I Swear, I'm Not Criticizing Anyone In This Post

[lawnrrd]

Someone on my friends list posted this link. These people have a dog with a painful degenerative hip condition. They can't afford to treat it, so they're soliciting donations on their site. They say they need $2000 (U.S.), and I expect that they'll get it.

But it makes me wonder about why our priorities are what they are. They will raise $2000 from strangers for their dog. But those same strangers could instead send their money to relief agencies that could use the money (for example) to buy about five hundred insecticide-treated mosquito nets, protecting hundreds of human children from life-threatening malaria.

Traditionally at this point, a poster talks about how fucked up this is and how terrible people are, but I'm not going to because I don't agree. The money you earn is yours, and you should do with it what makes you happiest. You don't have an obligation to sacrifice it for strangers, and if you do give it away, it should be in whatever way you find most satisfying.

I'm interested in a much more academic point. Why is helping the dog and his people feel better more satisfying or interesting than helping the children? Maybe it's that the dog has a web site (making it more personal), while little Ndugu's mother doesn't have a computer, digital camera, or a PayPal account. Maybe people people feel that millions of those those children are always going to be starving and dying of something no matter what you give, so they don't feel that it makes a difference. Maybe it's that we can see ourselves with a shit job and a sick dog, but we can't see ourselves living in a disease- and mosquito-ridden refugee camp with no health care and no food for our children. And there's the racial subtext, of course.

All of which suggests to me that the social and emotional patterns that we evolved over tens of thousands of years as nomadic hunter-gathers don't quite fit any more. But then again, did they ever?

Comments

[furchild.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't give money to the dog. I'd give it to the kids. So I guess I can't help you out there.

[brooklyngirl.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't give it to the dog or the kids, id give it to Coney island or some cancer fund- I'm selfish in my generosity.
-A

[lawnrrd]

Ah, but what if it was a sick kitty? ;-)

[donia.livejournal.com]

I find it more satisfying to help animals than people because animals have always been nicer to me than people. I can count on one hand how many bad experiences I've had with animals while bad people encounters could fill volumes. Truth be told, if I had a dog with a degenerative hip problem I would probably have it put to sleep. I really hate to see kids or anyone, for that matter, suffer, but if I was going to donate money for humanity, I would give it to causes that would help curb our burgeoning population. Overpopulation is the root of so many problems today.

[wishiwas.livejournal.com]

Maybe part of it is the feeling of direct action: x number of dollars sent to family, x number of dollars applied to good cause. Send that money to relief agency that buys nets, nets get stolen by warlord in charge of Ndugu's village, warlord sells half of them at an inflated price and uses the other half on his villa/compound, Ndugu still has no nets.

Maybe it's the feeling that an entire problem can be solved by giving money to the dog. Dog only needs hip replacement, good chance of happy ending. Ndugu gets mosquito net, but still doesn't have clean water, antibiotics, or a nutirtious diet. I guess that's why those Sally Struthers things do so much better. People are not alienated from the products of their charity.

I've always felt the same way as you seem to be saying about applying aid dollars for maximal effect in a logical manner according to degree of severity/need/priority. Above and beyone the logical reason I stated above, there seems to be something more to it, something a-logical about acts of mercy that are not also attempts at social change or massive relief. I don't understand it, I'm not sure I like it, but I have to admit, it's there.

[terrilyn.livejournal.com]

I don't know about other people, but...

I tend to be of the mind that "Well, if I'm giving money to you, even if it's for a good cause, then what will I get out of it."

I'm all for the breast-cancer prevention research thing.... yet I'm not going to randomly give cash to X labs for them to do research. Not going to do much for me if I did that anyhow.... (not even the tax deduction!)

But, I'm completely willing to make a donation to the nice people at the Komen fund to help with their work and in return I get to run in a 5K in September, get a t-shirt, and I hear a waterbottle. (And since it's on my dad's birthday, I'm going to see if I can do it in his name as a gift for him.... extra thrifty bonus!)

But, that's just me... ymmv.