Update

So recently I've been fairly busy with some personal projects (some subjective and other objective) and as such the message of this blog has not been spread as much as I'd like. I hope to correct that in the months to come by devoting more time to this wonderful online medium.

On a personal note, it can be quite tempting to stray from the objective logical course of action and take the standard way of living. I have found that unless one is constantly educating oneself, then one can become part of the machine without even realising - ignorantly blissful of what one is really doing. Similarly, the last few weeks have been about reconciling my objective and subjective points of view. They are both quite passionate (shows which side's winning doesn't it?) and can sometimes seem quite contradictory. I believe I have reconciled them nicely and am rather happy (but I'm always happy, you say). To sum up my views on reconciling subjective and objective views I have a quote I made up in an argument with a friend a year ago - "I think I'm better than everyone else. But I know I'm not." I believe you could apply this to almost anything, realising that it's fine to indulge in the subjective values, provided one is aware of the overall logical context of the values which one is engaging in. Making any sense?

Until next time.

Get to the Point.

When I resumed this blog a few weeks ago, I did so with a goal. This goal was to spread my views on the injustices which occur within society to the world and suggest alternatives or solutions to these issues. After much deliberation (believe me, it took months of trial and error) I decided that a blog was the best way to spread the message.

Activists don't really want change, they just want to be seen like they're doing something - so that was out of the picture. Charity work was also out of the picture (as I've explained in a previous post - see "Save the Children"). At last I realised the best method was education. In today's technological age the best way to spread information is via a website. But since websites cost money to host, a blog turns out to be a lot cheaper. In this way, people are exposed to the issues I discuss and if they are further interested they can check out some of the cool side links or google a concept. Google is a very powerful tool, and one should never be afraid to explore the web, moving outside the comfort zones of familiar sites.

But I digress; the point of this blog is to serve as a pathway to learning. Learning in a way which promotes sustainable values and not doing things 'half-arsed'. One of the most disappointing things about today's education system is the idea of testing. I understand the practical element, but we are teaching kids that if they know 'most' of the content, then it's good enough (i.e. 50% = pass). This is simply not acceptable in life. If a scientist is designing components for a space shuttle, they cannot be 50% right, they need to be 99.9999% sure otherwise there's a big chance some unnecessary life will be lost. An engineer designing a bridge cannot be 50% certain that it will stand. Do we accept these standards in industry? Then why do we teach our kids that 50% is good enough? No wonder we have so many problems in the world today when people are working on the assumption that they only have to get half of it right. I understand that it's almost impossible to learn something 100%, and mistakes will unfortunately be made, but we can strive to do the best that we can.

Rejection

Today was a momentous occassion. For those of you that don't live inside my thoughts (I'm assuming that's a fair majority), today was the day I posted my letter of rejection to the Australian Defence Force. For the last year and a half I've had my sights set on becoming a civil engineer with the Australian Army. My logic behind this was I'd be able to visit war-torn communities and help rebuild, while gaining a sense of camaraderie and team spirit in the process. When I told my friends, they only seemed concerned because it meant I would be moving out of the state, meaning they would see less of me (naive though they were in thinking that we would see each other if I stayed). Only a few told me that I was being a hypocrit, as my personal philosophies were so obviously anti-establishment a move to the Defence Force was in itself illogical.

However, I mostly dismissed these comments, ignorantly believing that this was the only way for me to help others while doing something I loved. I knew I didn't want to be a corporate engineer and thought this was the only other option (other than poverty). So, after completing the lengthy application process last year, I was selected to go to the Australian Defence Force Academy.

In the past few weeks I considered the offer I had. I had friends already at ADFA. I'd be living independently. Getting paid quite well to study for free. Have a guaranteed job at the end of my degree. Get to travel overseas. I knew once I got into the Defence Force I'd be relatively happy, but only if I forced myself to be ignorant of what I was doing and what I was advocating.

It seems like an obvious choice. Go to Canberra. But that last point kept niggling at me. I'd be supporting that which I had spent the last 6 months working so passionately against. In the end I realised that I can achieve what I wanted from the army in other areas. Camaraderie, volunteering, building, all combined. The road will be much more difficult, but I'll be taking it on my own terms, not owing anything to anyone, and as a result much more rewarding. This is the only way one can be truly happy, by relying on oneself, and not being so insecure as to feel a need to cling onto others (this attachment can take many forms).

The most poignant issue which made me change my mind was when I considered the purpose of the Defence Force: To defend Australia. Plain and simple. This is the end, and any means will be taken by the government to ensure this. As a member of the Defence Force, I would not be able to question the moral validity of this decision, I would be expected simply to obey as it's "In the best interest of the country". As someone who doesn't believe in nationalism, and as a human being, I could not expect myself to do that.

Save the Children!

Today I had a quite intriguing conversation with a 'volunteer' from the "Save the Children" organisation. Keoyn was one of the many 'volunteers' who troll Sydney looking to acquire donations from those they stop in the street. I love talking to these people, just to consider the way in which they view the problems in our world.

"Save the Children" is a not-for-profit organisation which advocates the better treatment of children, attempting to claim back a child's basic rights (i.e. right to survival, protection, development and participation). If you want to learn more about the "Save the Children" organisation, you can watch this short video.

During my talk with Keoyn, he told me about what they do and where they do it. The 'where' was pretty much every country on the globe (this was surprising, but ambitious, which I appreciated) and the 'what' ranged from a design called the Kanga Baby to providing education facilities in those countries without said facilities. I really admire the fact that someone is willing to donate their time to discuss these issues on the street, spreading the word. Keoyn's enthusiasm was quite inspiring and I wish we had more people in the world with his passion for change and justice.

However, I do have some issues with what they are advocating.

Firstly, the solutions they are suggesting are only temporary. Let me explain. The ultimate goal of these organisations is to eliminate poverty. This is done one step at a time through their programs. The solutions are only temporary as the goal can never be reached this way. While we live in a system which focuses solely on profit and acquiring money in order to acquire material possessions, poverty will always be present. Money is a class divider as there will always be those who have more than others. This spectrum results in the ones at the top being 'rich' and the one's at the bottom being 'poor'. If everyone has the same amount of money then it sort of defeats the purpose of it in the first place, doesn't it?

Using their methods in our current system, the only way to increase the quality of life of the incredibly poor, we'd have to either a) increase the living standards of everyone, so the incredibly poor are still poor, they're just better off or b) increase the living standards of the incredibly poor, reducing other groups to the status of 'incredibly poor'. Now it is plain to see that both of these methods are absolutely absurd. So one begins to question - these are great short term solutions being suggested, but how can we deal with the root cause?

The other issue I take is one of donations. Lets be serious, by comparison to government funding, donations mean nothing. They come out of the taxpayers pocket, are an incredibly small amount and are heavily taxed (i.e. as little as 20% of the money you donate actually goes to the cause). This is understandable, as these organisations have to pay for advertising in order to tell people about their cause so individuals can then donate (it's a vicious cycle, I know), but I think there are more effective ways to do this. Street people need to discuss the issues with members of the public, and if they show further interest, the street volunteers can direct them to information about how to volunteer their time and skills. No accepting donations and street talkers should not be paid by the hour (I find this apalling and hypocritical). There should then be another group which continuously lobbies their local MPs, discussing the issues and demanding more government spending be put into the infrastructure of the countries; suggesting programs and ways in which these could be implemented.

Keoyn's heart was in the right place, but I couldn't help but feel it was being insanely ineffective.

Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:

• S.C.A.O Save Poor Children in Asia Organisation - Phnom Penh, Cambodia
• Charitable Work Helps Your Bottom Line
• Poverty; One Man's Crusade to Save Impoverished Children
• Post-Conflict Ivory Coast: An Interview with Annie Bodmer-Roy of Save the Children