A few years ago I was looking for a summer job. I had just returned to school and I needed to provide for my family. I found an ad in the newspaper for an "activism" position. Being naive, I called the number and went in for an interview. l found out when I got there that it was a group interview, not the best indication. What I found out about activism disgusted me.
This company operated by going through neighborhoods soliciting money for the cause. The cause would change every year or two with the head honcho deciding what the cause would be, so the worker activists had no say in it. Each "employee" would be paid a percentage of the money brought in that week with the remainder going first to the higher ranking in the company and the rest to the actual campaign such as advertisements. The funny thing is that they preferred to operate in the poorer neighborhoods because they received the larger haul there.
The activists are really professional beggars in the guise of a cause. Most of the workers were more concerned about the money than the cause. They had no moral or ethical desire for the cause, only the promise of easy money if they sold it well.
Apr 14, 2011
Apr 11, 2011
Not in My Backyard
Ever notice how people will grab onto an idea - especially environmental where it does not affect them directly. Take for instance the wolves of Yellowstone, which have been re-introduced to maintain the "natural" balance. Tell the ranchers that have hunted the wolves for generations to protect their livestock and livelihood. Ideas like this one whether be they good or bad are ultimately decided by people who have no direct or even indirect association with the issue other than they consider it to be a "good cause". I call it my "Not in My Backyard" theory.
The "Not in My Backyard" theory goes something like this. We as a people will jump onto any bandwagon so long as it does not affect us, so long as we can feel good about it, hense I support it because it is Not In My Backyard. It becomes a combination of laying on guilt, salesmanship and any other factor that that can be thrown in for good measure. The actual value of the cause becomes lost by the wayside.
The best example is the prairie dog. First what a prairie dog is: it is a rodent (think rat) that lives in large community nests called prairie dog towns. The reproductive rate is incredible, multiple litters a year, each with multiple pups. This cute little creature can move into a field practically overnight and make it unusable for anything else. In fact, if prairie dogs live in a field, it is not safe to have horses or other livestock in the field because of the holes these creatures create. Also being rodents, they carry diseases that can be passed to people (Black Plague) so it is best not to have a large population close by. Since the main predators of the prairie dogs also go after livestock like sheep and chickens, farmers have reduced the number of these predators like the badger and fox. I was rather surprised one day to see a car with a New Jersey license plate in Southern Utah with the occupants appearing to be very interested in the well being of these rodents. I later found out that the majority of political support (though not financial) for the prevention of removing the prairie dogs are from people who are city dwellers and find the creatures of the great outdoors to be a novelty. Rather than raising the money to buy the land and maintain it for a prairie dog habitat, they would rather raise the money to buy votes (welcome to activism) and force the farmers and ranchers to abandon their land and livelihood for a creature that to them has no value and should be exterminated. I wonder how these same people from New Jersey would feel if their houses and places of employment were suddenly condemned and they were forced to give up everything they have on the chance something could be done where they are not even allowed to voice an opinion.
In formulating this theory, I learned that before something can be a good cause, it must first pass the "if this were in my backyard, would I still support it?" test. If it doesn't, maybe a better solution should be found.
The "Not in My Backyard" theory goes something like this. We as a people will jump onto any bandwagon so long as it does not affect us, so long as we can feel good about it, hense I support it because it is Not In My Backyard. It becomes a combination of laying on guilt, salesmanship and any other factor that that can be thrown in for good measure. The actual value of the cause becomes lost by the wayside.
The best example is the prairie dog. First what a prairie dog is: it is a rodent (think rat) that lives in large community nests called prairie dog towns. The reproductive rate is incredible, multiple litters a year, each with multiple pups. This cute little creature can move into a field practically overnight and make it unusable for anything else. In fact, if prairie dogs live in a field, it is not safe to have horses or other livestock in the field because of the holes these creatures create. Also being rodents, they carry diseases that can be passed to people (Black Plague) so it is best not to have a large population close by. Since the main predators of the prairie dogs also go after livestock like sheep and chickens, farmers have reduced the number of these predators like the badger and fox. I was rather surprised one day to see a car with a New Jersey license plate in Southern Utah with the occupants appearing to be very interested in the well being of these rodents. I later found out that the majority of political support (though not financial) for the prevention of removing the prairie dogs are from people who are city dwellers and find the creatures of the great outdoors to be a novelty. Rather than raising the money to buy the land and maintain it for a prairie dog habitat, they would rather raise the money to buy votes (welcome to activism) and force the farmers and ranchers to abandon their land and livelihood for a creature that to them has no value and should be exterminated. I wonder how these same people from New Jersey would feel if their houses and places of employment were suddenly condemned and they were forced to give up everything they have on the chance something could be done where they are not even allowed to voice an opinion.
In formulating this theory, I learned that before something can be a good cause, it must first pass the "if this were in my backyard, would I still support it?" test. If it doesn't, maybe a better solution should be found.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)