[extropy-chat] darfur

[David Lubkin]

J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

>Ned Late wrote:
> > Here's another spin on this: in the sixth paragraph you'll notice a
> > Ron Fisher wrote that participating in the darfur genocide protest
> > is a "socially responsible, good conscience thing to do". Feel
> > Goodism. That is to say it makes me feel better-- 'look at me, I'm
> > so decent I'll take time out from my day to go to a protest'.
>
>The vast majority of activism is exactly this.  Why?  Because it is
>cheap.  It is a way to reap most of the social benefits of being an
>activist without the expense and discipline required to actually
>solve social problems.  80% of the personal benefit, 20% of the cost,
>and negligible impact on the underlying problem.

When I started work at Livermore, the lab was besieged by a three-day 
protest. There were periodic morning drive recurrences. Activists 
would come over from Berkeley, hoist signs that declared that anyone 
who worked at Livermore in any capacity -- from cancer research to 
janitor -- was a baby-killer, then go off to the Concannon or Wente 
vineyards down the road for a picnic lunch with friends and a bottle 
of Petite Sirah.

It occurred to me then that if their primary motive was political 
impact, staying home at the typewriter would have been more productive.

But the social benefits are immediate and tangible. I still smile at 
the frank honesty of the male college student who, asked before the 
2004 election why he supported Kerry over Bush, answered, "Because I 
want to get laid."


-- David.