We may never see the end results,
but that is the difference
between the master builder and the worker.

We are workers, not master builders,
Ministers, not messiahs.

–
Jarred Taylor / jarredt@gmail.com / http://tropophilia.com

The idea of wiping out poverty, hunger, and conflict all in short amount of time is nonsense. Much like people wondering why Iraq wasn't a Western style democratic republic after a few months. Like Jarred said with his fire image, several small changes can become one large one.

If you do anything at all, isn't it better than doing nothing?

T.E. Lawrence said,“Making war upon insurgents is messy and slow, like eating soup with a knife.” Replace “insurgents” with “poverty,” “hunger,” or “injustice” and I think that's a pretty good comparison. If everyone who said they wanted to help actually helped there might be some large changes. That's not going to happen as long as people have something to lose. Why would a middle aged American with a good paying job and a family drop everything to fight for people he didn't even know? It just doesn't work with a person's mentality and life outlook. How many Peace Corps volunteers immediately renewed for another tour when their first one was up?

My point is, issues like these take too much dedication from too many people to realistically be pursued by the average Western citizen. Poverty and hunger and injustice are here to stay. If you want to help, then do so. I plan on helping as soon as my contract expires with the Army, but I would never think less of someone who doesn't help.

Think of how many millions of lives have been saved by the people who have actively participated in relief efforts? If nobody did anything we'd have a much larger number of bodies from disease and starvation. That counts for something, right?

Identify your talents. Exploit those talents for good. Not everyone can go off to distant lands far from home and save lives first-hand.

I don't think we'll ever see poverty or hunger or injustice end in this world. Neither do I think that individual contributions or efforts will release a tidal wave of change that will suddenly make the world a better place. I believe — as trite as this sounds — in paying it forward…. the network effect, I guess, is a more technical way of putting it. You may not be able to start a wildfire in Belize… but you can start a spark by helping even one person or one community. And, maybe someday, because of how you helped them, they'll help someone else. Or others will be inspired by your service abroad and decide to help in their local communities here in the US. What is a wildfire, but the sum of so many tiny sparks? Sure some sparks may die and never catch… but some can and will, and that's why we must always try. Again, I feel so hypocritical writing that given my own track record of service to others in comparison to service to myself. Gagan described the Campaign for Change in similar terms: it's much bigger than Barack Obama and the race for the White House. It's about getting people to be and make the change they seek.

As for the existence of community online, my thoughts on that will be unsurprising. I think the web can both empower existing communities and create new ones. Is community necessarily defined by physical proximity? I'm not so sure. I'm also not so sure that web communities are entirely stuck in the realm of non-action. As an example, the TechCrunch blog has created a lending team at Kiva.org to encourage its community of readers to make microloans to entrepreneurs in developing countries. Its impact is narrow and small, but isn't it better than nothing at all? Another example: would you and I have been able to have this dialog without the Internet? Would this conversation have happened, or the other thousands of similar conversations have happened, without Blog Action Day?

But your point is well taken, and I certainly believe that danger lurks in this phenomenon. We talk about it here all the time. All great advances also bring potentially harmful consequences. The key to making the most of the Internet is moderation. The Internet is a tool; it shouldn't be a lifestyle. It can strengthen and create community; but it should not replace it wholesale.

What is is the work that privileged people can do, especially those who are technically minded? Isn't the assistance the developed world tends to offer the underdeveloped world messianic in nature? Is that wrong? Are solutions to “poverty”– as an analyzable and masterable problem, one that we plan to eradicate through investment and infrastructure building (not that Taylor is advocating that, but where, i feel this post has to go)– even feasible?

For my part i've grown skeptical of solving the problem of poverty, which is i think where we tend to jump. I even wonder how much i can contribute to “planting seeds” of change — And i live in the developing world and work with prisoners. If there is any hope it is where Romero placed it: in God and community (people). But, truth be told, I am disconsolate typing that into this comment box. Is there community online? Are we not, by the medium, not only abstracted from our communities but also stuck in the realm of non-action? Can we have community where we can navigate, filter and search?

I don't have answers to any of these questions.