> Mark Miloscia wrote:
>
> > There is no doubt in my mind that most people would drop whatever they are doing
> > and fly to Ethiopia or picket the US Capitol, do what ever it takes, and try to rescue
> > their spouse or sibling or parent or offspring if they were one of those starving
> > statistics. Most people would think it strange (irresponsible even) if I mentioned
> > that my wife was "...dying in some Ethopian hell-hole. Darn those Warlords, it's their
> > fault. Oh, by the way, did you see those Knicks last night, blew another game..." I
> > bet Ethiopia would be hip-deep in Marines if Hillary C. was lost somewhere in-country.
>
> That is the point. Since nobody we know is stuck there, and we didn't have anything to do
> with creating the situation, its none of my business at this point.
>
The parable of the Good Samaritan teaches me that one day I may need some unknown person's
help. Besides with the technology and power which will soon be available to the average postal
worker ;-) wouldn't we all stand a better chance of living if 100% of the world was looking out
for our survival vs some lesser amount?. I wonder if a study (game theory) was done to see
which attitude was more benefical to survival?
> If the people there want my help, they should a) ask for it,
Sometimes they are unable or not allowed or just ignorant.
> b) have something to offer in return for my help,
You would get at least that person's undying love, admiration, and respect (and mine too).
> Instead, these people refuse our help until things are royally screwed up, and then beg for
> our help. When we come in and perform political/economic triage to fix things, they start
> protesting, bombing, and demanding we leave. Seems too many people don't like the saying
> "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it".
I agree. People who are screwed up, usually don't change their behavior.
Mark Miloscia