BBC NEWS | Politics | Geldof ‘would consider peerage’
Former Foreign Secretary Lord Hurd has voiced concerns the focus on the Asian tsunami disaster will divert funds away from aid to Africa.
Mr Geldof was also worried by that prospect, although the “monstrous tragedy” in Asia could not be ignored.
I’m not particularly interested in Bob Geldof and his peerage, but the quote I’ve highlighted I think is important. Finally, someone is saying the thing that worries me most about all the charitable giving that is going on now. I’m concerned that what is happening with ppl giving is going to make them less likely to give to other charities throughout the year – I know that lots of ppl who have very little are digging deep to give, and will continue doing so, but I suspect there are a lot of ppl caught up in the media hype who are going to want to just get on with life, and when the next appeal comes along are going to feel that they’ve done their giving for this year.
And what really needs to happen is we need to change our entire way of life. We have so much that we don’t need, we kid ourselves that we do, but we don’t really. Oh, I know I’m not being coherent here, so I’ll shut up, but I’m struggling atm, in all sorts of ways, so you can expect further mindless ramblings to come.
Comments
9 responses to “BBC NEWS | Politics | Geldof 'would consider peerage'”
I was upset by the tsunami,by the individual stories mainly, it being too difficult to relate to the overall scale of the event. I certainly wasn’t upset (because I don’t even remember) by the floods in Bangladesh in 1991 that killed a similar number of people. Why the difference? Increasingly I have felt uncomfortable with my reaction and that of others (the media) etc and have thought hard as to why people have reacted to this so much more than the death of 30,000 children every single day from poverty. It just doesn’t add up.
What I struggle with most is that tsunamis are natural, unavoidable (though you could have some warning systems) events, whereas poverty in Africa (as an example) is entirely man-made. Perhaps that’s the point, reacting to events over which we have little control is more pallatable than confronting head-on the perfectly solvable poverty problems in the world IF we were really serious about erradicating them.The former involves a quick hand in the pocket, the latter some more fundamental thinking about wealth distribution across the globe etc.
In some ways I think the Tsunami and in particular its timing may actually do good for charitable giving overall; it has raised the issue of aid, poverty etc in sharp contrast with the material nature of our lives (highlighted most of all around Christmas).
Isn’t the notion of ‘us’ changing the way we live utopian daydreaming. Has there ever been a period in history where humans have not sought more (by way of technological developments and material gain) at the expense of others? Is it likely that thousands of years of such behaviour can be undone in anything other than many many generations?
I suppose in my head what I am thinking is what ‘need’ is. When houses were lit (if they indeed were lit) by gas what was the need for electric lighting? Would it not be possible to identify many things that we see as essential (I am not talking about dvds etc, how about an inside toilet) that are really luxuries. In other words our history has always been about striving for things that are some how more or better than what we had currently. Can one really decide that we have reached a point that such striving is somehow no longer necessary?
Where things have changed over time is in equality, that haves have much more, and that is where I think the solution lies, not with the likes of me fundamentally changing my way of life. The fact that Bill Gates wealth is more than the poorest 40% of the US population combined is where the problem lies. Of course Bill isn’t a good example given his endowment of the Bill Gate Foundation and their investment in Africa. I can’t help wondering why we can’t simply tax the very rich a bit more (they wouldn’t notice) and give it directly as aid. That said I would happily pay more income tax if I could be assured it would be used for aid.
A very interesting area of thought and one we must all be considering at the moment especially.
Well that’s a deep one isn’t it?!
I have been pondering over my own ‘shallowness’ a little of late, infact I have been sort of mentally composing a post about it which i may or may not end up blogging. We give by direct debit a small amount to about 5 charities each month, which mean something to us. It is a very small and token amount (and I always feel they probably spend more on stationery and marketing and postage with their twice yearly begging letter to increase what we give) but I guess if everyone gave an equal amount then these charities would be doing very well.
I have chucked a few quid in various buckets for tsunami and given all my decluttered clothes to Oxfam. I bought the Band Aid record although i don’t particularly like it. If I could offer practical help in any way then I would.
Hmm, don’t think I am saying anything here which doesn’t only serve to further demonstrate my shallowness or selfishness so I will save that one for my own blog.
Jax, I hope you keep rambling. I’m sure that none of it will ever be mindless!
I think I’m with Chris WRT balancing things out globally, but having said that I do think the poverty of the Southern hemisphere is matched by the excess of us Northern hemisphere dwellers. Our demand/supply machine keeps relentlessly churning and I think the point when we’ve got more than enough is when people have to throw away perfectly serviceable old things just to make room for sleeker new stuff. We have such a thirst for novelty that I think we’re getting like magpies – filling our nests with things that gleam. Hardly anyone mends anything any more, or makes do with cast-offs or hand-me-downs, so much of what we produce now only exists to momentarily relieve someone’s boredom, in my opinion. And the only reason people like Bill Gates are so monstrously wealthy is bacause we all keep working and buying, like hamsters in wheels. Just a few mixed metaphors there, but what would happen if we in the developed world just… stopped going along with it all? I think this is starting to happen, because people are starting to question the fact that normal life, for many of us, now seems quite meaningless and perpetually unsatisfying. The decluttering movement is in full swing, we’re finally starting to think about recycling and increasing numbers of wealthy people are downsizing and returning to the simple life. If we stopped living to excess, en masse – which I think we eventually will – then maybe the poverty experienced by the other half of the world will lessen too, because a lot of our true wealth seems to stem from their resources. I’m not sure about this last bit, admittedly. It might just be wishful thinking.
I read a snippet somewhere in the Guardian today that reckoned there are more houses with DVD players in China that hot and cold running water, I’m not sure any changes in our behaivour would mke much difference with all those millions of budding consumers……
I could write more, but I’m supposed to getting the house into order for Estate agens to visit tomorrow……
I have been reading about “down shifting” for several years and have been wondering about how possible it actually would be for your average westerner.
I am in some ways living that life now. My wardrobe contains three sets of clothes, a pair of boots and a pair of sandals. My “kitchen” contains 2 of everuthing – mixing bowls, saucepans, plates, forks, wooden spoons etc. 1 plastic juicer and one plastic chopping board. We sit on fold up chairs and eat from fold up table.
We have met people who are doing this kind of life much longer term than us. Thing is we all have something else in common – we have a lot of money in the bank and we can afford not to work.
Just living in UK (for example) costs money and “needs” things. If you work you have to have a suitable wardrobe (x multiple for girls), you need a car to get there, then you are tired when coming home so probably stop off at a supermarket and buy pre-prepared food at inflated prices so that you can enjoy half an hour more relaxation at home (or if you are a mum maybe just have a little more time to complete all those children tasks that need to be done). if you have kids the needs never cease. I’ve read this board long enough to know that it doesnt matter if you are home educating or sending them to school – there is still a daily taxi service, presents for other kids, pretty clothes for parties, continual requests for toys/books/videos.
Oh bugger it, I’ve just talked myself into never coming back again.
Anyway, the point about money in the bank – if you havent got it then you cant afford to downshift. If you are still paying off a mortgage, car loan, for the furniture, windows or last years christmas gifts, you cannot afford to cease (or even reduce) an income. And if you need an income…..
Yes, that’s how they keep us at it isn’t it? With the mortgage, the loans & the credit cards. If we didn’t have those we could afford to take a chance, give up the day job and do something else to make the smaller amount of money we’d need. Or go part time. Do you think enticing us with debt is a deliberate ploy to keep us working? I often wonder if it is, because often it’s the actual going to work that makes us spend so much to reward ourselves or to compensate for having to go to work – or, as you say, to save time. Everything we spend has tax and a profit margin built in, so the wheels keep turning. If we all stopped spending so much… well, what would happen? I don’t know, but I’d be interested to find out!
Gill, who is ‘they’? Who ‘keeps us at it’? The banks do indeed try to entice us with debt, but only beacuase of our selfish nature. I think that’s the problem, we now live in a society that expects some higher power to take responsibility (and the blame) for everything. (I’m talking about society in general, obviously there are exceptions to some degree or another, and that’s not directed at you or anyone here.) We (modern, Western society) expect far too much (as has been said already) and have a distorded concept of ‘rights’.
Chris, I agree with your whole post, too.
Who is ‘they’? Good question! The people, groups and corporations in whose interests it is to ensnare us with whatever it is they’re profiting from – but I agree, we’ve got a choice. We can say no. Any the choice we make isn’t anyone else’s fault but our own. But I’m especially worried, for example, about the tendency for most young people to go to Uni and to have to take out loans to get through the course. They do have choices (not to go, or to work as well as studying) but these choices don’t seem to be very well presented to them and they’re at an age when it’s perhaps difficult to make very informed decisions. So we have a whole generation starting their adult life with huge debts, who are in the habit of living on borrowed funds. Yes, it’s the individual’s choice and the individual bears the responsibility and the consequences, but the govt and the banks are deliberately coercing vulnerable people into making certain choices, aren’t they?
Less than half of 18 year olds go to University don’t they, so it is not most. I am sure the current government would happily fund all students’ costs if they knew that it wouldn’t require a huge hike in income tax and their deselection from office. One of the consequences of the fees maybe a change attitude to debt for a generation but I am not sure it is an intended consequence, more and unfortunate by-product of people not wanting to pay more tax.
My job relies on these fees so I do have a vested interest.