This is a BIG if. IF anyone didn't help the tsunami victims, what would happen?
Discuss. Politely.
Tsunami...
by Country Girl 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
outbutnotdown
It certainly is a BIG if.... and it might be why there have not been immediate responses.
Whew, what to suggest and not to suggest......
There would be much more disease than there will be, since much help has been given, in the way of medical supplies and water.
So much more we could say. I will just say that there are some who will suggest that they are great for helping.... others that will do it anonymously, and thus show, IMO, the truest form of giving.
I will say that I haven't given anything yet. I say that not to condemn myself nor to pretend to be the poor widow type of person. I applaud all those who have given and will give. My mind and bank account are occupied with issues that are directly related to my family and they take precedence. It does not mean that I haven't given some of my spirit to the victims and to the very kind people, like those here, who have done more than I can, directly.
I think the fact that your BIG if question did not become reality is that all humans are connected by a certain spirit.
People will help those closest to them. I almost don't want to bring up the JW thing, but I feel that it is warranted. As a JW, only JW's are close to us. It doesn't seem to cross their mind that they should help non-JW's.... we have seen it in their letters released about how only five or so JW's died. I saw the same thing with 9/11.. they felt that them having to see 3,000 people die was traumatic for them.. forget about the victims..... JW's are always the victims, in their own minds........ thank "God" that we are not ALL JW's.
Brad
-
Simon
Hundreds of thousands of people would die from disease and everyone who could have helpwed but didn't would be pretty ashamed I think.
Long term things like that can lead to conflict (look at N.Ireland where lack of help during a potato famine is still cited as a grievance).
Look at it another way ...
How much luck will recruiters of terrorism have with those people in 20 years time trying to tell them that America is the Great Satan and should be destroyed if they remember as kids getting blankets and food as a gift from America when they needed it most?
Trust me, it is cheaper and more effective than all the arms and bombs that money can buy. The only people who lose are arms dealers and their pet politicians.
-
Country Girl
What I was really wondering, both of you, is IF there was no help available, would those cultures just be WIPED OUT, or would they move up into more Northern climes and assimilate. I am not trying to establish a what if scenario, I guess NOW.. but if it were to happen just without the rest of the world participating; as if it were to happen naturally, would those cultures be forgotten and wiped out, or would some of the survivors go North and assimilate? I know this has happened before. Maybe not on such a scale, but what happened then? Can anybody point me to some more literature that would pre-suppose, or actually have data of something like a tsunami that happened on this scale earlier in time, when there was not the technology that we have now...
CG
-
wednesday
Yes, if this had happened a century or more ago or more, when we did not have modern communication and the ability to get help to people, the survivng people probably would have gotten the "hell out of dodge" as they say. I wish my hubby was awake, he is a history buff and could probaby give u some actual examples of this happening.
-
Country Girl
I will say that I haven't given anything yet. I say that not to condemn myself nor to pretend to be the poor widow type of person. I applaud all those who have given and will give. My mind and bank account are occupied with issues that are directly related to my family and they take precedence. It does not mean that I haven't given some of my spirit to the victims and to the very kind people, like those here, who have done more than I can, directly.
I think the fact that your BIG if question did not become reality is that all humans are connected by a certain spirit.
And thankful I am of that! Yes, us humans are like a giant spider web just connected, and a little tiny dub on one strand can affect the whole world. I believe in that. I have faith in that. I don't care how much money you gave, or how much time you gave. That's between you and God. What counts is that you cared about it. You cared enough to think about it. So did others, and that, to me, is very much significant. You felt the dub on your strand.
Country Girl
-
outbutnotdown
CG,
I see the other part of your reason for asking the question.
I would never show the lack of concern that others have posted here regarding how they were too close to the water and therefore "deserved" to die. That having been said, your comments on whether they, if they had not been helped out at all, would just move is a very interesting topic.
I am not a doomsday type of person. Life is beautiful and I love it. I do think, however that humans are very slowly adjusting their lifestyle to fit the Earth's plans that IT has for us. I don't think we can populate as quickly as we have in the past and go on forever. "God" does not need to step in. Men have already started to do so.
In the West, we have gotten over the baby-boom urge and we are self-regulating our population fairly well. IMO, it will likely go even further, with people realizing that one very well cared for child is better off than even two. Humans have never really had a problem with preventing conception, just the killing of those lives AFTER the birth. It is not a huge step, IMO, for the world to cummulatively agree to "prevent" births on a much grander scale.
I respect the fact that every parent that lost a child in Asia is hurting. Their pain cannot be prevented. What can be prevented later is mass loss by simply "moving" to safer places and creating a mindset where 2-3 kids is normal instead of 10.
I have four kids....... I know...... I go against even the present-day North American average, but my point is that I would protect each of my children's lives to the point of dying, if I had to, but I would have also accepted that for the good of humanity, if I was only allowed one child rather than four.
Unfortunately it seems to take great disasters for even the victims to adjust their habits. The world will love, care and support the victims directly and indirectly, with this tragedy. The indirect portion will likely be a long and gradual lifestyle change.
Brad
-
Country Girl
CG,
I see the other part of your reason for asking the question. Thank heavens, I thought I was the only nut. heheheh
I would never show the lack of concern that others have posted here regarding how they were too close to the water and therefore "deserved" to die. That having been said, your comments on whether they, if they had not been helped out at all, would just move is a very interesting topic. I thought it was, assuming that all the population would just move to higher ground, but it looks as if as bunch of them are going to stay. I was quite surprised to read that they had not read "the signs." Alot of the people were saying that the wild animals were moving up into the mountains/forests. In San Francisco, supposedly, when you see a rise in LOST animals, there is going to be an earthquake. There was lots of articles about how the exotics in Sri Lanka moved to higher ground. I was thinking that these people live so close to these animals, how could they not notice? But you have to understand that I am really involved with animals. I dunno.. I was just thinking.. if you lived along the beach, and you saw this big wave come in/and out.. and go OUT OUT OUT.. then you might kinda get scared..
I am not a doomsday type of person. Life is beautiful and I love it. I do think, however that humans are very slowly adjusting their lifestyle to fit the Earth's plans that IT has for us. TOTALLY AGREE.
I don't think we can populate as quickly as we have in the past and go on forever. "God" does not need to step in. Men have already started to do so.
In the West, we have gotten over the baby-boom urge and we are self-regulating our population fairly well. IMO, it will likely go even further, with people realizing that one very well cared for child is better off than even two. Humans have never really had a problem with preventing conception, just the killing of those lives AFTER the birth. It is not a huge step, IMO, for the world to cummulatively agree to "prevent" births on a much grander scale.
I respect the fact that every parent that lost a child in Asia is hurting. Their pain cannot be prevented. What can be prevented later is mass loss by simply "moving" to safer places and creating a mindset where 2-3 kids is normal instead of 10.
I have four kids....... I know...... I go against even the present-day North American average, but my point is that I would protect each of my children's lives to the point of dying, if I had to, but I would have also accepted that for the good of humanity, if I was only allowed one child rather than four.
Unfortunately it seems to take great disasters for even the victims to adjust their habits. The world will love, care and support the victims directly and indirectly, with this tragedy. The indirect portion will likely be a long and gradual lifestyle change.
Brad
YER PRETTY DAMNED SMART BRAD
-
Eyebrow2
Hell, I have five kids...it's like having tires..you need at least one spare.
No, just kidding,...seriously...I often think about something similiar when there are hurricaines in the US and rich people lose their beautiful seaside houses...and FEMA pays...how stupid...it happens every few years...when are people going to RESPECT nature and not build a house on every available piece of dirt next to the ocean???
But...this of course is not the same as what happend with the Tsunami. Most of these poor people that lived next to the sea, and were out working it respect nature, and their lives depend on it. What I think should change is the warning system, or should I say LACK OF warning system. The sad thing about this is that while there probably would have been a great loss of life, it should have never been as bad as it was. There was actually people going close to the ocean to see the big waves...they had no idea what they were really looking at. As soon as the earthquake was picked up, apparantly there was an effort for warnings to be sent out...but there was no systemized way to do this to contact the areas that were involved quick enough, or at all.
I am not sure really the issue of birth control played that major a role in the numbers that died. Yeah, if everyone couple only had 1 or 2 kids, then maybe there would be fewer locals dead. But how do you know that might have just meant that there wouldn't have been more Tourists there?. Maybe to some degree, but still, I don't know. I did read of one mother that lost all 11 children...I cannot even imagine her pain. I come from a family of 11 kids. I do believe that a couple shouldn't have more kids than they can handle, or will work in their culture. If I was in China I know I probably wouldn't be bucking an maternal trends there hahah.
So...after a long and rambling post (it is after 4am...and i have been up all night with kid #5 who is still sick)...I guess what I would like to see changed is the technology to warn people of these Tsunamis better. It is a case of respect nature, and get the hell out of the way when necessary.
Interesting question! =)
-
Country Girl
You know Eyebrow.. there is actually technology out there that exists for this. The Indian Ocean didn't have it, unfortunately. Hopefully, the UN will see it in their power to put this out there. Oh.. by the way.. thanks for sharing so much.. I loved it.
CG