100,000+ is a great number of people to have perished.
But why does it become more significant when it is an acute loss (say one caused by earthquake/tsunami) rather than chronic (Aids, famine, War, Poverty)?
I guess I’m just a heartless bastard that I really don’t find this catastrophe that significant in perspective.
This isn’t an argument against humanitarianism — rather a “christmas” argument. Why only now at this point are we concerned about being decent. Why don’t we all decide to be decent to others on this earth all the time? Eh?
I actually share many of those sentiments. And I thought I was the only one….
Because a sudden loss of life is more shocking than the ever increasing numbers of people dying from AIDs.
I think the real question is, could it happen TO US!?!?!? (dun dun dah)
Persistence of memory, ease of calculation….
NO MONKEYS LOST!
GO MONKEYS!
yeah, the enormity of it is hard to wrap one’s brain around, but I agree with you
(by the way HI! I miss you guys! We should drink together very soon!) =)
Someone on my friend’s list mentioned the over 800,000 Rwandans butchered in ’94 in a very small period of time.
Not a whole lot of outpouring of grief for that one.
I agree with no_brakes23. An act of nature is something we have no control over. We also have economic interests in the areas hit by the tsunami.
But Rwanda? Who cares? Africa? Constant war, famine, poverty, disease, genocide, etc.??? These things don’t affect us Americanos so why should we care?
Have you heard or read that no animal carcasses are being found? Very interesting! I’ve always thought they were smarter than us people.
dryad271’s icon is great. And she’s right, we must drink together again!