My partner Em worries about things she cannot change, at least not by her small participation in them. Problems with humanity, problems that can be solved but never are, mainly because nobody with the power to is willing to take the steps, or exert the influence, that could make a difference. I often think about these social and environmental maladies also, but I take a different approach, I nothing them. Where I can do, I do do, where I cannot do, I ignore or merely acknowledge. A healthy amount of indifference is the tactic I employ toward subjects I cannot in any meaningful way influence, though that does not prevent me from reading George Monbiot and getting angry, or maybe writing about them myself.
You see I am powerless, as likely you are too, and it’s very likely the same for many people, that they are worried by the realities they see on TV or read in the press, but cannot be meaningful participants in the remediation.
Peter Singer asks
“if you were to come across a pond with a drowning child in it, and you decided not to help because your clothes were new and you had somewhere to be in a hurry, knowing that you are not responsible for the drowning and owe nothing to the child, would you be doing the wrong thing?”
Singer then further asks
“is this not what we do as a society when we can help to relieve the suffering of children all over the world but we choose not to give what we have, or to participate in any action that would achieve such a goal?”
Now the reason why this is such an interesting line of questioning is that Singer is a Utilitarian who believes that when you can help, you should. Meaning that inaction is not excusable by the situation being somewhat complex; the immediacy of one scenario, and the distance of the other, have no relevance if the implication is the same.
An argument to this would be to state that participation to save the child is something that can be done because the need is right there in front of you. Singer may not accept that however. His is an implications theory, one where each action, or inaction, has a relevance on outcomes we see every day, and we don’t get to avoid or wash our hands of our participation in them. Personally I like this, but for practicality and the sake of the conscience there must be some healthy indifference, lest each person be weighed down so much by their feeling of responsibility that they could not be effective in their own lives.
Other strategies are available…
“I don’t give A shit. At one point, you go, I’m way closer to dead than I am life of the party, and I don’t have children, so why am I getting so enraged about all this nonsense? I don’t care. I don’t care getting all upset about the fucking planet. I’m gone pretty soon. I left no litter behind. That’s your problem. I’m treating this planet like the fucking rental car that it Is, and I’m turning it in trashed with a bumper hanging off, fuck your insurance, fuck The environment, I didn’t ask to Be here. Yes, I know that’s a selfish thing. It’s a selfish thing, but you know what? I’ve cared about other stuff, and, yeah, me not caring about stuff, well, affect it as much as me caring about stuff, which Is none”
– Doug Stanhope (comedian), Before turning the gun on himself, 2012
I find both Singer and Stanhope have a point. Do I care? Yes I do. Did I wreck things as a participant? – Maybe, likely yes. Could I have made other choices? – Yes, but to my personal detriment. Can I do anything? – It’s doubtful.
pinkfloydpsw's Blog 
Leave a comment