Eh, I continue to see this as simplistic. Why is the world community's opinion what matters? I thought we wanted to care about the people? So not making things worse is better than making things worse -- right?

Forgetting all that, I would be interested to hear your specific suggestions for what you see as a good way forward.

In Somalia specifically?

Also world opinion is not my primary concern but it is important to remain moral in immoral times.

And tell me how doing nothing is somehow not simply allowing people to die.

I could have all kinds of elaborate justifications for why helping that guy getting stabbed is something I shouldn't do, or shouldn't do quite yet, or whatever, but at the end of the day if I don't do anything I was letting him die, justification or no.

The thing to do in a crisis famine like in Somalia is to cart over as much food as necessary to prevent anyone from starving to death. We aren't even doing that.

You can't stop there though you need also to work harder to promote better agricultural practices that work for the people themselves but also don't desertify the area and cope better with droughts.

There's also the whole "never probably should have fucked up the climate" angle, but that battle is lost. Now the task would be to get them the sustainable tools they need and can use to grow their own food.

The other part of the equation in Somalia is stabilizing the area in terms of violence. al-Shabab has been on its back foot recently and that's good but the truth is we could have stablilized the place any time in the last I dunno 20 years, but didn't because we can't handle hearing about 10 Americans dying, but if it's 200,000 Somalians, well, whatever. That's why we have the Red Cross, it's so sad, sure does make you thankful for this nice big meal mm it's so good mom where'd you get the recipe oh from Aunt Grace oh how is she by the way and....

Yep. We don't fucking care/don't want to think about it.

related to the agric angle - it sure would help if monsanto wasn't such a douche-bag entity and if we would phase out US agric subsidies

OK, so we airdrop food to the Somalians which never gets to them and is instead grabbed by wrlords who sell it on the black market and use the money to raise funds to continue their attrocities...

This isn't like a guy on the street bleeding. It's more like a guy slowly dying from some unknown cause and what we do could make him die quicker. house has the advanatage of being a TV show where the writers can make his fuck ups still lead to him being the hero. In the real world, fuck ups lead to even greater cluster fucks and more people die and evil dictators and warlords increase their control using the well intended goods. In short, doing food drops is funding a form of terrorism and/or the drug cartels. You *must* be certain the aid is getting to the intended recipients or your good intentions have paved the way to death for others and hell for yourself.

yeah im not thinking food drops.

i know thats what we do now

its not what we should do

in a world where we actually did the right thing and manned up about it we would cart it in and hand it to those who actually need it and not leave it up to the AU to do our dying for us

we only do the air drops cause we're afraid to die.

And then the warlords would just hit the caravans and kill the aid workers. Unless of course you give them armed escorts and then we are at war with the warlords and innocent civilians die in wars.

@Thucy - by declaring we should man up and be willing to die to save the Somalis, you have placed a value on the Somalis' lives higher than the volunteer aid workers' lives.

And who do you think is going to volunteer to go hand out food knowing their life is probably forfeit? I sure as fuck won't. And I bet you wouldn't either. We all place a higher value on our and our loved one's lives than we do on strangers' lives. It's human nature to strive for self-preservation.

^ Draug, that's what this thread is about. I am not here to preach but yes I would die - I want to work for an aid organization that goes into dangerous areas such as MSF. There *are* people that volunteer to put their life at risk for others' sake, and I admire these people deeply. I think they are doing the right thing - putting their money where their mouth is and actually valuing all human lives equally.

And yes I do happen to think we should fight them directly, with our own blood and treasure to bring them peace and food security. Here is the difference between the volunteers dying and the Somalis. The volunteers had a choice to get into it, the Somalis were just dealt a shit hand.

Also, what's a few hundred, maybe at most a few thousand, soldiers/aid workers/innocent cilivians compared to the hundreds of thousands or millions you save from starvation and war?

In case you didn't know the country is already war-torn - the AU forces and al-Shabab have been duking it out for a long time now. That's what I meant when I said we should go in their ourselves - we can help the AU end it sooner and more bloodlessly, etc. And the sooner the better - less people will die that way.

Yeah Thucy, more than anything, your argument just points out the DISanalogy to seeing somebody getting stabbed on the street. There, it really is obvious what to do.

As for your examples here -- Draug's point re: food is correct. If we can make sure the food is getting to the right places, then sure, OK, we should help. (I'll leave aside whether it should be governmentally -- suffice to say, the American people should help).

Note that the above is directed to situations of temporary famine: where the cause for famine are systemic, we can do that effectively only if we also have a good plan for ending their causes of famine (agricultural, etc). See: moral hazard. (Yeah, and I don't think we should have bailed out the banks, so please spare me that in your response, if you were planning to go there).

If the government that is there is such that there is actually some hope of agriculture etc. working, then we absolutely should work to get that going. This is probably the most important thing to do. I agree.

As for "10 Americans dying," your point is incredibly offensive. The history of the last century is one of Americans constantly dying to accomplish what we saw as right in other countries (and not just European countries) and, often (more and more), getting condemned loudly at home and abroad and accomplishing little apart from stirring up bad will. But oh, no, we should just run in everywhere with out military and save everybody from their political strife.

Do you even have the faintest idea how your fellow liberals would howl if we started doing that regularly? Of course, yes, it might actually succeed like few other policies could (if done case-by-case, which expense would force to happen) if we could maintain the will to do it. But given the complete lack of any moral or theoretical basis for doing so, short of adopting a full-fledged imperialism that Americans seem little committed to, there is no way it could be practical or sustained.

And again, if you going in and knocking down dictators and then running out and leaving chaos and a power vacuum gives you a warm feeling about yourself, great, but don't pretend it's some enlightened righteous concern for others.

"by declaring we should man up and be willing to die to save the Somalis, you have placed a value on the Somalis' lives higher than the volunteer aid workers' lives."

no, by declaring that i have placed them at equal value - there are less endangered aid workers than somalis, so the somalis are worth more here, but only because there are more of them not because they are better

" We all place a higher value on our and our loved one's lives than we do on strangers' lives. It's human nature to strive for self-preservation."

see my first post in this thread. i do know that this is how most people think, i just think it's wrong

"Do you even have the faintest idea how your fellow liberals would howl if we started doing that regularly? "

I have a very good idea, this is one of the reasons I do not consider myself "one of them."

If my point offends you please explain to me why we left Somalia to being with and why we have not gone back, and why we didn't not intervene in Rwanda, in Ivory Coast, in Eastern Congo, and so on? We delegate that dirty work to the AU or the UN who don't have the means to get the job done because we don't give them enough support.

I don't think we should just run around knocking down dictators. I do think we should prevent people from starving to death and prevent civil wars from happening. They are different things, and it isn't imperialism. There will always be critics, look at Libya - we aren't even on the ground and people are whining, but it was the right thing to do.

I also think you idea that the "history of the last century is one of Americans constantly dying to accomplish what we saw as right in other countries" is a bit... wrong, to say the least. But okay.

^Then let me be wrong. My life and the lives of the people around me matter more to me than a stranger on the other side of the world.

I should add the caveat though that just because we shouldn't be invading every dictatorship doesn't mean we should *ever* support *any* dictatorship.

The Arab Spring made it painfully obvious how morally bankrupt US and European policy in the region was before the uprisings.

"Then let me be wrong. My life and the lives of the people around me matter more to me than a stranger on the other side of the world."

You have now answered the OP question - we are back on topic.

So why do they matter more, morally. I understand that they matter more to you emotionally but can you give me a moral justification?

@Thucy, I'm curious, first of all -- the volunteers you so admire, who are risking their life. Do they owe their lives, so that what they are doing is only what they morally must do? Or is their gesture more than is required, so that there is a positive love and magnanimity not demanded by ethics? I'm just curious.

Moving on. I think I already answered why we don't get involved in those situations. We can't afford to get involved in all of them, and if we got involved in any or all, there would be massive squawking from all directions.

I will say that I'm not entirely unsympathetic to some of what you apparently suggest (and sorry if I misunderstood and thought you were a liberal in such ways). I think the history of stability and liberty in most countries that have it is a slow, evolutionary one, and it is unrealistic to expect that we can go in, clean things up, set up a stable democracy, and get out in 10 years. Going in and governing for a long time, with a (planned) very slow transfer of power as stability set in deeply could be a reasonable and kind thing to do, though I do not think we owe it to anybody. That said, doing so would be virtually impossible in the world's current political environment.

Morality has jask to do with anything, but if you really want to know, they matter to me becaus eI matter to them. Maybe it is immoral. Enough on here claim to be athiests that a certain level of immorality through selflishness of this nature won't matter in the grand scheme of things. After all, from the athiest view, once we are dead all that matters is how we are remembered. And my family and freiends will remember me with affection.

From the religious point of view, I am in the wrong. Sorry, I'm no messiah and have no desire to be a martyr for a cause. If that keeps me out of heaven or valhalla or wherever the fuck nirvana is, so be it. To quote Conan: "Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you will remember if we were good men or bad, why we fought, or why we died. No, all that matters is that two stood against many, that's what's important. Valor pleases you, Crom, so grant me one request, grant me REVENGE! And if you do not listen, then the hell with you!" That's how I feel about my loved ones.

"the volunteers you so admire, who are risking their life. Do they owe their lives, so that what they are doing is only what they morally must do? Or is their gesture more than is required, so that there is a positive love and magnanimity not demanded by ethics? I'm just curious."

its a good question.

i think i personally feel obligated, that it is something i owe the world or society or karma or whatever. i feel like its a duty, especially knowing now what i know about it, to carry the analogy you guys hate it would be like interviewing the stabbed man about how much pain he's in and asking what does he think the best thing to do would be and after all that still walking away. can't do it.

so i feel obligated. my personal belief is that everyone *should*, but I'm not fool, I know pretty much no one *will*. Since I know what actual moral zeitgeist of our culture is pretty well, I know that what these volunteers do is considered waay above and beyond the call of duty so in that respect I admire them along with everyone else. I just think that they were doing what they had to do, whereas other people (i have encountered this many times) will just shake their heads and wonder why in god's name someone would do that and go so far for someone they dont know.

this world is the world i live in these days lol. i know it pretty well, but never well enough

Cool, thanks.

Draugnar you didn't really answer my question.

"They matter to me because I matter to them" isn't really a moral justification. It's an emotional or calculated one.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?"

Um, yes I did...

"From the religious point of view, I am in the wrong. Sorry, I'm no messiah and have no desire to be a martyr for a cause. If that keeps me out of heaven or valhalla or wherever the fuck nirvana is, so be it. "

Morals, in so far as society is concerned, are a religious construct. I couldn't give a shit about morally right or wrong according to society. My own "moral compass" says that which keep sthose around me safe and happy is what is morally right.

So clarify... Are you talking the societal moral construct? If so, le me be immoral. I don't give a fuck. Just one more thing to answer to along with my drinking, cigars, pipes, and gambling. If your talking my own personal code, I just laid it out for you.

Dang, Draug, I thought you were some kind of weird deist/Christian mix. Where is all this nihilism coming in?

I don't think morality is linked inextricably to religion, even the kind I am espousing.

Let me try to demonstrate how.

Imagine for a moment being that Somali person we've been discussing.

You were 10 when your father was killed when your town was attacked, you and your mother have been refugees in your own country ever since, but the recent drought has meant there simply is no food to be found and your mother died of starvation. Now you are dying of starvation, too, and if nothing is done you'll be gone in about a week. You are currently camped out outside an overcrowded refugee camp with thousands of other miserable people just like you.

If you can imagine this person, if you can imagine being him, then you can empathize, and you can want this person to have a better life than that.

That is the basis of morality in physical terms - our "chimp morality" is based on empathy - the ability to pity other people. If you take a step further and intellectualize it - you and that Somali are not in essence any different, it is almost entirely your environment that is different. You are genetically speaking close to identical.

So basically, the rest of the story goes like this - if you wouldn't want that to happen to you, then you should try to stop it happening to other people. The internal drive humans have to help out other humans who are in trouble is something we evolved and its gotten us this far.

Our technology has now advanced to such heights that we can look into the eyes of these people on the other side of the world that are in trouble. In the old days you could be excuse for not knowing there was a war going on in Central Asia, or whatever. But these days you know, and your inner chimp is activated, and you should act.

Let's just say I'm a deist and leave it more at that. I think some of Christ's teachings sound like he should have been passing out flowers at an airport had they existed back then. As time goes on, I move farther and fartehr from any Christian leanings and more towards a fluid self-defined morality. I don't owe the world shit. Likewise, it doesn't owe me shit. I don't believe a higher power is at all concerned with my issues. It is busy keeping the universe in balance and my troubles don't mean squat to It.

^ that's all fine, but can i ask this:

if there was a disaster in the USA, and crops failed and disease struck and war broke out and there was no hope in sight, and the only country that was unaffected by this disaster was, say, china, would you not want/appreciate them to come and attempt to prevent you from dying in misery?

i would. i support the UN development and peacekeeping missions because even though I don't need them myself, I believe with everything I have that if I *did* need them, they would be there for me too.

" if you wouldn't want that to happen to you, then you should try to stop it happening to other people"

Why? I feel no obligation to anyone else. so they were dealt a shit life. That doesn't oblighate me to risk mine to help them. I'll donate (and I do) and I'll support those who want to go throw their lives away, but I have every right to want to live as much as they do and I have no obligation to do anything risky. Empathy lets me understand their plight but it does *not* obligate me to shit.

"The internal drive humans have to help out other humans who are in trouble is something we evolved and its gotten us this far."

The internal drive for self-preservation and community preservation has gotten us even farther. this drive to help others came about as a result of developing communities which are an extension of the familial unit. Beyond that, the drive weakens and hasn't gotten us as farf as you think.

OK, thanks Draug. I had the impression you were moving the other way. My bad.

Thucy, where did you get the killer green bud you are stoned out of your mind on? You know I love pot.

Whenever I read you post this "crops failed and disease struck and war broke out and there was no hope in sight" I knew you were so stoned you didn't know which direction was up.

I love to get that baked so don't be a hog. Share your stash dude!