Rebel Without a Cause

So . . . I'm no humanitarian (finally, a statement in my blog that no one will disagree with!). After all, humanitarianism likely clashes with my stated misanthropy (humanitarianism = red, misanthropy = fuschia).

But humanitarian efforts such as charities, volunteering, etc. do interest me. What is most interesting to me about such causes is that everyone, it seems, focuses on a different problem that needs to be solved.

When I was in high school a charity came to make a pitch to us (and this was one of the only times this happened, which made it stand out even more) for their cause. What they were promoting was that they provide beds for those who did not have them. Now, I have never had to deal with surviving in a developing or undeveloped nation, but I would think that beds, while important, would be a lower priority than other things (e.g. food, shelter, not being enslaved by a corrupt regime etc.). But this charity maintained that "any positive day has to begin with a good night's sleep."

This made me wonder about people and the causes they choose. It seems that whatever cause is being promoted is the most important one in the world. This is a very simplistic and shuttered view of the world, as there can not be one sole cause that is important. There are many worthy causes that people devote time and effort to (eradicating disease, feeding the hungry, etc.). There are other, less worthy causes (beds, stopping the sale of bottled water in city owned property, saving the endangered spotted whatever).

Yesterday a conservation group complained that the new windfarm near Kingston, Ontario was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of birds and bats. So on the one hand, we have wind power being implemented, which makes some people happy; on the other, wildlife is being killed, angering other people. Perfection is not attainable, so we have to prioritize one cause over the other. Those who know me are well aware that I am not an congregant in the church of environmentalism, but a non-polluting, inexpensive energy source trumps the rights of a few hundred animals.

This leads to the creation of guidelines for prioritizing causes, and some I subscribe to are people over animals (would the birds and bats remove their wind turbines if people were flying into them? I think not); now over later (use charitable funds to solve real current problems instead of potential future ones); and me and mine over other people (sounds bad, but everyone does it - people are more likely to get involved in finding a cure for a disease after they or someone they know contracts it). I would like to know the set of priorities of someone who believes that one of the most important things we can do is turn off our lights for an hour each March.

What I would ask, though, is don't pretend that the cause you stand for or support is the only important one. It isn't. And some are more important than others. Remember - you can't eat a bed.