I agree with Mike wholeheartedly. The vast majority of charities are mostly self-serving, using donations to support their own administration rather than going to the cause they promote (cnn/2013/06/13/us/worst-charities/). And those charities formed in the name of a disease usually send funds to sufferers of the disease to ease pain and discomfort, which is all well and good if thats your cause. But Id rather donate to organizations actually pursuing a cure. ALSA does get pretty good marks from charity watchdogs and does advertise that theyre funding research for a cure. So thats great. But of all the places I can concentrate my charity, ALS still doesnt rank highly for me. My time and resources are limited. I prefer to focus my efforts on raising awareness for the things Im passionate about, including economic freedom, gun rights, educational freedom, non-interventionism, the dangers of creeping tyranny, monetary and financial system instability, general preparedness, etc. 260 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments (democide). A further 100 million were killed in war. Tens of millions died from famine and exposure due to collapsed economies from hyperinflation and communism. Billions were suppressed under tyranny. This is all eminently preventable if the people are aware and active in preventing government excesses. In terms of diseases, ALS is responsible for about 5,000 American deaths per year. But heart disease is responsible for 600,000 American deaths per year, COPD another 143,000, and diabetes another 74,000. If I wanted to donate $100 to a health-related charity, it would have to be for a charity concentrating on curing metabolic syndrome (a term for the inter-connected diseases which include the above three big killers), and thats if I wanted to just do some token measure to make myself feel better. But Im doing more than that. Ive done extensive research on the causes of metabolic syndrome, applied the findings to myself -- I had been on a trajectory to suffering and probably dying from it -- and essentially cured myself of all symptoms. Now I spend untold time and resources trying to help people directly. The ice bucket challenge is clever marketing come viral fad. I think people do it more as an excuse to post a video of themselves online and to connect with people than for the charity, but it also has the moral licensing downside that Mike describes. If you think youve done your part for your fellow human beings because you posted a video of yourself dumping ice water on your head, then that is sad. Congrats to ALSA on raising $100 million through this campaign, but why trademark the tactic? Why not let other charities also copy it? And for those who contributed, why not do some cursory research into the highest priority charities you could support? We hear about ALS and breast cancer and prostate cancer and a few others which have clever marketing (often spending more money on marketing than on the subject of their charity), but in terms of human impact, there are bigger fish to fry. So I will not be participating in the ice bucket challenge. Apologies to my niece Julia who challenged me in her video (even though I previously said I wouldnt be doing it). I appreciate the thought of inclusion in this social phenomenon, but I prefer to dedicate my efforts elsewhere. And if you think I probably could have just dumped ice water on my head and written a check in the time it took me to write this, then youve missed the point. Its about being thoughtfully engaged in a cause, not just following the latest fad.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:48:17 +0000