Where do you see yourself in 20 years time?

[BayView]

Tracey,

no-one is suggesting for one minute that our lives are more valuable than someone elses. That's ridiculous.

And those comparisons you make are broad and disrespectful of our intelligence. There are many, many kids in Australia who are homeless, or from abusive, broken homes, live below the poverty line etc. These are the ones who need our help.

No-one feels more sorry for the poor kids of the world than I, and as I said; we are doing/have done our bit.

Spending money on Australian kids first is simply a case of 'charity begins at home'. It makes me so mad to see someone like Oprah helping kids in an African village, while every day in the USA there are over 40 million people who can't get healthcare because it is unaffordable. As noble as her efforts are; she is ignoring her own.

There are thousands of kids in Aus, of all races, that need our help. They are our citizens and our resposibility.

We should help them first and foremost, then, if there's enough left; help the others, whose own Government and citizens of means should be helping.

 

[Perp]

Spending money on Australian kids first is simply a case of 'charity begins at home'. ... We should help them first and foremost, then, if there's enough left; help the others, whose own Government and citizens of means should be helping.

To begin with the end, the problem is that unfortunately their "own" government and citizens often don't HAVE the means to help them.

I simply cannot and never will accept that an Australian's child's need for clothing or even (what we consider adequate) shelter should be a higher priority than a third-world child's need for potable water and life-saving anti-malarial tablets. If there are Aussie kids without these things, I'll happily prioritise that cause. But until every child in the world has those basics, I can't justify giving priority to "higher order needs" (to steal Maslow's phrase) of Australian kids.

This may sound harsh to the Aussie kids that are suffering, and it is. But think of it this way. Could you honestly say that you'd be comfortable approaching a child dying of dehydration in the desert of Africa and say "I know that I could pay 20c for oral rehydration salts that would certainly save your life, but I'd rather use it to pay for 0.2% of one night's emergency accommodation in a hotel for an Australian kid whose Dad is beating up his Mum". Ouch! But I think that I could tell the Aussie kid whose Dad is an abuser "sorry, you'll have to sleep in the park or the car tonight; I'm spending the money on your night's accommodation to save the lives of 500 kids dying of dehydration".

In an ideal world, nobody would have to make these choices, because absolutely I'd love to help both kids, and all the others in need. But by virtue of finite resources we do have to make these choices and in our daily decisions, we make them all the time.

How else could one interpret "charity begins at home" other than to say that children from your own culture are more valuable human beings than those who aren't? LA Aussie, my aim in posting was not to attack anybody, but to provoke clear thinking. Seriously: why should charity begin at home????

I am heavily influenced by (some of) the writings of ethicist Peter Singer, and recommend his "One World: The Ethics of Globalisation" as a great read for every modern citizen. Even if you ultimately disagree with his conclusions - and many do! that's fine, I disagree with some of his views myself - it really clarifies your thinking and forces one to reassess their core values.

Peace!

 

[The Y-man]

I think we're coming off topic somewhat - something for a new thread maybe?

Cheers,

The Y-man

 

[Perp]

Good point Y-Man!

I'm done, just trying to provoke some thought on a topic I'm passionate about...

Perhaps that "20 years vision" will include LA Aussie and I jointly heading a foundation that has enough money to help ALL the world's kids...

 

[waltbach]

Tracey, your posts are much appreciated. The question is where will my money do the most good.Your description of the dehydrated child elegantly demonstrates this. We met a guy in Vietnam that held the same views. He chose to help steet kids in Cambodia rather than the US. Hopefully in 20 years time borders will be less distinctive and we no longer consider ourselves as primarily Australians but rather global cititizens working for the common good.
________________
regards, Walter

 

[BayView]

Good point Y-Man!

I'm done, just trying to provoke some thought on a topic I'm passionate about...

Perhaps that "20 years vision" will include LA Aussie and I jointly heading a foundation that has enough money to help ALL the world's kids...

I'm with ya!

 

[Bangers]

I see myself with a bunch of IP's and stable and using that stability perusing my business adventures/prospects/aspirations. I always get lots of brainy ideas and one day I'll go with a good one.

In the next 10-15 I see myself moving up through senior management and hoping for executive style positions Hopefully learning a lot in the mean time.

 

[Perp]

I'm with ya!

Aw shucks, aint this just Somersoft at its best? Now for everybody else having "heated debates", can't you just follow Marc's and my example? No need to get rude with each other!

 

[tubs]

Spending money on Australian kids first is simply a case of 'charity begins at home'. It makes me so mad to see someone like Oprah helping kids in an African village, while every day in the USA there are over 40 million people who can't get healthcare because it is unaffordable. As noble as her efforts are; she is ignoring her own.

There are thousands of kids in Aus, of all races, that need our help. They are our citizens and our resposibility.

That's rubbish. Charity does NOT begin at home. We're all part of the world. How much to house a homeless child in Australia? Probably about $10k a year. How much to feed and house a child in Africa. About $500 a year. I'd rather get my $10k and save 20 instead of 1.

And then what. Do we give to charities helping those on drugs. Spend $20k on rehab for someone with a social problem, or go save the lives of dozens for whom drugs have never been an issue. People who's issues dont extend beyond where clean drinking water is from.

Your money goes much further overseas than here. And I'm not mad at Oprah etc helping out those in REAL need. I get mad at people spending money on really expensive causes that actually only help a small number of people.

And what about the spending on disease research? We Aussies seem to donate an absolute fortune on research on diseases we're likely to die from and from problems that confront us every day. But very little in comparison on problems that we dont see or know about.

It could cost tens of thousands to save the life of one Aussie, but only hundreds to save the life of a starving person in a 3rd world country.

 

[BayView]

That's rubbish. Charity does NOT begin at home. We're all part of the world. How much to house a homeless child in Australia? Probably about $10k a year. How much to feed and house a child in Africa. About $500 a year. I'd rather get my $10k and save 20 instead of 1.

And then what. Do we give to charities helping those on drugs. Spend $20k on rehab for someone with a social problem, or go save the lives of dozens for whom drugs have never been an issue. People who's issues dont extend beyond where clean drinking water is from.

Your money goes much further overseas than here. And I'm not mad at Oprah etc helping out those in REAL need. I get mad at people spending money on really expensive causes that actually only help a small number of people.

And what about the spending on disease research? We Aussies seem to donate an absolute fortune on research on diseases we're likely to die from and from problems that confront us every day. But very little in comparison on problems that we dont see or know about.

It could cost tens of thousands to save the life of one Aussie, but only hundreds to save the life of a starving person in a 3rd world country.

That's human nature I'm afraid; people are primarily only interested in what affects THEM.

Look at things like smoking and alcohol. Smoking has become socially unacceptable, so bans are in place left right and centre. (good)

Meanwhile, the carnage of alcohol related road accidents, domestic violence and abuse, alcoholism, liver scerosis and other alcohol related deaths and injuries is left largely unchecked because it is a socially acceptable pastime.

While Aussies are still partial to a sip or two, not much will change in that department.

Same with poker machine addiction. Yes it is their own fault, but the Govt could fix the problem tomorrow by banning them completely. But there is a dollar or two in it for them.

Don't get me wrong; I'd love to fix the world, but I can't afford it yet. I would rather make sure our country is fixed first before moving on to the next. And I'll tell you why; the people of the USA are being sold out by their Govt and Ultra Rich citizens. No-one is looking after their own, and the Country is in BIG trouble.

Do we want our Country - the best Country in the world, to end up the same because all the money is going overseas helping another country and ignoring the drug addicts, the homless and the "poor" families back home? They may not be as poor as the third worlders, but they are still poor.

So, because our poor and homeless are more expensive to help than the third-worlders, we should just give them a wide berth?

The other thing is that if we don't get told, or there is no awareness of these other "problems we don't know about", how can you expect people to get on board and support the cause?