28 March 2010

Gisele Bündchen is saving rainforests.... aaaaaawwww!

So, I’ve read this a couple of days ago and figured, jeez this is something I simply must ridicule! After I’ve read the entire article on how is Giselesaving rainforests I still don’t know what exactly is she doing to save them, since the article focused much more on her, her baby and her family. Seriously, rainforests were mentioned in only one sentence. So, I feel obliged to address the problem.
I still very vividly remember that scene from Brüno when he visits the agency and asks the consultants, what’s in right now, what kind of charity. Should I be saving forests or adopting kids… in order to get some free (and positive) media exposure.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s very nice that Giselle or whoever is saving forests, but I am not quite under impression that she just woke up one day thinking, damn those rainforests need to be saved.

When you’re celebrity and you have ton of money it is in fact easy to pick a cause and fight for it. My point being, all of them can do so much more. Yes, I know, they don’t have to do anything at all… but I am just saying they have quite the power to do. And besides, doing charity always transfers you from a cool celebrity to übercool celebrity, like Giselle.
The sad truth is that it’s easy to have ideals when you have money. No, really. Let’s be honest. Lots of people on our overcrowded planet have more or less money problems. I am not talking about the extremely poor; I am talking about western middle class. Most of those are in some kind of debt. People live in debt. So when you’re thinking how to pay off your mortgage, rainforests kinda get lost in the whole story. Or regular forest or desert flowers or some god forsaken bugs or three headed pandas or whatever it is those celebrities are saving.

So, you got no money, you don’t give a shit about rainforests or that Giselle whoever-she-is is saving them. It’s abc’s of psychology, I am not discovering America here (thank God), it’s Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, first you satisfy basic needs, and on top of pyramid is self – actualization, in which charity belongs also.

One thought always haunted me… most celebrities are saving flora and fauna, not humans. There are zillions of people who need help, hungry children, children soldiers, slaves, this or that… but no, they are saving rainforests. Amazon, bugs, tigers…
Saving other human beings would be too much involvement? It’s kinda dirty, filthy, you know perverse… you don’t wanna get involved. People kill people, so what?
Besides, we also don’t really care. A great dictator once said “Death of one person is a tragedy, death of thousand is a statistic”, not to go into analysis how this conveniently suited his rule, he was basically right.
We do not care. Of course, we shouldn’t care. Not caring about people who are not close to us is an evolutionary imperative; we couldn’t survive if we cared about everyone. Or do we now have enough resources not to put so much emphasis on evolution?
Are we beyond that? Should we care? I am not saying we should fall under collective guilt, but I do believe in collective responsibility.

Like, I’m thinking we should just start a collective hunger strike all over the world until world leaders stop all the wars, fix all the injustice, provide resources to those who need them… and you know, I am afraid, we’d starve to death. Still, all the major changes ever made in the world were accomplished because of an individual and his fight. So maybe Giselle has a point in saving rainforests.
But what can you do if you’re not Giselle or Angie or whoever? Maybe we can start by paying forward or forgiving people. Ah, I am being all mellow today, doesn’t matter, most people would rather die than do something nice, like forgive. I suggest we all collectively read Harry Potter, there is a part about this really powerful kind of magic, it’s called love. And it’s good for the soul.

No comments:

Post a Comment