Something I’ve noticed recently, largely through the constant email appeals of my work colleagues, is that there are an awful lot of charities out there. Foundations supporting disadvantaged kids, cancer research, women’s’ rights, men’s health, the general poor… The list is virtually endless. It really makes you think about the numerous ills afflicting our society.
I mentioned this to a workmate – “there are so many charities out there, I can’t afford to donate to them all!” I complained. She agreed it was a shame that there needed to be so many – that there was so much wrong with the world, that we needed so many NGOs to help ease the pain. But, I thought, they say if all the world’s billionaires donated some of their wealth, they could eradicate extreme poverty…
A friend to whom I related the story thought differently. What if, she suggested, the world actually needs poverty in order to run as we know it? A ridiculous thought, was my initial response. But then she laid out her reasoning.
Economically, poverty makes sense as a source of cheap labour and cheap production. With the eradication of poverty, millions of people would suddenly find their cost of living rising – and no one wants that.
In addition, socially, it gives people something to strive for. After all, the eradication of poverty is a goal that many people ostensibly want to attain – if you want proof, simply look at the number of charities in operation around the world.
Politically, it gives governments something to have on the agenda. While it can be a source of shame in some countries (see what Beijing did in the lead up to the 2008 Olympic Games), it can also be a sort of weapon. Think pledges to increase aid budgets, thereby enhancing global reputation and giving the people back home a warm fuzzy feeling that at least they are doing something.
The reasoning behind this school of thought seemed both logical and selfish. Sure, I could see why people might subscribe to this worldview, but what about all those who were trampled on along the way? The 99%, sustaining the lifestyle of the other 1%. Unfortunately, as extreme poverty continues and the gap between each end of the spectrum widens, it seems that this viewpoint is the dominant one, at least for now.
You could say that this is simply the result of our capitalist society. Indeed, capitalism does allow for people to be richer than others. The alternative put forward by Karl Marx has been widely discredited. Does that mean there is no hope of eradicating poverty?
There are other ways, other methods. But until one is widely accepted and implemented, the world will keep turning as it does now – and my inbox will continue to overflow with the requests for charitable support that go at least some way to helping those living in poverty.
Tag Archives: world
The Antibiotic Apocalypse
https://medium.com/editors-picks/892b57499e77 – Imagining the Post-antibiotics Future
I read this piece during a spare moment at work. It terrified me.
Can you imagine a world where a scraped knee could kill a child? Where mothers don’t live long enough to see their children after childbirth? Where a sore ear could cause lifelong deafness?
It would be like returning to the 18th century.
A world without antibiotics is a terrifying prospect, not least because the advantages of modern science mean that we take our defence against infections for granted. It is clear that we need to take steps to prevent these important medicines from becoming completely ineffective, and it is important that these steps are taken by patients and doctors, hand in hand. Patients need to recognise that not every common minor illness requires antibiotic treatment. Obviously, severe bacterial infections necessitate such tough medicines, but for minor viruses like the common cold, antibiotics won’t help. At the same time, doctors need to ensure patients are informed of the proper uses for antibiotics, and guide them through alternative treatments for their minor ailments.
I came down with a cold not long ago. Nothing more than a sore throat, blocked nose and a cough. But the cough stopped me from doing my job of answering phones. I took the day off and visited the doctor for the necessary medical certificate – and left with a script for antibiotics.
I know what you’re thinking. The doctor knows best, he has years of medical schooling – but it is common knowledge that antibiotics will not treat a cold. My main concern was that I was prescribed these powerful drugs without having any further tests done. How could he be sure I needed them? He couldn’t. I dumped the script in the bin and, after a couple of days of rest coupled with codrals, I ‘miraculously’ recovered.
But it worries me that our first defence against serious bacterial infections can be so readily misused. No wonder then, that resistance to antibiotics is growing, when bacteria are given opportunities like this to develop their resistance to our medical weapons.
Obviously, as the article mentions, there are other factors contributing to the decreasing effectiveness of antibiotics. But it is important that patients and doctors alike recognise that antibiotics are effective only when used for their true purpose- fighting bacteria. Having spoken to others, I know I am not the only one who has been prescribed these drugs unnecessarily. Unless we want to see them fail completely, we need to start treating antibiotics with respect, using them only when necessary and as prescribed. The alternative world presented in the article above is only too close to becoming our reality.
Man of Steel Review
With Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan, the names behind some of the most widely acclaimed superhero films in recent years, on board, Man of Steel was always going to have a lot of hype to live up to. As it turns out, it hasn’t done too badly.
Reboots of superhero franchises are in vogue, with Batman and Spider-Man leading the pack, and now Superman returns to the screens in the body of English actor Henry Cavill. He is supported by an all-star cast, including Russell Crowe, Diane Lane and Amy Adams.
As a reboot, this film goes right back to the start, presenting the origin of the superhero from his birth on Krypton to his first step as Superman. With planet Krypton imploding, scientist Jor-El (Crowe) attempts to persuade the planet’s leaders to seek a new planet and begin life anew and for the better. But a military coup, led by General Zod (Michael Shannon), cuts short Jor’s plea. Determined to save the future of his people, Jor and wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer) send their newborn son to planet Earth- and thus begins the traditional tale of conflicting identities, so familiar to Superman fans.
But don’t expect to see Lex Luther in this one- there is another villain town, one with an intimate knowledge of our hero and his powers. With such an astute and powerful enemy as Zod, the scene is set for some strong action scenes. With each solid pound of gristle on muscle, we wince at the power on display here. If there is one thing director Snyder can do, it is combat scenes.
Yet even with the well coordinated action sequences, the pace itself is patchy. At times, Snyder seems unsure of where he wants to be, or where he wants to go. The camerawork is jumpy, and the battle scenes seem stretched as though trying to fill the holes in a thin story- a thin story that Snyder spends a lot of time just setting up.
In spite of this, the film has it’s good points. The actors are well cast. Chiselled and muscular with slicked back hair, Cavill is every inch Superman. His portrayal of Clark Kent is suitably clumsy and confused, evolving over the course of the film as the character begins to find himself. Amy Adams is feisty and smart as Lois Lane, with just enough of that damsel in distress quality to make her rescue scenes believable. And then there is Michael Shannon. His bulk, his sneer and his powerful delivery allow him to completely take over scenes as Zod. Special mention goes to Crowe for portraying the dignified and zealous scientist of a dying race without over-playing it. The rest of the supporting cast – Lane, Kevin Costner as Clark Kent’s earth father, Christopher Meloni as an army general determined to rid the planet of aliens- do a solid and memorable job.
As far as superhero movies go, this does not quite reach the heights of predecessors like The Dark Knight or The Avengers. But what Man of Steel does do, is deliver a highly enjoyable, action packed hero epic, setting the scene for a fun new franchise that will keep old fans going and inspire a new generation to put on red capes and fly around their backyards with Clark Kent.
Legendary
A legend died this week.
Margaret Thatcher, the formidable female Prime Minister of England from 1979 to 1990, died on April 8 following a stroke, aged 87.
Immediately, as may be expected for someone of her status, tributes poured in from around the world.
But amidst the sentimentalities were also the cries of those glad to see her go – she was, after all, a deeply divisive figure due to the program of economic and political reforms which she embarked on upon taking office. Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein called her “shameful”.. Worse has been heard though, such as the decision by the Student Union of Melbourne University to celebrate the Iron Lady’s death (a decision which has prompted backlash on campus and amongst the student community).
But what struck me about all of this was not the depth of animosity towards Thatcher, even now, more than 20 years after she introduced her radical policies. Nor was it the fact that people felt strongly enough about the issue to announce it so soon after her death.
Rather, it was purely the fact that a single person, hailed as a hero by some, was considered the exact opposite by so many others.
Anecdotally at least, everybody has a hero – someone they admire and look up to. Obviously, this makes heroes subjective, in that we are all drawn to different people for different reasons.
Hitler is one such example. His popularity in Germany is something that many of us, with the benefit of hindsight, struggle to understand these days. In Germany during the 1930s, when people were struggling to find food to subsist on, Hitler represented hope and change, and indeed promised to restore the greatness of the German nation, which citizens perceived to have been undermined during the First World War. His policies towards Jews and other minority groups were largely overlooked by the nation, which was desperately in need of a hero.
Allison and Goethals in their book, “Heroes: What They Do and Why we Need Them”, explore the notion that people need heroes. They find that people identify with figures who are virtuos and noble, yet relatable. They may overcome almost impossible odds – as an example, they give Amelia Earhart, who broke flying records. Another English Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, is also used as an example of a hero, for inspiring his people to fight against Hitler and his army in their darkest hour. Psychologically, humans are social creatures, and drawn to people like us – hence our attraction to people who represent the ordinary made extraordinary, such as Earhart. Perhaps that explains our linked fascination with comedic superheroes; people like Clark Kent, who during the day are nothing particularly special, but who at night fight crime, catch the bad guys and get the girl. Heroes prove that anything is possible, if you put your mind to it; a nerdy looking reporter can score the hot girl of his dreams, by putting on a cape. Heroes give us something to aspire to and admire. They are proof that there is still virtue, nobility and goodness in the world.
It is this that seems to inspre such strong reactions when figures such as Margaret Thatcher pass. We realise just what sort of in impact they made, and are able to truly measure their legacy. By this legacy, we can calculate a person’s worth, and it is often based on this that we conclude whether they qualify as a hero. Does the Iron Lady qualify as a hero? Certainly, to some; but others, some in Ireland, some in the slums of England, some in university campuses in Melbourne, consider her to be more of a villain, having hurt many through events attributed to her policies and reforms.
Margaret Thatcher put her mind to the job, and stayed to true to her beliefs (another ‘heroic’ trait), pushing through policies that were disliked by some. Some Britons held her in high regard, while others did not. Other superheroes have also faced this – hence the never-ending cue of supervillains.
And yet, perhaps in the end it is not about who likes you and who wants to see you dead. After all, the sheer number of responses to Thatcher’s death, whether positive or negative, simply goes to show how much of an impact she has had on people around the world during her life and her stint in office. Undeniably, she made an impression.
And isn’t that what heroes do?
networding 