A friend of mine linked an article published in Aeon Magazine entitled “Is It OK To Make Art?: If You Express Your Creativity While Other People Go Hungry, You’re Probably Not Making the World a Better Place”. It argues partially for Effective Altruism, an activist movement to lighten world human and animal suffering. Please read it if you have the time. I have neither the patience nor kindness to deal with the upper crust when they get all high falutin’ with another save the world guilt-arrogance complex. The most sure fire way for an effective altruist to do good for others is immediate suicide, a hidden one, so no resources are used to humanely dispose of the body. Feed the worms so the soil is enriched and the next tree grows to suck in enough CO2 to offset the altruist’s lifelong Pringle intake (He’s had 343,242 up to last count). The effective altruist has an argument: Make a lot money and donate 10% to a “good” cause. Otherwise you are bad, because money is good. It got us antibiotics, global warming and nuclear weapons. Artists are poor, that means uselessly narcissistic I guess, and wholly uninterested in securing potable water to millions of suffering humanoids. That’s right. Because of well-fed Western artists, children in Africa suffer terrible diseases. How dare those painters subsist on rice and beans when they can go corporate and sell toothpaste for Proctor and Gamble. Who do they think they are having all of that self-degradation fun for themselves! Everyone knows that in the West, the ends always justify the means. Become a high paid software engineer, and quit your day-longing, aspiring ceramist. You suck! You are a debauched human being. Go back to college and study whatever will make you the richest most disgusting carbon belcher in the world, just so long as 10% of your filth donates the ability for non-profits to distribute their help to the poor, of course after covering the high costs for all those overpaid positions at the institute. Apply for work at Lockheed Martin. Help develop a program to better drone angry poor families out of the way so Joe Merck researcher can walk freely through the rainforest without a poison dart aimed at his ass.
My God, now the little dandys want to take away the poor man’s happiest joys—art! Why? Because it doesn’t feed enough children in Somalia, or as the article smartly put it, “de-worm them”. I read the article, felt a prick of shame, and then wrote back to my friend, “Thank goodness I’m a misanthrope”. And boy am I! Western high standard of living! Did it ever occur to these effective altruists (AKA: over-educated elitist gobs) that families in Somalia might not want to have their children de-wormed? Or, okay, “de-worm us,” they say, “but get your dirty electricity out of our faces!” Maybe the poor third-worlders don’t want another pallet of Western medicine dropped on their reserva-I mean, villages. Maybe their idea of childhood disease is similar to one felt by a mama black bear and her cubs. Maybe death is life and vice-versa. Maybe not. Maybe families would rather starve than live the Western life of constipated ennui birthing more effective altruists to fly all over the earth thinking funny money is savior for everyone. Maybe not. Maybe I am way off.
Maybe third-worlders prefer worms as an unhappy but necessary alternative to Western type 2 diabetes, asthma, heart disease, stroke, obesity, hypertension, cancer, alcoholism, street drug addiction, pharmaceutical drug addiction, suicidal and homicidal tendencies, gout, depression, and E.A.D. (effective altruist disease), to name a few Western lovelies we shall receive for making all of that glorious money in order to cover the guilt of our social dysfunction.
Making creative, dreamy people guilty for making art. Must be a CIA initiative. Yes, the CIA. Why not? It’s undisclosed multi-billion dollar budget alone could feed and de-worm the world, and at the same time terrorize less people wearing loincloths. Maybe the effective altruists can find courage to lambaste the secret killers, or make enough dreamy artist-folks focus their creative attention on “shame art” to eliminate the secret killer society once and for all. Imagine all of that money freed up for the benefit of degraded non-Western society. A better plan I think than telling Western poor people with paintbrushes and a pot of beans soaking on the stove that they just think too highly of themselves to do any good for the world. They should feel bad for having a flush toilet and an available reservoir of chemical water to hydrate themselves. Love those soldiers though, paid killers, politicians, jingoes, judges, Presidents of Western nations, the latter who literally have overnight power to de-worm unhappy children with intestinal ache. But do they weild it? No. Why? Because they love power more than suffering children. Probably the only people outside of the tremendous brain trust of the effective altruists who would ever call a leader to task for feeding the world, are the artists. So the solution presented by the altruist, using the always faultless logic of the elitist, is to guilt the artists into seeking gobs and gobs of money, in order to feed an already monstrously arrogant Western culture on the brink of extinction.
Finally, for the love of the suffering hordes of humanity, how much does this de-worming medicine cost? Are the effective altruists citing retail, wholesale, or the bare bones investment to manufacture one pill to free a child of her tummy cramps, while demanding that painters stop painting to save the world? They are aware, yes, holed up in their peaceful suburb think tank, that one year’s profits from several leading pharmaceutical companies could probably de-worm, feed, clothe and educate collegiately all the poor children of the world? That maybe the capitalist-fascist system that awards company heads at GlaxoSmithKline the wealth of Croesus is what actually kills innocent babies across every wasteland on earth. Maybe a future altruist bio-chemist like Alexander Fleming is who children of the world need, and not a hapless painter who has been known to acquire in a lifetime not much more money than a penny fountain at the zoo. Maybe this new age Fleming could also be trained to go all commando, kidnap a Big Pharma CEO, and torture him politely once for every dollar he hoards for himself and other stinking gut rot members of the good ole boy’s club.
Finally, the medicine is made. The food can be distributed. At my state fair a couple years back, the marines had an exhibit proudly displaying their crowd control grenade launcher. Two hundred explosives released in one second on politically incorrect crowds. Upon detonation each mini-bomb sent super sharp shrapnel to finish the job if the concussion and burning didn’t mutilate all the bystanders first. How much does the typical effective altruist think one of these machines cost Western society? I mean, above the bottom line of another painter’s “pretty picture”? We need to make a profit here, remember? That’s right. I can become a soldier. There. Now that’s some regular pay. And 10% of that is 100% more than I have ever profited by creative effort. What a narcissistic tool I am. I could be operating a drone in Nevada, one to annihilate the next Somalian wedding party. At least then I’d be doing my part as a human being. Acting on a guilt pledge to feed the world, giving up another useless painting to have lunch with the great altruist thinkers of the world.
At least I have a solution, even if it develops into a parallel dystopian future the altruists advocate with their “ends justify the means” trash talk. It is this: Eliminate the distributor, whether it be armies or pharmacies, and kick an altruist where it hurts for being such a god damn sissy to power. We know who is guilty.
And it’s never ever the poor; no matter how rich they are.