Mass worldwide donation in future disasters. If I assume correctly, donation on this scale has never been seen before. With all the infrastructure set up to deal with it will future disasters (even much smaller ones) provoke the same response?
Interesting. How do you figure?
I imagine less donations, with an “Eh, I gave last time…” attitude. The tsunami tragedy happened during the Christmas season, also, which means people tend tt be more benevolent anyway. Had this happened in, say, August, I don’t think you’d see as much in the way of donation.
Aren’t people generally short of money after the christmas period? I certainly am.
My reasoning is that future disasters will remind people of when they donated in that Tsunami of 2004 and so might feel like donating a lump sum again. And I don’t think people would have the ‘I donated last time’ attitude. If they did then why do people now not have the ‘eh, everyone else is giving so I don’t need to’ attitude? I think from now on the mental link between ‘disaster’ and ‘donation’ will be that much clearer that the first thing people will think of is donating, rather than a few days later or not at all.
You might not remember Live Aid, but people were astonishingly generous during that. The next few crises, however, nowhere near as generous. It’s called “compassion fatigue”.
Nevertheless, the trend seems to be towards higher charitable donations. Because, I think, of the much greater and more immediate coverage that disasters get now, and because people in the rich countries have ever-increasing disposable income. And the efforts of aid organisations that Lobsang referred to should not be overlooked. But I think it’s mainly because we now get to watch disasters while they happen. That’s a good thing, by the way, in case I sound cynical.
Another possibility: The various relief organizations will get MORE money than they need, and that money will be saved up for when it is needed.
Actually, that sounds unlikely. But it’s possible, isn’t it?
I work in as a fundraiser for local and national charities, and I can assure you that the tsunami is going to have a devastating effect on the coffers of these smaller groups for the forseeable future.
This is a great title! I’d read that one reason why bureaucrats procrastinated about warning people is that they didn’t want to scare tourists away. I think this is bunk, because every time people go on cruise ships, airplanes, etc., everyone has to attend a safety lecture and learn what to do in case of emergency. Wouldn’t it be a great idea if these countries could devise a simple warning and education lecture and designate certain times and places where everyone could learn how to recognize the warning signs of approaching disasters and would learn how to protect themselves as much as possible. Done this way, tourists would be re-assured that the local officials were on top of the situation and wouldn’t stay away permanently. I’m sure there’s stuff I haven’t considered but I think it’s a good start.
It’s an odd coincidence that this happens at the same time, more or less, as the "US is stingy"quote. I think it’s prompted a lot of Americans to give just to disprove that point.
But I think the “stingy” charge was leveled at the US government and the governments of the other developed nations, not at individual citizens.
True, but you know we Americans are.