> "Paul" gmail.com> wrote

>> Lately I've been thinking how the human race is "pathetic", myself
>> included. We're celebrating life by going to the movies, listening to
>> ipods, participating in olympics, playing, and living our lives while
>> people suffer, kids are molested, women are raped, etc. etc.
>>
>> I've been thinking that we should do what we can to end world hunger,
>> war, help refugees, homeless, etc. THEN celebrate life.
>>
>> I can't stand all these egos and all the awards and everyone
>> celebrating as if the world is a perfect place.
>>
>> Person X wins an Oscar, or a Gold medal, while Persons A, B and C
>> starve to death, are raped, or put in prison.
>>
>> What is my problem? Existentialism?

>
> Take a course in basic economics. Economics is called the dismal science as
> it ratifies most of the morbid evils of human existence under the
> justification of 'efficiency'. The math is there unfortunately. Add to
> the economics, a fact that all species overproduces, including homo sapiens,
> and you have a formula where it is guaranteed a fair number of people will
> be abject losers in life.
>
> Efficiency isn't the only consideration of human beings of course, as you
> relate in your post. We can justify only so much pain and suffering and
> most humans feel some necessity to do something to erradicate it as much as
> possible no matter the inefficiency that might result. But 'WELFARE'
> thinking [a kind of socialism] is only efficable to the degree that we are
> willing to tolerate a lowering of economic benefit to the whole. This might
> make sense when comparing the most rich against those suffering the
> greatest, but misery is allocated throughout the pyramid and the greatest
> structural burdens carried by the masses as dictated by sheer numbers, is in
> the middle class.
>
> Most humans would love to be the hero and champion that relieves the
> miseries of other humans (no greater satisfaction in fact), but more times
> than not, we have our own hells to survive first due to the scarcity of
> things. And we do NOT need politicians and do-gooders VOLUNTEERING us to
> save others when we ourselves are often barely treading water just to raise
> families and keep the structural loads of society from deteriating.
>
> So the question becomes how much suffering is the average citizen willing to
> assume to relieve the suffering of others? You (Paul) apparently ask your
> question from a position of relative safety and security and some capacity
> to offer more. If so, by all means, there are those less well off that could
> use YOUR help. Give until it hurts.