Whose death is more important than someone elses?

[Hero]

I've noticed this a lot lately, not just at Buffy-Boards but on all social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google+. Why do people seem to care more about one person's death more than others? Here is what I've noticed in the past

1. No one is talking about the 31 American troops who died yesterday.
2. The 90+ deaths in Norway was swept under the carpet because, god forbid, Amy Winehouse overdosed!
3. In Haiti about 200,000 people died, a month or two later an earthquake killed about 25 in South America. While I understand that TONS more died in Haiti, why were the other 25 ignored? Why is one person's death more important than someone elses?
4. The world and America gave much more attention to the 2,930 people who died in 911, but not even half as much aid and services were provided to New Orleans where 50,000+ people died.

Ok, yeah, whatever - Amy Winehouse put out decent music. But, why was her death seen as more important than the Norway massacre? Because her music "touched" you? Yeah, I can see that...but how does soldiers dying in Afganistan who are serving you not affect you at all? I'm using "you" here generally, not targeting anyone specificialy. And again, this is what I've seen on social networking sites, I'm not saying it's 100% or law.

But have you guys noticed something similar? What do you think?

 

[Tome]

Honestly, we will care more about CERTAIN deaths because we know or care about those people. It's like if a dude gets hit on the road close to my place, and I've never talked to him or met him, I wouldn't care much, really. But if it was a friend of mine, I would be affected. Again, I'm not saying that a death is more important than another in the grand scheme of things, but people will be more touched if it concerns someone or something they care about.

As far as you examples go... I get your point about 9/11 compared to other things. There have been more disastrous events that led to a LOT more casualties. But in that case you have to understand it wasn't just about the deaths, it was how and why it happened. That wasn't a natural disaster. And Amy was a renowned artist. I'm not saying that makes her death more important than the poor people in Norway, but more people knew her than the women and men in Norway. :/ So she gets more coverage. Can't say I agree with that, though.

 

[Taake]

Ok, yeah, whatever - Amy Winehouse put out decent music. But, why was her death seen as more important than the Norway massacre?

Here it really wasn't but then Norway and Sweden are close so perhaps that's why.

but how does soldiers dying in Afganistan who are serving you not affect you at all? I'm using "you" here generally, not targeting anyone specificialy

I've seen a lot of saddness about it this and talked to several friends about it actually so I'd say people are affected.

But have you guys noticed something similar? What do you think?

But yes, I have noticed similar things in the past. I don't think it's intentional, I think media coverage plays into it a lot but also if it hits your where your heart is it's bound to affect you more. Whatever you feel a personal connection to is likelier to stir you.

I felt very upset by the 31 dead in Afghanistan, but I have a friend working there so naturally I went on hyper-senstive mode about it. Same about the Norway situation, whereas I personally felt less upset about Amy Winehouse. Any death is tragic and there should be enough saddness to go around, but sometimes it's just too overwhelming and for our minds to cope they focus on one rather than the other. To me it's just human, you feel for them all... but there's only so much of you to go around... doesn't make it right. Just makes it so...

 

[Willow My Love]

It's not that one person or one groups death is more or less important. Forgive me if this seems cynical, but can you really care about everyone who dies? Death is a horrible thing, but if you cared about every, single person that died, you'd be tortured. (And of course I say this on the 11th anniversary of my grandfather's death...) Unless you're actually there; unless you actually SEE these people die, you're really not that affected anyhow. That's the worst thing ever to experience, I think. Watching someone you love die and being helpless to prevent it.

 

[NY State of Mind]

In the words of the Joker from the Dark Knight....

You know what I’ve noticed? Nobody panics when things go “according to plan.” Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all “part of the plan.” But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

 

[sisterofmercy]

Every person's death is sad. Every single person, no matter what they did or who they were. It's just that we tend to respond more to those we've connected with or felt an emotional rapport to, hence why people mourn the loss of their favourite musician. I know when Morrissey dies I'll be in a right state.

We also connect to those involved in tragic incidents as they're in the news and so forced into our personal spheres, where we can develop an emotional rapport of sorts with them. Hence the response to things like 9/11, 7/7 and the Norway atrocities.

But really some people impact on a person's life more than others. I completely disagree with all the rubbish people on FB were spouting when Amy died, saying that people have forgotten about Norway, because it's completely illogical to assume that one can only grieve for one person at a time. But to them Amy impacted on their social sphere so of course they're going to be upset about it and respond to it. That doesn't mean they can't do the same for those involved in tragedy or close friends or family who die at the same time. There isn't a finite amount of emotion you can feel, as far as I know.

However, if we were to be grieving for the entire world on a daily basis it would get rather draining.

 

[kittenpoker]

I think this asks a very important question...

We live in such a busy crazy world and our senses are constantly being bombarded by disaster and catastrophe and small and big scales... I think it would be impossible for us to fully feel the impact of every death we hear about...we'd go insane...

I think all human beings are of equal "value"...all life is sacred....but we, as humans, form attachments... we cannot care equally about everyone. It makes sense that the closer a person is to us, the more we will feel their absence when they die.

 

[Hero]

Reading the answers so far on this page; just wanted to say i'm impressed with the maturity level you are showing so far on the topic. well done everyone!

 

[caritas08]

For me the nature of someone's death affects the emotional impact it has on me. If someone is murdered or dies in an accident or for health reasons they couldn't control I feel more sorrow for them than for someone whose life choices caused them to die unnecessarily (drug overdose, gang related, drunk driving etc.) I'm not saying this is morally right of me and I've tried to be more sympathetic to people like Amy Whinehouse but I still don't feel as much as I probably should.

 

[wiccianslayer]

I read this at another forum and it seems kind of truthful. One death is a tragedy, Hundreds of deaths is a statistic.

 

[Thamior]

Because it's impossible to care about everyone. You gave two or three examples of big massacres in which people died, yet hundreds of thousands of people die every day, and nobody cares because there was no explosion, or earthquake etc. What about people who die of natural causes? What about the millions in poor countries who live a horrible life before dying of starvation? It's just too much. It's impossible to care about all of them; so we pick and choose. We say, "Ok, If I've heard of you before you died, then your death matters. If you died in a country I care about, your death matters." We make categories, because there's no other way of dealing with all of the tragedies in the world.

If it sounds like I'm being apathetic, then let's do some math. On average, according to the CIA world factbook (as of 2005, it's probably higher now) 155, 000 people die every single day. Now, there are 86, 400 seconds in one day. Simple division shows that if you try to dedicate one second for every person who died in one day, you'd have to spend 43 straight hours thinking. And that's assuming one second is enough time to dedicate to someone's entire life.

In a way, apathy is a side effect of globalization. Just a few centuries ago, we would've been able to properly think about everyone that we knew had died. Unfortunately, since we have information from all over the globe, it's not so simple anymore. Now, there are still questions that need answering. I agree with you - the system we use (as a society) to judge who's death is worthy of being acknowledged is flawed. Unfortunately, there still is not a clear right and wrong. It's up to each individual to try and be informed of what's happening around the world, instead of falling into the trap of popular media.

 

[AlyInWonderland]

I think what gets people's attention (sounds bad, but I can't think of another way to phrase it) is how people die. People are attracted to tragedy. A child dying young is one example. It is impossible to notice every single death in the world, and honestly it would be too depressing if people did. Tragedy captures the world's attention. It is where people talk about a death or a hundred or a thousand deaths and sit there and say "how can this happen?" or "it's so tragic." That is when some people's death outweighs others. I'm not saying that one person's life or death is more important than another's, but in terms of spectacle or awe, those are the deaths that are typically talked about by a bunch of people. Those and the deaths of celebrity's, and that is because more people feel like they know celebs than just another person who died.