Live Earth -make a difference or not?

Due to the July 7 global Live Earth concerts, and the recent U.K-based concert to commemorate what would have been Princess Diana's 46th birthday, people are reminiscing about "Bandaid," "We Are the World" and other large-scale musical fundarisers of the past.  You may have even been physically-present for such events.

The point is efforts raised awareness about specific humane and environmental causes.  Why is it that after a given event is over and money raised by selling tickets, CDs downloads, or whatever, that people tend to forget about the reasons why they supported the cause in the first place? Does this mean people don't take causes  or their recent reactions very seriously?

Madonna, who performed at Wembley Stadium as part of the Live Earth, thanked Al Gore "for giving the world the wake-up call it so badly needs and for starting an avalanche of awareness that we are running out of time". She added: "Lets hope tonight's concert and the concerts going on around the world are not just about entertainment but starting a revolution around the world."

You and other people see images of environmental and other and crisis fly by on tv screens or broadcast on radio. Ask yourself how can people become so desensitized and still go about their lives as they always have? Ask yourself how your choices have changed as the result of high-profile musical fundraisers.

Which personal habits, patterns and lifestyle choices have you noticed in yourself that contribute to a bigger global problem? How would you desire them to change? What will you do to make a difference? What are you already doing that is measurable and benefits others toward positive change?

Comments

[Mark]

I think there's at least a couple of reasons why people go about their lives despite knowing about the vast issues that face us all. One is the concept of the Monkey Sphere (www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html). That those people not considered "known" to us, are generally faceless and therefore not subject to the same concerns and compassion which apply to our "Monkey Sphere".

The other is similar; the non-linear relationship between the scale of an event, and our reaction to that event. Generally, if one person dies in a way we see as unfair and unjust, it's a fairly tragic event. But if it's 100 people, it's far more tragic. If it's 10,000 people, it's more tragic, but not 100 times more. If 10,000,000 people die, again it's not 1000 times more tragic that the previous. And if all of humanity perish, it doesn't seem to cause the emotional anguish we might think such a thought would cause.

As for me, there's always more that I could be doing.

[Liara Covert]

Numbers of people affected by crisis and hardship may influence a person's reaction, assuming that person has a conscience or feels connected. You may be more affected by frequent images, discussing a crisis, and whether you know whomever suffers. Some people may also become increasingly de-sensitized to suffering wherever it is, even in their own backyard.

Consider as of July 2007, official American casualties
in the Iraq War are listed as 26,695 and its estimated reality is 23,000-100,000.
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

Compare these losses to the annual statistics about serious crimes in the U.S. up to 2005 (Violence, Property, Murder, Rape, Robbery, assault, Burglary and Theft) which are much higher but get less media attention. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

We all make priorities, decide what we choose to perceive, what we consider illusion or exaggeration, what we consider to be worth our time and focus. Each of us decides what is meaningful and when. Each of us also decides our own reactions.