4 ms·
I'd hoped it wouldn't need to be stated, but I'm definitely glad they're doing something valuable with the resources. I was just pointing out an alternative rea
by qrendel 11y ago
I'd hoped it wouldn't need to be stated, but I'm definitely glad they're doing something valuable with the resources. I was just pointing out an alternative reaction to the article. Of course it's far far better than if the money was being spent in a worse way - e.g. funding some irrational government policy to further some incumbent's chances of reelection. (Not living in Japan I'm not aware of a good relevant example from that country.)
I'll skip inundating the thread with some personal defense of whether I'm a hypocrit or not. I agree with what TeMPOral said about it being a positive symbol, and was just pointing out another way that it's a negative one. "We've come a long way but we still have a long way to go" sort of thing.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoYou have a good point and it is definitely not hypocritical. I addressed it in the response to your comment upthread, but let me do a tl;dr of it here: I came to believe that you simply can't expect 100% efficiency from humans. We're not wired that way. If too much is required from us - like being asked to donate all surplus beyond sustenance level to charity - we simply stop caring at all. On the other hand, a positive emotional nudge can make us care more. Helping effectively means taking into account our own psychological makeup.