The best and worst of 2004

[wolf]

People died because there was an earthquake and a big wave hit the places they were living and vacationing.

None of these places that we are discussing are teeny weeny islands with zero resources.

Only the coastal areas were directly affected.

These places all have their own Relief Agencies and systems.

We are helping. We are not in charge.

By the way, did you say anything yet about the Muslims sending the Jews home?

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

People died because there was an earthquake and a big wave hit the places they were living and vacationing.

None of these places that we are discussing are teeny weeny islands with zero resources.

Only the coastal areas were directly affected.

And virtually the entire civilization in most of these places is in the first miles from the beach. What do chopper pilots from the Abe Lincoln report? Everything wiped out for three miles inland. In many places, that is the entire civilization for that large island. Again look at the satellite photos for the capital of Aesch provience. What good are Relief Agencies that were also victims? Even the entire military detachment assigned to the capital was wiped out. You tell me how much civilization remains on those islands to provide relief.

The interior minister says it best. First they had no idea how large the disaster. Then as they learned, they paniced. Only recently have they been able to assemble a conherent response. They deperately needed outside help in organizing a response. So little remained to provide assistance. Even building foundations were wiped out.

We are helping. We are not in charge.

We are only helping because the world humiliated George Jr.

By the way, did you say anything yet about the Muslims sending the Jews home?

I don't know anything about your story. I did hear a report of Israelis who arrived only to perform forensic work and do body searching. Best they be sent home. There is no place for people who cannot distribute the emergency aid and start emergency construction. If these were the Jews you refer, then good. Send them home. Indonesia has no time to identify any victims. Indonesia is literally bulldozing piles of bodies into trenches. No time to ID anyone. Tell them to come back instead with a plane load of disaster relief workers. How dare they play games of victim ID. There is no time for that in Indonesia. Bodies must be buried as fast as they can be found.

[Undertoad]

I don't know anything about your story.

You don't read my replies to your threads?

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=138700#post138700

[wolf]

Victim identification is not a game. It's a necessity. Getting the bodies into the ground, or cremated, is also a necessity ... bodies rot fast in the heat, and become a major health problem in and of themselves.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=138700#post138700

Did not see (nor hear) that BBC article Sri Lanka rejects Israel rescuers But it only proves how much 'evil' (as defined by Onyxcougar) is created by those who worship pagan religions. A topic for another discussion.

I had only heard about that rescue-and-recovery team that clearly was not welcome in Indonesia for obvious reasons - called pragmatism.

[OnyxCougar]

This should be good.

How do I define evil?

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

Victim identification is not a game. It's a necessity. Getting the bodies into the ground, or cremated, is also a necessity ... bodies rot fast in the heat, and become a major health problem in and of themselves.

Any effort wasted to do vicim identification in Indonesia is nothing more than a game played at the risk of the living. There is no time to ID anyone.

In Thailand, they are taking photos, taking DMA samples, and then disposing of those western bodies. As they must. They have time to do ID. They had very little damage and death by comparision. Indonesia has no time for the game of ID. Identification would be a game played with the lives of those who survived.

[tw]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

How do I define evil?

You prefer to view things in terms of good and evil rather than in terms of perspectives. With perspectives, then 'good and evil' are religious and irrelevant concepts. Anything can be both good and evil depending on the perspective. Good and evil assumes the absurd such as "god is on our side". But then with different perspectives, god is on everyone's side. So where is the evil? If everyone is only good, then why the war and all that dead? But again, a topic that belongs back in that other thread.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by tw

You prefer to view things in terms of good and evil rather than in terms of perspectives. With perspectives, then 'good and evil' are religious and irrelevant concepts. Anything can be both good and evil depending on the perspective. Good and evil assumes the absurd such as "god is on our side". But then with different perspectives, god is on everyone's side. So where is the evil? If everyone is only good, then why the war and all that dead? But again, a topic that belongs back in that other thread.

No, I don't. I made a post in the good and evil thread about good and evil, but that doesn't mean I only see things in good and evil.

Of course everything is a matter of perspective.

Do not try to put words in my mouth (or on my fingers) or thoughts in my head. You don't know me, so don't speak for me.

[lumberjim]

you did ask him to tell you, oc.

How do I define evil?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

But it only proves how much 'evil' (as defined by Onyxcougar) is created by those who worship pagan religions. A topic for another discussion.

I am really not seeing your point here. People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Moselms) are not pagans. Evil exists irrespective of religion.

We were talking about relief for victims of a disaster here, weren't we?

[Troubleshooter]

A web site I ran across recently had a really good take on the tsunami situation. The article came from The Enlightened Caveman and also has plenty of other good articles as well.

Tsunami Disaster - Spheres of Self-Interest

This tsunami will likely prove to be the most protracted natural disaster in recent history. The aftershocks, after they've ceased being geological, will become immunilogical, which means this thing isn't going to be over for a while. This is truly devastating, on so many levels that it isn't even fully comprehensible yet, at least not for me. I tried to read up on the tragedy but kept having to stop. I'm not ready to spend the next couple of hours sobbing. But as I felt my eyes welling up, I began to wonder what it was exactly that was making me so sad.

As much as I'd like to say that it was pure compassion for the dead and their families, it wasn't. Yes, I feel awful for them. But it was only when I imagined myself in the shoes of a survivor who'd lost his or her whole family that my emotional systems became uncontrollable. This realization was instantly discomforting. Am I a monster? How can I be so callous? Those were my initial thoughts, but then I took a step back. If I am being honest, then recognizing this reality should not be a source of guilt, and it should not lead to any sort of self-loathing. It is yet another indication of our human heritage, which means we're best served if we understand it. Then, maybe, we'll have the knowledge to decide how to feel and, more importantly, what to do.

So what if I ask the following question: am I a heartless anomaly in an otherwise compassionate America? If I exercise a little critical rationalism, I find that there are basically three possible answers - either I am, I am not, or we don't have enough evidence to say. Now to the evidence. I'm looking for the kind that disproves alternatives, since I am not intellectually arrogant enough to suppose that I can ever really prove anything. That said, I think there are two approaches to exploring this question - one is theoretical and one is empirical. First to the theory.

The emotional infrastructure of the brain evolved to motivate early humans to do things that would aid in their survival. Our emotions are, therefore, the tools of our genes, and our genes are all about self-interest. In caveman days, being able to envision the pain and anguish of a devastating event, such as the loss of a child or mate, was essential to keeping a conscious focus on doing the things that would avoid those kinds of situations. Conversely, becoming emotionally invested in biologically far removed situations could easily have become unacceptably distracting. Remember - life in those days was tough - lapses in attention were often fatal. Mother Nature, then as now, exerted her influence indiscriminately. But back then, her scope was wider - it included wild animals, poisonous plants, regularly-occuring weather events (droughts, freezes, etc.), and diseases. On top of that, early humans had to competitively contend with each othe for limited food, shelter, and water. This means that the sphere of self-interest had (and still has) a definite limit, and it is reasonable to suppose that the line for those of us in North America does not overlap with the shere of devastation emanating from Asian waters. So, in this case, it would seem that my inability to fully feel the pain of countless tsunami victims is not out of the ordinary (despite the fact that many would refuse to admit it). But this is conjecture based upon evolutionary theory.

On the empirical side, in terms of common experience, I think there's a limit to how strongly we respond to differing tragedies. Furthermore, I think there's a social understanding of where those limits lie. If someone in my family is in a serious car accident, it is fully expected that I will be distraught with concern and worry. However, it would be truly surprising if I showed the same concern for some tsunami victims that I've never met. Indeed, I'd have a hard time justifying staying home from work because of my grief. Far from being seen as heartless, my emotional detachment isn't remarkable at all. So where does that leave us?

As with most things, it's hard to feel very sure about our conclusions. We always have to be wary of the unknown but relevant. However, in deciding whether I am wrong to internalize the disaster in Asia as I do, I feel safe in saying that I am not. But, ultimately, that is not the point.

How I feel, honestly, has nothing to do with my rational consideration of the situation. Indeed, were I in a powerful position, my detachment would be significantly preferred to having to bottle up gut-wrenching emotions in order to stay focused on the tasks at hand. The bottom line is that the situation far away is horrifying. I don't have to be able to feel their pain to know that they need my help. I know who I am, and I know that, were it not for the rationality that has been culturally installed in my head, I might not care at all. But I do, and that's really what matters. So here's my first rational suggestion.

Since America is quite clearly the best at solving big problems, I think we need to take the funding that Bush has dedicated to the tragedy and invest much of it domestically in companies that can deliver the goods and services most in need. We should use our military resources to create air and seaports, and then engage Fedex and UPS in massive shipping operations. Then we get our pharmaceutical companies and healthcare payor/providers (such as Kaiser Permanente) involved in addressing the exploding health problems. From there, we have an endless list of suppliers of food, water, building materials, and infrastructure components (such as telecommunications, electricity, and plumbing) from which to choose. As my personal sphere of influence has rationally been extended to include America at large, I think we can find a win win situation here, whereby the disaster victims get what they need in the fastest, most efficient way possible, and we don't have to stand by and watch every American dollar buy only twenty cents worth of relief. Does that make me a bad guy?

[xoxoxoBruce]

...I think we can find a win win situation here, whereby the disaster victims get what they need in the fastest, most efficient way possible, and we don't have to stand by and watch every American dollar buy only twenty cents worth of relief.

So you mean Halliburton is disqualified from this effort.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by tw

Did not see (nor hear) that BBC article Sri Lanka rejects Israel rescuers But it only proves how much 'evil' (as defined by Onyxcougar) is created by those who worship pagan religions. A topic for another discussion.

I had only heard about that rescue-and-recovery team that clearly was not welcome in Indonesia for obvious reasons - called pragmatism.

Israel's army had planned to send staff to set up field hospitals, including internal medicine and paediatric clinics, an Israeli army spokesman said.

I wouldn't call turning away doctors, especially for children, pragmatic. The recovery team just mentioned ID'ing equipment and body bags. It might have been as simple as DNA testing equipment, which would not have delayed burial.

[tw]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

No, I don't. I made a post in the good and evil thread about good and evil, but that doesn't mean I only see things in good and evil.

Of course everything is a matter of perspective.

Do not try to put words in my mouth (or on my fingers) or thoughts in my head. You don't know me, so don't speak for me.

Now I am completely confused. Either 'good and evil' exists or it does not. If it does, then how can the 'evil' also claim god is on their side? After all, 'good vs evil' means god has taken sides.

Ok, you don't always see things in 'good or evil'. However you do see things - some things - in 'good vs evil'. How can you do this when 'evil' always has an alternative perspective? IOW to see evil, one must always deny the other's perspective. And that other perspective says, "god is on our side".

Second, why are you taking insult? I assume you are taking offense at something but I see no reason why. Where is this need for an apology? There is no reason to be insulted in any discussion of facts.