ANSWERS: 9
  • Two theories: 1. Those in power don't care. 2. It's too depressing.
  • People avoid subjects that cause discomfort, Its also sad to see that most people don't try to do anything to help reduce that number and even though some people try, it makes a small difference
  • What a sad statement. I wonder if the cause is hunger or neglect.
  • Probably because the majority of people who aren't discussing it are those who haven't been directly affected by it. I think it has something to do with the psychological evolution of mankind. We're intelligent enough to recognise suffering and it's happening all the time, but often this suffering is ignored or overlooked. Why does this happen? I believe this stems from the fact that throughout history the human race has suffered. For many centuries our lack of understanding of medicine meant that people were dying unexpectedly all the time. People would be surrounded by the dying and ill. Eventually this would lead them to becoming somewhat desensitised to the surrounding suffering. As we have advanced and suffering and our perceptions of it have changed this mechanism has been adapted. Nowadays, such extensive suffering can be far removed from our lives but it still exists and we still hear about it. Whilst we can quite easily be affected by suffering that is close to us (this has arguably become less common and so we are more sensitive to it or at least our views on what suffering is have morphed), hearing of (often more intense) suffering that does not personally affect us happens frequently and so we become desensitised to it. It seems like everyday on the news we receive information of the dreadful situations of people in third world countries or war torn nations but many people, despite understanding the severity of the issues, block them out. In some ways this is a positive thing. If individuals constantly thought of all the suffering occurring in the world and obsessed with how to overcome this then no one would ever function in their everyday lives. The clear down side to this is that if an issue doesn't affect them personally, many will simply ignore it and take no action whatsoever - no matter the situation's intensity. It's a phenomenon that we can observe all the time in the media. Often the death of one individual in a new station's country of origin will appear to take precedence over the slaughter of many in a bomb attack in Iraq, for example. I'm not surprised that this shocking statistic isn't discussed that often. Young children rarely die in Western society. Looking beyond that, it's a simple figure, without context (i.e something showing the majority of the reasons for these deaths) there isn't much to discuss or any scope to address the problem. I'm not sure that people talking about the issue alone would be a positive thing. Discussing something, saying 'Oh that's dreadful!' doesn't necessarily mean someone has comprehended the tremendous issue. The real thing that needs to happen is that people break through their barrier of apathy that affects their personal feelings and actually allow issues like this to affect them emotionally to some extent (not, perhaps, to the level of very personal suffering because this would be impractical to act upon). When people can see beyond indifference then they can begin to address the problem. Whether it is through donating money or time to people or organisations, individuals can make a difference. The thing with these issues is that they are so numerous it would be impossible for people to take each one to heart. You can't walk around with the 'weight of the world on your shoulders' - as it were. It's impractical to view all the suffering in the world as your own responsibility to address and defeat. That's where this 'block' mechanism can come in useful. If you can live your life with the intention and aim to help others whilst also recognising that you cannot help everyone it's a real feat. The gap between complete apathy and complete (sometimes soul crushing) dedication to something is not always as great as it may seem. The fact that people aren't talking about this issue and others isn't the main problem. It's the fact that (enough) action isn't being taken to address and defeat such problems.
  • I find it hard to believe it is that many! I know however many it is is way too many (and I know it is a large number). I personaly give about 50 dollars a month to a little boy in Rwanda, it used tobe a girl, but she got enough money and moved to a big city where she no longer needed the money so passed it on to someone else in need. I just wish all other people would do the same, it may only be 20 pound, but every bit helps!
  • What should we be saying? What about the kids over 5 years old that will die in the not too distant future - do we include them or not?
  • the number is incomprehensible and people don't know how to help..they give money and it just seems to disappear into a void..I don't know what the answer is..but you are right people should be at least talking about solutions to it.
  • This is a huge question! It's sad isn't it? Probably part of the problem is most people are numb to statistics until they become one.
  • For the same reason so few know or care that 16-18 MILLION children die globally, EVERY DAY, from starvation and hunger related diseases, and diseases caused by unfit drinking water. Historically, most human tragedies were eventually dealt with in one of two ways, by revolution or after the tragedy landed in the backyards of those with the privilege to change it. It doesn't seem to be in human nature to expect much empathy from the 'haves' for the 'have nots.'

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy