(no subject)
Jan. 1st, 2005 07:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
And then there was the inevitable discussion about the updated death toll and how countries should be donating more...
And look! They are. And maybe it is a bit of a pissing contest, as the article says, but I have to think that it's because the scale of the tragedy just keeps escalating. The newspaper this morning proclaimed "127 000 dead, that number to double."
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I don't want to do that. I am trying to find a justification for this but there isn't one. At the risk of sounding dramatic I know that if I could end world hunger at the cost of my life I would not hesitate. Maybe it's the sheer scope that is too overwhelming. Starvation, disease, human rights abuse, the destruction of the environment, species becoming extinct every day, inhumane treatment of animals...
How do you decide what's most important?
The decision I made many years ago was to pick a cause to 'join', if you like, and I chose Amnesty International. Should I feel guilty that the thought of victims of torture, and the horrific abuses which too many women and girls in are forced to endure, stir me more than thoughts of children starving?
And now I've been jolted out of my complacency. *glares at Zebra*
Maybe I'll think of something profound when I'm not so tired.