• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sarah McLachlan's $150,000 music video

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Toasthead
Originally posted by: Orsorum
The more we take the less we become
The fortune of one man means less for some

I love Sarah McLachlan, but I disagree with this lyric in particular. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated enormous sums of money to philanthropic causes around the world, because of this man's fortune this money gets distributed to charitable causes around the world. Just one example. 🙂

Thats the same as to me giving 50 cents to a bum on the street.

Actually, no it's not.

Organized charity is set up to help people help themselves. Giving money to individual bums simply perpetuates their poverty.

And, again, it is our very economic success that allows us to be so charitable. Were we all to take vows of poverty, we wouldn't have anything to be charitable with.
 
Nice video concept.

Though the reality of charity cases is much worse than any amount of money will ever be able to solve. Just giving starving people does not solve any problems, it only makes them worse. The first world turning these people into charity cases and giving them what they need to life just facilitates the continued starvation and the starvation of the ballooning population their homeland resources cannot currently support.

By giving these people food you just keep them alive to stave another day, and then undoubtedly reproduce so another generation can starve. Their food and natural resources obviously cannot support their population and unless that is somehow changed they will NEVER be satiated. The more you give to these cases results in you having to continue to give more and more in order to sustain their lives. So you end up supporting the life of a group of people that will have died off due to lack of resources. Why not just bring them all to america and set them up with welfare? That is essentially what you are doing, but you do it on their homeland and you call it "charity".

The harsh reality is that their populations are far above and beyond what their country can support and no amount of charity is going to change that. In order for their situation to improve their population has to decrease and that will NEVER happen when the first world is pouring money into sustaining their lives. It may be cruel, but these people have to learn how to run themselves, and that is going to take a lot of death. It's really more cruel to have them depend on us giving them what they need to live, just to watch them starve the next day.
Their population to resources ratio is so far out of whack that there is nothing you can do to "save" them all.
 
Originally posted by: SampSon
Nice video concept.

Though the reality of charity cases is much worse than any amount of money will ever be able to solve. Just giving starving people does not solve any problems, it only makes them worse. The first world turning these people into charity cases and giving them what they need to life just facilitates the continued starvation and the starvation of the ballooning population their homeland resources cannot currently support.

By giving these people food you just keep them alive to stave another day, and then undoubtedly reproduce so another generation can starve. Their food and natural resources obviously cannot support their population and unless that is somehow changed they will NEVER be satiated. The more you give to these cases results in you having to continue to give more and more in order to sustain their lives. So you end up supporting the life of a group of people that will have died off due to lack of resources. Why not just bring them all to america and set them up with welfare? That is essentially what you are doing, but you do it on their homeland and you call it "charity".

The harsh reality is that their populations are far above and beyond what their country can support and no amount of charity is going to change that. In order for their situation to improve their population has to decrease and that will NEVER happen when the first world is pouring money into sustaining their lives. It may be cruel, but these people have to learn how to run themselves, and that is going to take a lot of death. It's really more cruel to have them depend on us giving them what they need to live, just to watch them starve the next day.
Their population to resources ratio is so far out of whack that there is nothing you can do to "save" them all.
I'm glad somebody could say this.
 
Originally posted by: SampSon
Nice video concept.

Though the reality of charity cases is much worse than any amount of money will ever be able to solve. Just giving starving people does not solve any problems, it only makes them worse. The first world turning these people into charity cases and giving them what they need to life just facilitates the continued starvation and the starvation of the ballooning population their homeland resources cannot currently support.

By giving these people food you just keep them alive to stave another day, and then undoubtedly reproduce so another generation can starve. Their food and natural resources obviously cannot support their population and unless that is somehow changed they will NEVER be satiated. The more you give to these cases results in you having to continue to give more and more in order to sustain their lives. So you end up supporting the life of a group of people that will have died off due to lack of resources. Why not just bring them all to america and set them up with welfare? That is essentially what you are doing, but you do it on their homeland and you call it "charity".

The harsh reality is that their populations are far above and beyond what their country can support and no amount of charity is going to change that. In order for their situation to improve their population has to decrease and that will NEVER happen when the first world is pouring money into sustaining their lives. It may be cruel, but these people have to learn how to run themselves, and that is going to take a lot of death. It's really more cruel to have them depend on us giving them what they need to live, just to watch them starve the next day.
Their population to resources ratio is so far out of whack that there is nothing you can do to "save" them all.

ever heard of AIDS?
 
Unless everyone worked for free on that video, it cost a lot more than $15.

I'd say it cost around $200k and they donated $150k to the charities and used ~$50k for the rest of it.
 
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: SampSon
Nice video concept.

Though the reality of charity cases is much worse than any amount of money will ever be able to solve. Just giving starving people does not solve any problems, it only makes them worse. The first world turning these people into charity cases and giving them what they need to life just facilitates the continued starvation and the starvation of the ballooning population their homeland resources cannot currently support.

By giving these people food you just keep them alive to stave another day, and then undoubtedly reproduce so another generation can starve. Their food and natural resources obviously cannot support their population and unless that is somehow changed they will NEVER be satiated. The more you give to these cases results in you having to continue to give more and more in order to sustain their lives. So you end up supporting the life of a group of people that will have died off due to lack of resources. Why not just bring them all to america and set them up with welfare? That is essentially what you are doing, but you do it on their homeland and you call it "charity".

The harsh reality is that their populations are far above and beyond what their country can support and no amount of charity is going to change that. In order for their situation to improve their population has to decrease and that will NEVER happen when the first world is pouring money into sustaining their lives. It may be cruel, but these people have to learn how to run themselves, and that is going to take a lot of death. It's really more cruel to have them depend on us giving them what they need to live, just to watch them starve the next day.
Their population to resources ratio is so far out of whack that there is nothing you can do to "save" them all.

ever heard of AIDS?
Sure were pouring money into medical help for nations with AIDS epidemics. Instead of them dieing off like they should, we are keeping them alive so they have the chance to reproduce and pass that wonderful disease along to the next generation.

We should stay out of their affairs all together.
 
Originally posted by: SampSon
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: SampSon
Nice video concept.

Though the reality of charity cases is much worse than any amount of money will ever be able to solve. Just giving starving people does not solve any problems, it only makes them worse. The first world turning these people into charity cases and giving them what they need to life just facilitates the continued starvation and the starvation of the ballooning population their homeland resources cannot currently support.

By giving these people food you just keep them alive to stave another day, and then undoubtedly reproduce so another generation can starve. Their food and natural resources obviously cannot support their population and unless that is somehow changed they will NEVER be satiated. The more you give to these cases results in you having to continue to give more and more in order to sustain their lives. So you end up supporting the life of a group of people that will have died off due to lack of resources. Why not just bring them all to america and set them up with welfare? That is essentially what you are doing, but you do it on their homeland and you call it "charity".

The harsh reality is that their populations are far above and beyond what their country can support and no amount of charity is going to change that. In order for their situation to improve their population has to decrease and that will NEVER happen when the first world is pouring money into sustaining their lives. It may be cruel, but these people have to learn how to run themselves, and that is going to take a lot of death. It's really more cruel to have them depend on us giving them what they need to live, just to watch them starve the next day.
Their population to resources ratio is so far out of whack that there is nothing you can do to "save" them all.

ever heard of AIDS?
Sure were pouring money into medical help for nations with AIDS epidemics. Instead of them dieing off like they should, we are keeping them alive so they have the chance to reproduce and pass that wonderful disease along to the next generation.

We should stay out of their affairs all together.

this is the sort of arrogant, isolationist mindset that makes so much of the world hate america. We are a stupid, spoiled, lazy culture that somehow thinks we deserve the prosperity we enjoy even if it comes at the expense of everyone else on the planet.

but i digress... see this is what happens when you take a vacation outside the country (just got back from the middle east on Sunday). 😉
 
Originally posted by: Stark

this is the sort of arrogant, isolationist mindset that makes so much of the world hate america. We are a stupid, spoiled, lazy culture that somehow thinks we deserve the prosperity we enjoy even if it comes at the expense of everyone else on the planet.

but i digress... see this is what happens when you take a vacation outside the country (just got back from the middle east on Sunday). 😉

WTF??? while I do not agree with him on AIDS in Africa, how the fsck do you go from that to our success coming at the expense of others?

Our success is SOLELY at the expense of hard work and determination of the American people over the last 200+ years.

The idea that Americans are stupid, spoiled and lazy is pure BS. You don't become the most powerful economic, political and military superpower on the planet by being stupid, spoiled and lazy.

Again, the trendy self loathing among young Americans continues to amaze me.
 
Because of this video, 20 studio stage hands probably lost their jobs since there was no video to produce... 😉

It's nice to see a different video for a change, but once you get beyond the initial emotional reaction and really think about the problem, it's easy to see the fallacy from such a simplified view.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Stark

this is the sort of arrogant, isolationist mindset that makes so much of the world hate america. We are a stupid, spoiled, lazy culture that somehow thinks we deserve the prosperity we enjoy even if it comes at the expense of everyone else on the planet.

but i digress... see this is what happens when you take a vacation outside the country (just got back from the middle east on Sunday). 😉

WTF??? while I do not agree with him an AIDS in Africa, how the fsck do you go from that to our success coming at the expense of others?

Our success is SOLELY at the expense of hard work and determination of the American people over the last 200+ years.

The idea that Americans are stupid, spoiled and lazy is pure BS. You don't become the most powerful economic, political and military superpower on the planet by being stupid, spoiled and lazy.

Again, the trendy self loathing among young Americans continues to amaze me.


Please, our success is from the success of multimillion dollar corporations who do whatever it takes to make a profit GOO WORLD BANK!
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Stark

this is the sort of arrogant, isolationist mindset that makes so much of the world hate america. We are a stupid, spoiled, lazy culture that somehow thinks we deserve the prosperity we enjoy even if it comes at the expense of everyone else on the planet.

but i digress... see this is what happens when you take a vacation outside the country (just got back from the middle east on Sunday). 😉

WTF??? while I do not agree with him on AIDS in Africa, how the fsck do you go from that to our success coming at the expense of others?

Our success is SOLELY at the expense of hard work and determination of the American people over the last 200+ years.

The idea that Americans are stupid, spoiled and lazy is pure BS. You don't become the most powerful economic, political and military superpower on the planet by being stupid, spoiled and lazy.

Again, the trendy self loathing among young Americans continues to amaze me.

while capitalism and representative democracy have proven to be the best system of government on the planet, the truth is that we've had a huge, unspoiled, resource-plentiful continent to exploit with minimal competition at just the right point in history (reaping all the benefits of the Industrial Revolution).

to say that people in developing countries not lucky enough to be born in a place like the US deserve to die of AIDS and starvation, IMO, is the ultimate example of American arrogance.

If you honestly compare what we've accomplished to the empires of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and Rome, we really are just babes in the grand history of civilization.
 
Originally posted by: Francodman
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Stark

this is the sort of arrogant, isolationist mindset that makes so much of the world hate america. We are a stupid, spoiled, lazy culture that somehow thinks we deserve the prosperity we enjoy even if it comes at the expense of everyone else on the planet.

but i digress... see this is what happens when you take a vacation outside the country (just got back from the middle east on Sunday). 😉

WTF??? while I do not agree with him an AIDS in Africa, how the fsck do you go from that to our success coming at the expense of others?

Our success is SOLELY at the expense of hard work and determination of the American people over the last 200+ years.

The idea that Americans are stupid, spoiled and lazy is pure BS. You don't become the most powerful economic, political and military superpower on the planet by being stupid, spoiled and lazy.

Again, the trendy self loathing among young Americans continues to amaze me.


Please, our success is from the success of multimillion dollar corporations who do whatever it takes to make a profit GOO WORLD BANK!

Good GAWD, WTF are they teaching people in schools?

ANY company, small or large, MUST do whatever it takes to turn a profit or they will fail.

Again, altruism is a failure. Forced altruism is slavery.

You cannot have charity without something to give. You cannot have something to give unless you have the ability to succeed financially.

Grow the fsck up and realize that people have been, and always will be out for themselves first and foremost. You are, otherwise you wouldn't have fallen for the anti-corporate blather they feed you in school... which is just BS designed to feed off your jealousy disguised as moral indignation.
 
Originally posted by: Stark
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Stark

this is the sort of arrogant, isolationist mindset that makes so much of the world hate america. We are a stupid, spoiled, lazy culture that somehow thinks we deserve the prosperity we enjoy even if it comes at the expense of everyone else on the planet.

but i digress... see this is what happens when you take a vacation outside the country (just got back from the middle east on Sunday). 😉

WTF??? while I do not agree with him on AIDS in Africa, how the fsck do you go from that to our success coming at the expense of others?

Our success is SOLELY at the expense of hard work and determination of the American people over the last 200+ years.

The idea that Americans are stupid, spoiled and lazy is pure BS. You don't become the most powerful economic, political and military superpower on the planet by being stupid, spoiled and lazy.

Again, the trendy self loathing among young Americans continues to amaze me.

while capitalism and representative democracy have proven to be the best system of government on the planet, the truth is that we've had a huge, unspoiled, resource-plentiful continent to exploit with minimal competition at just the right point in history (reaping all the benefits of the Industrial Revolution).

to say that people in developing countries not lucky enough to be born in a place like the US deserve to die of AIDS and starvation, IMO, is the ultimate example of American arrogance.

If you honestly compare what we've accomplished to the empires of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and Rome, we really are just babes in the grand history of civilization.

I said I disagreed with his stance on AIDS. Why would you then try to counter my point using the very issue I disagree with?

We reaped the benefits of our own hard work. This revisionism in the name of white liberal guilt is really silly. Our colleges teach a self loathing that I cannot begin to understand.
 
the counter was to the earler post I originally replied to.

every empire is built on "hard work." that factor alone is not enough to explain our position as the last superpower. we have also been extremely fortunate and/or blessed.
the question is, what's wrong with sharing these blessings with others less fortunate?

BTW, I completely agree with James Burnham's quote: "Liberalism [is the] philosophy of Western suicide."
 
Originally posted by: SampSon
Nice video concept.

Though the reality of charity cases is much worse than any amount of money will ever be able to solve. Just giving starving people does not solve any problems, it only makes them worse. The first world turning these people into charity cases and giving them what they need to life just facilitates the continued starvation and the starvation of the ballooning population their homeland resources cannot currently support.

By giving these people food you just keep them alive to stave another day, and then undoubtedly reproduce so another generation can starve. Their food and natural resources obviously cannot support their population and unless that is somehow changed they will NEVER be satiated. The more you give to these cases results in you having to continue to give more and more in order to sustain their lives. So you end up supporting the life of a group of people that will have died off due to lack of resources. Why not just bring them all to america and set them up with welfare? That is essentially what you are doing, but you do it on their homeland and you call it "charity".

The harsh reality is that their populations are far above and beyond what their country can support and no amount of charity is going to change that. In order for their situation to improve their population has to decrease and that will NEVER happen when the first world is pouring money into sustaining their lives. It may be cruel, but these people have to learn how to run themselves, and that is going to take a lot of death. It's really more cruel to have them depend on us giving them what they need to live, just to watch them starve the next day.
Their population to resources ratio is so far out of whack that there is nothing you can do to "save" them all.

Not all charity is about feeding the poor. Some are for educating them so they might do something worth while with their life.

Teach a man to fish...

You're right on 'feeding' the poor.
 
Originally posted by: Stark
the counter was to the earler post I originally replied to.

every empire is built on "hard work." that factor alone is not enough to explain our position as the last superpower. we have also been extremely fortunate and/or blessed.
the question is, what's wrong with sharing these blessings with others less fortunate?

BTW, I completely agree with James Burnham's quote: "Liberalism [is the] philosophy of Western suicide."

I am successful and very charitable. However, my choice in charities leans towards those charities that help people help themselves, rather than simply "feeding the hungry."

Good fortune is made, not found. And I do not believe in "blessings." Our position as the last superpower is explained through a combination of the genius of our founding fathers, and individual self determination of our people. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Originally posted by: Stark
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Stark

this is the sort of arrogant, isolationist mindset that makes so much of the world hate america. We are a stupid, spoiled, lazy culture that somehow thinks we deserve the prosperity we enjoy even if it comes at the expense of everyone else on the planet.

but i digress... see this is what happens when you take a vacation outside the country (just got back from the middle east on Sunday). 😉

WTF??? while I do not agree with him on AIDS in Africa, how the fsck do you go from that to our success coming at the expense of others?

Our success is SOLELY at the expense of hard work and determination of the American people over the last 200+ years.

The idea that Americans are stupid, spoiled and lazy is pure BS. You don't become the most powerful economic, political and military superpower on the planet by being stupid, spoiled and lazy.

Again, the trendy self loathing among young Americans continues to amaze me.

while capitalism and representative democracy have proven to be the best system of government on the planet, the truth is that we've had a huge, unspoiled, resource-plentiful continent to exploit with minimal competition at just the right point in history (reaping all the benefits of the Industrial Revolution).

to say that people in developing countries not lucky enough to be born in a place like the US deserve to die of AIDS and starvation, IMO, is the ultimate example of American arrogance.

If you honestly compare what we've accomplished to the empires of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and Rome, we really are just babes in the grand history of civilization.
Why do you pull out the "americans are fat, stupid and lazy" bullshit? Worthless argument.

That stance is hardly arrogant or isolationist. All of these countries hate America and want them to stay out of their affairs until something happens. Then the first entity they run to is America. They want America to stay out of their business, but when they need them they want America to pour money into them and help them. You can't have your cake and eat it too. These countries set themselves up to hate America.

I never stated that I think people deserve to die from AIDS and starvation because they arn't on this continent. What I did say is that their resources are not sufficient to support their population. The only ways to fix that are to magically increase their natural resources, or decrease their population. You cannot argue against that. Of course America is expected to step up to the plate and make that happen. Where exactly is the rest of the world?

What I find amusing is that Africa harbors some of the oldest civilizations on the planet, yet they still havn't managed to get their sh!t together after all these years. It's not America's fault they can't rule themselves worth a damn. It's also not America's responsibility to do it for them. It's not America's responsiblity to feed, clothe and educate the rest of the world.

America wasn't "blessed" with a goddamned thing. It is just like every other stretch of earth on the planet, it has its ups and downs in natural resources. By your logic the middle east was "blessed" with insane amounts of oil, so why don't they share it for free? That would be the right thing to do, correct? In that case every country in the world should freely share their resources just because they have them and others don't, right? Well lets just have ourselves a cute little global communist circle jerk then.

Not all charity is about feeding the poor. Some are for educating them so they might do something worth while with their life.

Teach a man to fish...

You're right on 'feeding' the poor.
Yes I'm more inclined to support charities that educate. That is of course the ideal situation. Though at the same time our educational system is getting worse by the day. Take care of your own first, or there will be nothing left.

Where is the rest of the global community when it comes to these educational charities? Why is America expected to pick up nearly all the slack? Setting up educational systems to support entire countries is a monumental task that no single nation should ever be asked to do.

I'm not implying that I want these poverty stricken people to starve and die of AIDS. I am saying that population control most likely needs to happen or the problem will never be solved. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. Totally solving the problems of the poverty stricken is nearly impossible. They have to help themselves before we can really truly make a difference. Until that time we are just feeding the fire.
 
Originally posted by: SampSon
Nice video concept.

Though the reality of charity cases is much worse than any amount of money will ever be able to solve. Just giving starving people does not solve any problems, it only makes them worse. The first world turning these people into charity cases and giving them what they need to life just facilitates the continued starvation and the starvation of the ballooning population their homeland resources cannot currently support.

By giving these people food you just keep them alive to stave another day, and then undoubtedly reproduce so another generation can starve. Their food and natural resources obviously cannot support their population and unless that is somehow changed they will NEVER be satiated. The more you give to these cases results in you having to continue to give more and more in order to sustain their lives. So you end up supporting the life of a group of people that will have died off due to lack of resources. Why not just bring them all to america and set them up with welfare? That is essentially what you are doing, but you do it on their homeland and you call it "charity".

The harsh reality is that their populations are far above and beyond what their country can support and no amount of charity is going to change that. In order for their situation to improve their population has to decrease and that will NEVER happen when the first world is pouring money into sustaining their lives. It may be cruel, but these people have to learn how to run themselves, and that is going to take a lot of death. It's really more cruel to have them depend on us giving them what they need to live, just to watch them starve the next day.
Their population to resources ratio is so far out of whack that there is nothing you can do to "save" them all.

That's why education is so key in this, as is providing the infrastructure (physical, economic, and political) to support upward mobility as a society. You're correct, just throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it, but providing funding for well thought out causes is a step in the right direction.
 
Good fortune is made, not found. And I do not believe in "blessings." Our position as the last superpower is explained through a combination of the genius of our founding fathers, and individual self determination of our people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Our success is SOLELY at the expense of hard work and determination of the American people over the last 200+ years.

The idea that Americans are stupid, spoiled and lazy is pure BS. You don't become the most powerful economic, political and military superpower on the planet by being stupid, spoiled and lazy.
America wasn't "blessed" with a goddamned thing. It is just like every other stretch of earth on the planet, it has its ups and downs in natural resources
You are not America. Don't fool yourself into thinking you've somehow earned your status over the poor in third world countries by being smarter or harder working. You owe your success entirely to America for providing you with an incredible opportunity - not to worry about housing, food, and disease while receiving a free world class education.

People in places like India and China work many times harder to get the same opportunities that were left on your doorstep. People in Africa and other third world countries don't have this opportunity AT ALL. What is so wrong with providing them the chance?
 
Originally posted by: aswedc
People in Africa and other third world countries don't have this opportunity AT ALL. What is so wrong with providing them the chance?

They, as a country, have to provide THEMSELVES with a chance. That starts with a stable, constitutional government, a loss of archaic social restrictions, and individual freedom.

That cannot be done for them. Giving them things wont make it better.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: aswedc
People in Africa and other third world countries don't have this opportunity AT ALL. What is so wrong with providing them the chance?

They, as a country, have to provide THEMSELVES with a chance. That starts with a stable, constitutional government, a loss of archaic social restrictions, and individual freedom.

That cannot be done for them. Giving them things wont make it better.
By doing what? You expect the common population to overthrow corrupt regimes that are currently supplied or were supplied by the West/Middle East/Asia? With what, knives and spare AKs from the street market?

You expect the men to leave their families to starve while joining some suicide revolution?

Funny, we don't seem to have much trouble giving the Iraqis better lives. In Africa it's five times easier.

 
Back
Top