to understand it all before comment cos its a dilemma:
This year, Red Nose Day seems IMHO to be diluting my pound (in a haze of Caffreys). Here is the reason behind that statement.
I can give a pound to sponsor a man (or woman but let's stick with a "man" meaning human life) in Africa, who can use that whole pound to be educated and resourced to get fed, fit and educated to farm his land (dig wells, understand agriculture, irrigate etc) and provide for himself and his family members, and carry the progress forward. To me, that is a pound well spent - he will survive, his family members will do the same, and we have a fit, healthy, thriving group of people.
Now comes the dilemma. Years ago, I would see images of people like my farmer who were starving, who could not help themselves, and are gonna die unecessariy throught starvation (yep, I cried real tears in 1985 and backed it with my wallet in the David Bowie set on Live Aid - did it all over again this year when the DVD came out).
Now, I see images (on a 7:1 ratio since I fell off the plane from work tonight) of people suffering from AIDS, for which there is NO CURE, simply a prolonged, agonising existance where these poor suffering people are needing more and more help from those around them, from my pound, and those others contributing to prolong a certain death.... and I think... How much more collective good could that pound have done to a family of 7 on a small plot of land in Africa who do NOT have this ghastly disease - people who can get fit with my pound, and go forward to help themselves and other around them.
When I also consider that one of the AIDS suffers may infect the "man" that is thriving from my pound (educating, farming etc) and he will then need another percentage of my future pound, and then inevitably infect others and die, the problem worsens.
We have been through the whole conscientoius loop here tonight - "what do you do with a rabbit with myxamatosis", an incurable disease that will spread through the rest of their kind like wildfire... yes, "but human life is so much more important than rabbits".... we must save the individual AIDS victim.... yes "but he is going to infect my farmer".... "and he will infect others".... "and it will proliferate further".... ad nauseum
So..... why risk the proliferation of AIDS from an individual sufferer to a healthy farmer that my pound has just helped to be a provider for himself and many others.... you get the point. Answer, cos every individual life is precious. BUT some currently healthy, thirving life will be destroyed by contracting the virus from this current AIDS suffer who I am keeping alive with my donation....
The issue is that AIDS WILL NO DOUBT kill the poor individual souls that have contracted the disease in Africa - PERIOD. The longer these people with minimal education in this area stay alive, the more people will be infected - potentially, the farmer, his wife, his kids who were thriving until this ghastly disease entered their lives. We do not seem to be able to overcome the current witch doctor education. In many places, local educational deems that African men can have sex with a virgin, and they will be cured from AIDS - this means that in their desperate eyes, a small child MUST be a virgin, and in their desperation to cure themselves, they infect a small child with the disease..... here we go again.
So. Dilemma time. Let's see where my Red Nose Pound went. 50% went to charities in the UK that already have a local infrastructure to support them - battered wives, underpriveliged families.. all respectable and valid domestic charities etc etc... Yes, it's sad and shouldn't happen in Britain, but their circumstance could potentially be considered a "privelege" when compared to the poor starving souls in Africa. OK, let's go on with the split of my pound. 50% of my pound went to Africa, of which let's say 30% went to prolonging the lives of individuals who are going to die of AIDS anyway, who may potentially spread this awful disease to other fit and healthy individuals who are using (whats left of) my pound to educate and support themselves and their families. And then, 30% of 50% of my next years donation will support those would be healthy "men" that have this year, contracted and are now suffering from AIDS that could have been spporting their families..... the plot thickens, and the disease kills more providers every day.
So, I'm being vicious to the AIDS sufferers here. Let's take the stance that all life is precious. Let's keep the AIDS sufferer alive. Contrarily, as ALL life is precious, what about those that are not currently suffering frm AIDS in Africa? Why let those individuals become infected by keeping the disease alive for longer in current sufferers with my pound?
If a sparrow had a disease that would threaten all human life, would we try to ease their pain?? prolong their life?? give them the chance to infect more humans?? - I think not. We rate human life as the numeruo uno life, so we shoot the sparrows. So, for every African AIDS sufferer that my pound keeps alive, I am reducing the impact that my pound has on the farmer - the provider - the educator. Then the AIDS sufferer gives my farmer AIDS... he dies, and the whole family starves. What good did 30% of 50% my pound do? To my mind, it increased the problem. Do we shoot the AIDS suffer.... big decision, I am not gonna make it - NO WAY. I simply ain't qualified.
My dilemma. I want my pound (or several hundred pounds as it really has been tonight) to go to the farmer. I do not want him, or his child to be infected by an individual that a percentage of my pound has kept alive longer, and to give a greater chance to destroy the good that has been done on the farm.
We need to eradicate AIDS in Africa. AIDS is spreading like wildfire in Africa. They've said it for ages, and all of tonight on TV. It is spread by the unlucky, uneducated individuals that have contracted it. It is being spread to the people that were starving, that are now thriving, that a percentage of my pound has helped - that may become the future desperate proliferators of AIDS..... cos 30% 0f 50% of my pound allowed them to do it... for longer.....
Back to the plot... Human life is the most important value - if Rabbits were spreading it, we'd shoot them all... but it's human life here, we can't shoot them all.... and 30% 0f 50% of my pound is helping the awful disease thrive and proliferate via humans.
What am I doing? what am I saying????? Should I sacrifice the life of an AIDS sufferer who will die anyway to save my farmer? But how can I??? because the AIDS sufferer is a human life entitled to his/her life... and my help..... But he/she will infect my farmers that I want to keep alive so they can provide for their families.... and help them all thrive.... while the AIDS sufferer will enevitably, and sadly die cos thee is no cure.
Please help, cos I cannot work this one out.... But I still gave some dosh - how could I not do so in my position of "comparative" wealth (I'm skint but nit starving). Please do the same with your own money and convictions to whatever charity you think it will do most good. I am just not sure about the Red Nose presentation given tonight on TV. I believe that my pound has done some good, but may also have increased the need for more pounds in 5 or 10 years time. I want to maximise the help that I can give to my fellow humans who are less fortunate than myself and my family - wherever they are, whatever their colour, race or religion. They are just the same as me, but with less opportunity and I want to help those that can carry it forward to help thamselves and others. This year, the Red Nose Presnetaion is not giving me that confidence.
So, please, tell me otherwise. Let me know that if I prolong the life of an AIDS sufferer in Africa (which seems to be the main point of Comic Relief tonight) I will not adversely affect the impact my pound has on my distant brown buddy from the last 20 years - the farmer and his family, and his descendants who are now over the worst - and by that example, others can follow using my pound to help them.
I am having a huge issue with Red Nose day this year. It's been a heated debate in this household, and we cannot come up with a resolution. Please advise. As a family we believe that all life forms are individually precious, and there is no debate on that - every life is entitled to its life - ant, rabbit, dolphin or human.
We give money to many... MANY reputable charities. Children in need, AIDS charities, World Vision (sponsor an individual child in Africa), Children in need, Sponsor an animal, Tsumani appeal, Poppy day, Red nose Day etc... etc. and we are more than happy to do so on our limited funds.
But :contentious statements coming please read and try to understand it all before comment cos its a dilemma:
This year, Red Nose Day seems IMHO to be diluting my pound (in a haze of Caffreys). Here is the reason behind that statement.
I can give a pound to sponsor a man (or woman but let's stick with a "man" meaning human life) in Africa, who can use that whole pound to be educated and resourced to get fed, fit and educated to farm his land (dig wells, understand agriculture, irrigate etc) and provide for himself and his family members, and carry the progress forward. To me, that is a pound well spent - he will survive, his family members will do the same, and we have a fit, healthy, thriving group of people.
Now comes the dilemma. Years ago, I would see images of people like my farmer who were starving, who could not help themselves, and are gonna die unecessariy throught starvation (yep, I cried real tears in 1985 and backed it with my wallet in the David Bowie set on Live Aid - did it all over again this year when the DVD came out).
Now, I see images (on a 7:1 ratio since I fell off the plane from work tonight) of people suffering from AIDS, for which there is NO CURE, simply a prolonged, agonising existance where these poor suffering people are needing more and more help from those around them, from my pound, and those others contributing to prolong a certain death.... and I think... How much more collective good could that pound have done to a family of 7 on a small plot of land in Africa who do NOT have this ghastly disease - people who can get fit with my pound, and go forward to help themselves and other around them.
When I also consider that one of the AIDS suffers may infect the "man" that is thriving from my pound (educating, farming etc) and he will then need another percentage of my future pound, and then inevitably infect others and die, the problem worsens.
We have been through the whole conscientoius loop here tonight - "what do you do with a rabbit with myxamatosis", an incurable disease that will spread through the rest of their kind like wildfire... yes, "but human life is so much more important than rabbits".... we must save the individual AIDS victim.... yes "but he is going to infect my farmer".... "and he will infect others".... "and it will proliferate further".... ad nauseum
So..... why risk the proliferation of AIDS from an individual sufferer to a healthy farmer that my pound has just helped to be a provider for himself and many others.... you get the point. Answer, cos every individual life is precious. BUT some currently healthy, thirving life will be destroyed by contracting the virus from this current AIDS suffer who I am keeping alive with my donation....
The issue is that AIDS WILL NO DOUBT kill the poor individual souls that have contracted the disease in Africa - PERIOD. The longer these people with minimal education in this area stay alive, the more people will be infected - potentially, the farmer, his wife, his kids who were thriving until this ghastly disease entered their lives. We do not seem to be able to overcome the current witch doctor education. In many places, local educational deems that African men can have sex with a virgin, and they will be cured from AIDS - this means that in their desperate eyes, a small child MUST be a virgin, and in their desperation to cure themselves, they infect a small child with the disease..... here we go again.
So. Dilemma time. Let's see where my Red Nose Pound went. 50% went to charities in the UK that already have a local infrastructure to support them - battered wives, underpriveliged families.. all respectable and valid domestic charities etc etc... Yes, it's sad and shouldn't happen in Britain, but their circumstance could potentially be considered a "privelege" when compared to the poor starving souls in Africa. OK, let's go on with the split of my pound. 50% of my pound went to Africa, of which let's say 30% went to prolonging the lives of individuals who are going to die of AIDS anyway, who may potentially spread this awful disease to other fit and healthy individuals who are using (whats left of) my pound to educate and support themselves and their families. And then, 30% of 50% of my next years donation will support those would be healthy "men" that have this year, contracted and are now suffering from AIDS that could have been spporting their families..... the plot thickens, and the disease kills more providers every day.
So, I'm being vicious to the AIDS sufferers here. Let's take the stance that all life is precious. Let's keep the AIDS sufferer alive. Contrarily, as ALL life is precious, what about those that are not currently suffering frm AIDS in Africa? Why let those individuals become infected by keeping the disease alive for longer in current sufferers with my pound?
If a sparrow had a disease that would threaten all human life, would we try to ease their pain?? prolong their life?? give them the chance to infect more humans?? - I think not. We rate human life as the numeruo uno life, so we shoot the sparrows. So, for every African AIDS sufferer that my pound keeps alive, I am reducing the impact that my pound has on the farmer - the provider - the educator. Then the AIDS sufferer gives my farmer AIDS... he dies, and the whole family starves. What good did 30% of 50% my pound do? To my mind, it increased the problem. Do we shoot the AIDS suffer.... big decision, I am not gonna make it - NO WAY. I simply ain't qualified.
My dilemma. I want my pound (or several hundred pounds as it really has been tonight) to go to the farmer. I do not want him, or his child to be infected by an individual that a percentage of my pound has kept alive longer, and to give a greater chance to destroy the good that has been done on the farm.
We need to eradicate AIDS in Africa. AIDS is spreading like wildfire in Africa. They've said it for ages, and all of tonight on TV. It is spread by the unlucky, uneducated individuals that have contracted it. It is being spread to the people that were starving, that are now thriving, that a percentage of my pound has helped - that may become the future desperate proliferators of AIDS..... cos 30% 0f 50% of my pound allowed them to do it... for longer.....
Back to the plot... Human life is the most important value - if Rabbits were spreading it, we'd shoot them all... but it's human life here, we can't shoot them all.... and 30% 0f 50% of my pound is helping the awful disease thrive and proliferate via humans.
What am I doing? what am I saying????? Should I sacrifice the life of an AIDS sufferer who will die anyway to save my farmer? But how can I??? because the AIDS sufferer is a human life entitled to his/her life... and my help..... But he/she will infect my farmers that I want to keep alive so they can provide for their families.... and help them all thrive.... while the AIDS sufferer will enevitably, and sadly die cos thee is no cure.
Please help, cos I cannot work this one out.... But I still gave some dosh - how could I not do so in my position of "comparative" wealth (I'm skint but nit starving). Please do the same with your own money and convictions to whatever charity you think it will do most good. I am just not sure about the Red Nose presentation given tonight on TV. I believe that my pound has done some good, but may also have increased the need for more pounds in 5 or 10 years time. I want to maximise the help that I can give to my fellow humans who are less fortunate than myself and my family - wherever they are, whatever their colour, race or religion. They are just the same as me, but with less opportunity and I want to help those that can carry it forward to help thamselves and others. This year, the Red Nose Presnetaion is not giving me that confidence.
So, please, tell me otherwise. Let me know that if I prolong the life of an AIDS sufferer in Africa (which seems to be the main point of Comic Relief tonight) I will not adversely affect the impact my pound has on my distant brown buddy from the last 20 years - the farmer and his family, and his descendants who are now over the worst - and by that example, others can follow using my pound to help them.
Dear LA. Thanks for the input. I think that you are missing my point a little here, cos it's difficult for me to put into words the feelings that I have for all of these people.
I am not trying to protect my pound in my pocket - I give it willingly. I simply do not want to threaten the good that the last 20 yearsworth of pounds has done to the thriving communities that have flourished on the previous donations. I read somewhere that AIDS is going to kill 10s of milions of people in the next 25 years in Africa. Many of the will be the people that a large percentage of my donation over the years is helping today - in effect, helping the individuals, but keeping the disease alive to kill millions more.
It's not a selfish thing. It's trying to see what does most good for my donation.
updated cos the Caffreys is hurting my typing....
>> Edited by seefive on Saturday 12th March 03:04
I am not trying to protect my pound in my pocket - I give it willingly. I simply do not want to threaten the good that the last 20 yearsworth of pounds has done to the thriving communities that have flourished on the previous donations. I read somewhere that AIDS is going to kill 10s of milions of people in the next 25 years in Africa. Many of the will be the people that a large percentage of my donation over the years is helping today - in effect, helping the individuals, but keeping the disease alive to kill millions more.
It's not a selfish thing. It's trying to see what does most good for my donation.
updated cos the Caffreys is hurting my typing....
>> Edited by seefive on Saturday 12th March 03:04
I guess this is really one for your for when the Caffreys (hourible drink btw 
) is not in your stream.
But I would say that the aim of the aids charities is to help those affected by aids in all forms (including children) but also to educate them to try and stop the spread. Alot of the poor who are infected with this disease have all sorts of wierd ideas about how they will be cured. giving money to charities that will educate them on the real reasons so they can stop the spread has to be a good thing. Also, to prolong the life of parents who have children not infected must also be a good thing.
I understand your thinking though. If you still have an issue in the cold light of day maybe you should reconsider which charities you donate too so the money is going to the people you believe most deserve your help. Rather than helping causes that you think are working against what you believe is right.
Noone has a right to tell you what you should support. Only your own conscience can do that.
>> Edited by icamm on Saturday 12th March 04:55
) is not in your stream. But I would say that the aim of the aids charities is to help those affected by aids in all forms (including children) but also to educate them to try and stop the spread. Alot of the poor who are infected with this disease have all sorts of wierd ideas about how they will be cured. giving money to charities that will educate them on the real reasons so they can stop the spread has to be a good thing. Also, to prolong the life of parents who have children not infected must also be a good thing.
I understand your thinking though. If you still have an issue in the cold light of day maybe you should reconsider which charities you donate too so the money is going to the people you believe most deserve your help. Rather than helping causes that you think are working against what you believe is right.
Noone has a right to tell you what you should support. Only your own conscience can do that.
>> Edited by icamm on Saturday 12th March 04:55
I agree with some of what you're saying...it comes down to the difference between simple compassion in the present and the desire to improve the future for these blighted people.
I personally had a different gripe with one of the AIDS pieces...the prominent shot of a crucifix dangling from a sufferer's neck.
My reasons may not be the ones you first assume:-
IMHO, the AIDS pandemic in Africa (and S.America to a lesser degree) has been greatly exacerbated by the blinkered and dictatorial attitude of the Catholic Church, notably in the prohibition of prophylactics, especially condoms. This has given religious reinforcment to the male-typical desire NOT to use such devices, the effect of which I contend cannot be underestimated.
I apologise if this offends some people - I am attacking not your religion but the organisation of the Catholic Church...which is still killing tens of thousands a millenia after the Crusades!!!
I personally had a different gripe with one of the AIDS pieces...the prominent shot of a crucifix dangling from a sufferer's neck.
My reasons may not be the ones you first assume:-
IMHO, the AIDS pandemic in Africa (and S.America to a lesser degree) has been greatly exacerbated by the blinkered and dictatorial attitude of the Catholic Church, notably in the prohibition of prophylactics, especially condoms. This has given religious reinforcment to the male-typical desire NOT to use such devices, the effect of which I contend cannot be underestimated.
I apologise if this offends some people - I am attacking not your religion but the organisation of the Catholic Church...which is still killing tens of thousands a millenia after the Crusades!!!
There are some valid points in the original post. Do I know the answer? Nope.
There are drugs out there today that will extend an aids sufferers life by 20 years, as your post said, how many more will they infect over 20 years?
Blaming the church for the problems doesn't solve it either. IMHO the blame lies at the doors of the drug companies, the corrupt government officials skimming and a million other factors, set by where and when you were born.
These countries borrowings (3rd world debt) were given by the "west" to the "east" for 2 reasons. 1 - for the west to make shed loads of money at OTT interest rates, 2 - for the dictators to spend themselves (not on their countries). Since no money was spent on infrastructure there is no money available to pay back debts. If they had built a school, the pupil would be educated and paying tax from a job. That simply didn't happen. The lenders then simply increased rates.
In reality these debts have now been written off. It is actually more "profitable" for the companies to do so. For example, Argentinian distressed debt moved from 4 cents in the dollar to 16, quadrupling the investors money in a short time. Mustn't forget the 'free market'...These organisations f***ed the countries along the way. IMF policy decisions made unemployment goes up in every country that implemented them, social benefits are cut hugely to the extent people can't put a roof over their family and food in their belly.
Furthermore, when giving the costings, how can charities state it costs £1 a week to feed a person. Yet in the uk we can't even sort out school dinners to ensure a balanced child diet? We are aware of food companies controlling the seed to supermarket shelf.
I buy Fairtrade coffee. It costs broadly the same as another main brand but at least the farmer makes something worthwhile for his crop. This main brand also put 50,000 milk farmers out of business in Brazil...
There are drugs out there today that will extend an aids sufferers life by 20 years, as your post said, how many more will they infect over 20 years?
Blaming the church for the problems doesn't solve it either. IMHO the blame lies at the doors of the drug companies, the corrupt government officials skimming and a million other factors, set by where and when you were born.
These countries borrowings (3rd world debt) were given by the "west" to the "east" for 2 reasons. 1 - for the west to make shed loads of money at OTT interest rates, 2 - for the dictators to spend themselves (not on their countries). Since no money was spent on infrastructure there is no money available to pay back debts. If they had built a school, the pupil would be educated and paying tax from a job. That simply didn't happen. The lenders then simply increased rates.
In reality these debts have now been written off. It is actually more "profitable" for the companies to do so. For example, Argentinian distressed debt moved from 4 cents in the dollar to 16, quadrupling the investors money in a short time. Mustn't forget the 'free market'...These organisations f***ed the countries along the way. IMF policy decisions made unemployment goes up in every country that implemented them, social benefits are cut hugely to the extent people can't put a roof over their family and food in their belly.
Furthermore, when giving the costings, how can charities state it costs £1 a week to feed a person. Yet in the uk we can't even sort out school dinners to ensure a balanced child diet? We are aware of food companies controlling the seed to supermarket shelf.
I buy Fairtrade coffee. It costs broadly the same as another main brand but at least the farmer makes something worthwhile for his crop. This main brand also put 50,000 milk farmers out of business in Brazil...
btsidi said:
Blaming the church for the problems doesn't solve it either. IMHO the blame lies at the doors of the drug companies, the corrupt government officials skimming and a million other factors, set by where and when you were born.
The Catholic Church has a degree of blame here.
They do not believe in contraception in the slightest and Catholic missionaries are not allowed to give out condoms, or even extoll the virtues of their use.
The Catholic Church has a great network, from my understanding, of well placed and highly respected missions throughout Africa.
If memory serves me correct, this issue was raised recently at the Vitican, and the position they take has weakend somewhat.
Blaming the Catholic Church will solve some problems as it is changing their attitudes towards Africa. Once they have changed there is a huge Catholic network that can swing into action.
Note - this is a Catholic problem, not a Christian problem.
Hardcore2000 said:
seefive, put the money in your pocket and stop thinking about this crap you will go mad. If you feel the need to give so generously then please look around yourself closer to home for more worthy causes of which there are many.
Quite right
Give it to me, I'll spend it wisely.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff