Forest for the Trees
On December 14, 2012, 26 innocent people - 20 children and 6 adults - died at the hand of a mass shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, United States. (1) This tragic incident, widely recognized as the second deadliest of its kind in the U.S., seems to many to be part of an increasingly widespread trend. (2) A movement has since begun to address the accumulating shootings, with demands for increased gun registration restrictions, tighter school security, and further restraints on firearm possession. These lobbyists – parents, administrators, and common citizens alike – have fought and continue to fight for the protection of themselves and one another against this recurring threat. (1)
But while, on December 14, 2012, approximately 3,000 other innocent children died to a remorseless killer, they passed with little recognition or advocacy for reform on their behalves. These children, living in sub-Saharan Africa, lost their lives to malaria, a disease barely present in the developed world, even less so a common cause of mortality. (3) The children lost in Connecticut, United States and those lost in Kinshasa, Congo or Luanda, Angola were not so very different from one another; they had dreams and aspirations for the future, did nothing to provoke their demise, and belonged to loving families who grieved at their needless deaths. Then why, might one ask, did the former incident claim headlines while the latter, far more devastating in numbers and frequency, pass un-hyped? That is, sadly, a rhetorical question, for we accept that the nature of news is to report on new and shocking occurrences, of which this manner of death is not one. We have become so inured to death by hunger or disease in underdeveloped countries that not only do we, as a general populace, take little heed of its enduring nature, but even concoct justifications and sweetened images to mask the inconceivable reality. While we may be able to empathize with a fear of guns, we can only loosely sympathize with fears of water contamination or lives of destitution. Just because the loss of young lives in Kinshasa or Luanda is not broadcast on the news does not make their demises any less pressing or tragic; in fact, it makes them more so because they pass under the public’s radar. If we can put aside our empathetic notions and remind ourselves that every innocent life, regardless of geographic affiliation, is equally worthy and, ideally, potentially savable, utilitarians will find that their sentiments are best fulfilled by focusing on medical attention in underdeveloped nations, instead of just on those threats that hit closer to home.
One should not be surprised to hear that in the high-income areas of Asia Pacific, Western and Central Europe, Australasia, and North America, the death toll of infants is so low as to be negligible by international standards. In these regions the top causes of adult mortality are cardio and circulatory diseases, (4) namely ischemic heart disease, the reduced blood supply caused by, to be unscientific, unhealthy diets and old age. (5) These diseases account for about one-third of most-developed country (MDC) deaths, approximately twice the rate seen in less- and least-developed countries (LDCs). (4) Globally, deaths before the age of four are some of the most frequent, especially in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Within the first month of life, over two million babies die each year to neonatal disorders like preterm births and Neonatal Encephalopathy. Treatable in a hospital with incubation and/or medication, (6) these disorders kill less than one percent of MDC babies, a small number compared to the near five percent statistic for LDC nations. If an infant manages to live past childhood, it again faces another serious threat in its young adult life: HIV/AIDS. Spiking in risk around an adult’s early- to mid-30s, the virus causes 40 to 50 percent of deaths in many areas of sub-Saharan Africa, and as many as three-fourths of deaths in the Southern region. (4)
Despite their truth, listing these somewhat expected statistics is pointless except for effect, for even the least service-minded among us seem to be familiar with the disparity between regions and nations on death tolls. As developed nation citizens, it is easy to undervalue the caustic impact of preterm births and HIV/AIDS in LDCs, for their implications there far from equal those of our relatively resource-abundant societies. Not only are these conditions lower risk where we live but they also have mitigated symptoms. Ischemic heart disease can be greatly prevented with a less-fatty diet and fought with aspirin. (7) Diarrhea, accounting for about 12,600 deaths daily elsewhere, (8) is a problem easily remedied with antibiotics, water, and time in a developed nation. (9) These and many other “annoyances” of our developed communities superficially pale in comparison to the publicized incidents of death via plane crash or bombing which, fairly protected against death as we are, make us fear for our own safety while we easily estrange ourselves from the seemingly innocuous issues that run rampant in poorer areas. (4)
We know and expect there to be a lot more deaths in LDCs, in numbers as well as in percentage of their populations, than in MDCs. We often hear about the benefits and cost-effectiveness of saving lives abroad – less than a dollar (64 pence) for a measles vaccination (10) or pneumonia antibiotic, about 50 cents (32 pence) for a Neonatal Tetanus vaccination, etc. (11). The purpose here is not to belabour this point but to emphasize the need for the paradox of acting upon this highly sentience-based cause while separating one's emotions from the decisions made to do so, to keep the trees of local illness and gun violence from obscuring our view of the forest of international woes. While personal memories and animal nature guide us to “look out for our own,” our “own,” as recently redefined by a now-globalized society, reaches far beyond tangible boundaries, a change that should be reflected in the way in which we give.
References
- Fitzgerald, Jim, Pat Eaton-Robb, Samantha Henry, Pete Yost, and Michael Melia. "Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting: Newtown, Connecticut Administrators, Students Among Victims, Reports Say." Huff Post Crime. The Huffington Post, 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2013.
- Walker, Jesse. "Are Mass Shootings Becoming More Common in the United States?" Reason.com. Reason Foundation, 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2013.
- "About Malaria." Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2013.
- Rogers, Simon. "How Do People Die? Global Mortality and Causes of Death Visualised." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 13 Dec. 2012. Web. 20 Jan. 2013.
- "Ischaemic Heart Disease." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2013.
- "Neonatal Encephalopathy." Neonatal Handbook. The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2013.
- "Ischemic Heart Disease : Treatment, Causes, Symptoms & Prevention." SRS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. SRS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
- Staff, Mayo Clinic. "Diarrhea." Mayo Clinic. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 26 June 2010. Web. 25 June 2013.
- Guerrant, R. L., J. M. Hughes, N. L. Lima, and J. Crane. "Diarrhea in Developed and Developing Countries: Magnitude, Special Settings, and Etiologies." Diss. University of Virginia School of Medicine, 1990. Abstract. National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
- "Where Does My Donation Go?" American Red Cross. Central and Northern Michigan Region, 29 Nov. 2010. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.
- "AFRICA: 28 Days to save a Life." IRIN. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 16 June 2009. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.
Interested?
To find out more or show your support, please sign up for our monthly updates:
Subscribe by RSS
Comments
You say that many think there's an increasing trend towards mass shootings. What you don't mention is your source for 2) explicitly refutes this idea: there is no such trend.
This article points out things that have been pointed out many times before. They are worth repeating, because many people are still ignorant.
But for those who already know about the suffering that goes on, simply repeating figures such as 'X children dying from disease Y' probably does little to encourage them to do anything about it. In fact, I'd suggest it puts off a lot of people due to 'aid saturation'. They simply think "oh well we've been giving aid for decades and things are still shit? Well what's the point, especially as my own country's economy isn't great".
We should point out more of the successes of aid (and well as challenge and criticise the failures), like Tony Blair does in this recent guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/02/aid-africa-growth-to...
"In Africa since 2005, the rate of children dying before their fifth birthday has fallen by 18%. The proportion of people in Africa living in extreme poverty is down by nearly 10%. Aid from the UK alone has in the last two years helped more than 5 million more children go to primary school and 6 million people to access emergency food supplies."
The improvements aren't all because of aid; economic growth and private sector investment has helped too. But aid can take some of the credit.
David I think you missed the point of the article. Next time read the entire page befor giving your useless two cents.
Intentional violence grabs the attention more than unintentional death.
Unexpected death closer to home grabs the attention because it reflects a closer reference class for the reader.
People not only ignore "news" about developing nations, but also "news" about how many people die from heart attacks.
I eat way too much and I still don't care, after all the preaching.
Of course, scope insensitivity is a well-established bias in human cognition.
You can add an order of magnitude to the statistics in the news and the reader's emotions will practically be the same.
I personally do not see the children of strangers as my responsibility.
I accept that interventions like child services intervening in negligent homes can be funded by the public.
But this should be rare and the parents need to be punished.
When I read about entire demographics and nations breeding irresponsibly, in the sense that people decide to have kids even though they can't or won't afford something as basic as a malaria bed net, I stop caring.
I accept I'm much richer than any of the individuals, but this still doesn't change the basic fact that they decided to make their children suffer.
And that they - and the aid industry - foster and maintain a culture that fails to point out where the responsibility lies.
If you can't afford to get your child to adulthood in minimal safety and health and sufficient wealth for basic dignity, then don't have kids.
"When I read about entire demographics and nations breeding irresponsibly, in the sense that people decide to have kids even though they can't or won't afford something as basic as a malaria bed net, I stop caring.
....If you can't afford to get your child to adulthood in minimal safety and health and sufficient wealth for basic dignity, then don't have kids."
I suggest you read 'myth #3':
http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/why-give/myths-about-aid#3
I'm very sympathetic towards the argument that parents should only have kids if they can afford 'minimal safety and health and sufficient wealth'. However, simply making this argument is not going to change anything. Helping increase the wealth of a nation, increasing access to contraception and promoting women's rights will bring down the birth rate. The problem with merely saying 'don't have kids' is that the kids will be born anyway until countries complete the 'demographic transition', so essentially all you're saying is that the kids should suffer.
As it is, the fertility rate in most developing countries is declining. Reducing childhood mortality should in fact speed up this process: when more kids survive, parents realise they don't need to have as many in order to ensure they have enough help with their business and in old age.
Matt:
"However, simply making this argument is not going to change anything."
It changes the culture and creates an expectation of responsibility on parents.
I'm also not concerned with steering demographic transitions or bring population down.
It can be as high as resources allow for all I care.
But imo the boundary condition should be that no one is forced to suffer against their will, and at least small children never consent to anything.
"It changes the culture and creates an expectation of responsibility on parents."
Perhaps it would if the people your message was directed at were able to actually hear your message. Alternatively it could backfire, because who likes to be told how many kids they can have? The message would have to come from within the community.
"But imo the boundary condition should be that no one is forced to suffer against their will, and at least small children never consent to anything."
Well...ok. But everyone suffers to some extent, meaning no one anywhere should have kids.
Matt:
The message should come from within the community, but the responsibility of sending money to prevent starving children should lie outside the community?
This is a double-standard.
Telling people what to do with their lives (against their will) is generally a bad idea, but parents are not identical to their children.
"But everyone suffers to some extent, meaning no one anywhere should have kids."
That's the extreme all-or-nothing version.
A moderate version would be that potential parents have a responsibility to secure a minimal standard of wealth and safety, and failing to do so (with or without their fault) are expected not to bring children into that situation.
Add new comment