From: ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis)
Subject: Re: Proposals to Aid Somalia?????
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:15:30 GMT
Summary: i had to do quite a bit of thinking to come up with this one... 

In article <1471700301@igc.apc.org> jnr@igc.apc.org (Jim Rosenfield) writes:
>
>This belief may comfort you, but the facts do not bear out your
>interpretation of our history.  The emergence of a global society
>is first of all, merely a theory, a very recent and hopeful
>interpretation of modern life.  One might say that we will have a
>humane society in which people help each other "to maintain a
>stable society" IF we pass the test of history.  We are far from
>this ideal now.
>
i don't recall invoking notions of a "global village" since i
realize that we are a far cry from that kind of utopia.  but i
do recall that man had formed a "wider" society from the
small hunter-gatherer herds of our evolutionary precursors: in
general this is referred to as "civilization".  if you are saying
that you have evidence to the contrary then you might take it
up with the archaeologists; of which i am not.

>What really impacts human society most are the great forces of
>nature, and second to these are the forces of power in society.
>These forces are exercised by those who control the wealth, the
>force and means of production.  For the most part, these do not
>operate in the interests of a cooperative society except to the
>extent that such cooperation benefits the wealthy and the
>powerful.  Most of this "cooperation" is actually the result of
>fear of those in power, fear of marginalization, fear of
>retribution, punishment and imprisonment.  The draft is an example
>of cooperation, along with taxes and war.  You cooperate or go to
>
but people also contribute to charities where there is no such "force"
as you describe.

i think that in this discussion we are basing our arguments upon two
critically different premises.  the statement that you make above
that human nature is fundamentally "bad" and that "good" (e.g. cooperative)
efforts are possible only through the action of coercive force [or threat
thereof].  i think quite the opposite, that human nature is
fundamentally "good" and that our society could not function as we
know it today otherwise.

i tend to go along with some of karl marx's socialist reasonings in
the sense that the wealthy can only be wealthy because of the efforts
of those who are not wealthy.  if our society was such that the
wealthy were held in contempt, they would be constant targets and would
have to live behind walls and armed guards; much as is the case in some
third world countries.  in our country, i contend that the wealthy get
some degree of "cooperation" [to use your word] not so much because of
the threat of coercive force [after all, the u.s. has more laws on the
books than any other nation in the world, *and* (i believe) the highest
violent crime rate of any industrialized nation] but because they feel
that in the current social order, they (or their children) might have
an opportunity for the same.

all of that said about the "goodness" of the human spirit, i am realistic
enough to realize that there are flaws in human nature, and that there
are those forces that seek to divide us as human beings so as to exploit
the divisions and appropriate wealth and power upon themselves.  however,
i consider this to be the result of the imperfections of the human spirit
rather than an endemic character trait.

>In the past forty or so years, maybe less, it is dawning on some
>of us that we all could live better if we develop means of true
>cooperation, working together not to control each other and
>commandeer each others' wealth, but to produce a larger, better,
>synergistic result.  One great man called this "moving from a 'me
>or you' society to a 'me and you' society.  The works of
>Buckminster Fuller, also, provide a powerful theoretical basis for
>moving in the direction of a synergistic, cooperative society.
>But we are not there yet.
>
i think there has alway been a "we" society; the problem has come in
the definition of "we".  the power, then goes to those "gatekeepers" who
define what "we" is to mean.  for instance, politicians and other influential
parties have always used some concept of "we", otherwise they would not
have been able to form coalitions in the first place [the ones from which
they get their "coercive" influence].  in such cases, "we" could be defined
by a race, religion, region, nation, political party, etc.  such "we"
groups [or more exactly, the agents of those "we" groups] have often played
a zero-sum scam in which their gain came at someone else's loss.  the
unfortunate thing about it all is that the rules used to define "we" and
"them" are foolish depending upon your perspective.  dr. seuss' "butter
battle book" pointed this out in stark relief where he had the "zooks"
and the "yooks" who were enemies and had built a wall separating themselves
owing strictly to the fact that one group ate their bread with the butter
side up, while the other with the butter side down [i might add that the
press *totally* misinterpreted the story by casting it as an anti-nuke
story].

i think that talk of a "global" village has been fueled, in part, by
technology which has made our world a "smaller"; we can see "first"
hand [that what the media shows us at least] people and issues from
around the world; and, importantly, how we are impacted by those people
and vice versa.  i think that in response, the "goodness" in people
want fairness.  on the other hand, i'm sufficiently suspicious of those
who hold power and influence [who are inclined to keep it at all costs]
to keep a wary eye on how all this stuff shakes out.

>Knee-jerk humanitarianism has let us down.  It has so often been a
>cover for religious imperialism, for self-righteousness and even
>for colonization and direct exploitation of native peoples, that
>
humanitarianism is not the problem here, rather it was flaws in human
nature that led individuals to persue nefarious objectives (thinly)
cloaked beneath a patina of religion, etc.

>Where is your humanitarian outcry for cooperation in the face of
>this NINETY percent?  Why do you cry for action only when the
>horrifying images of starving children fill your television
>screen?
>
one reality in life is that we *all* can't spend our lives looking
for humanitarian causes to champion.  but the way i see it, you help
where, how, and when you can and hope that there is enough caring
to help as many people as possible.  for instance, we can't give money
to *every* charity that broadcasts an advertisement asking for
donations, but maybe someone else will.  the net result is that the
whole thing is arbitrary, per force, since i don't make decisions on
such matters knowing what other people have decided.

thus, some children will undoubtedly starve invisible to the rest of
mankind.  another reality in life is "out of sight, out of mind"
which doesn't necessarily mean that people don't care or are not touched
by the suffering of others, but we just don't have time to play
detective and seek them out.  this is why "horrifying images" on the
television screen have impact, because it gives us a view of the kind
of suffering, and the scale of suffering experienced in somalia.  when
other people who are not so fortunate see such, they react as humans
do: with some degree of caring.

>We need now to speak up with more thoughtful reasons for
>cooperation.  That is why I asked for people to articulate why we
>should take action in Somalia, and that is also why the
>counter-arguments become so important, so we can hear them and
>respond to them.  I did not invent "life-boat ethics" (since our
>resources are limited, who do we throw over the side?), but we
>must deal with these deeply held convictions, interpretations of
>life to which people cling for survival. By dealing openly with
>such premises way we can bring about a true global society based
>on clearly articulated principals.
>
you raise some interesting questions of allocation of resources here
but i think you are raising them in the wrong context.  many issues
facing us today call for a form of societal triage in which we must
make rational decisions about the allocation of resources.  a good
example is in health care; to what extent should we expend limited
health care resources artificially maintaining life for those who
could not survive otherwise?

the situation in somalia, however, does not lend itself to such, as
you might call "life-boat ethics" because the problem there is
not one of a lack of resources - the food to save many of the dying is
already there - the problem here is one of societal breakdown and
chaos which makes it impossible to stop the suffering unless order is
restored.  thus, in such a man-made tragedy "life-boat ethics" would
say: i don't care about the suffering of other people, and this flies
in the face of what we as civilized human beings normatively think,
and it flies in the face of the very values that are consistent with
the notion of civilization.

>So, I ask you to think -- why should we take action to alleviate
>the famine in Somalia, and why should we *not* "let them starve"?
>
well, it all depends upon what you think.  if you believe that the
problem of famine in somalia is due to a lack of resources then we
can debate that issue.  here, however, that does not appear to be
an issue.  if you believe that the famine is somalia is not due to
a lack of resources; that you just don't care because there is no
material gain to the u.s. then i can agree with you on the lack of
material gain, but if you just don't believe that efforts are worthwhile
when the only impetus is humanitarian, then that's really an issue
of your personal values; something that i can't debate.

-- 
  __  ______  __  / __/ |       at&t bell laboratories, naperville il, usa
_/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/  .       ronald@iexist.att.com / att!iexist!ronald
"if you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes" -- edmund wilson
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african