The Illusion of Hope

So Google just posted a link on twitter discussing their Project 10^100. If you don't know about it, it was an idea to change the world, having people from different countries all over the world submit ideas that would make the world a better place. Here's some information on the top ideas if you are interested in reading the back story before continuing:

http://www.project10tothe100.com/ideas.html

I have been following the project for a while now, and today, after I read their plans to give money to whichever idea wins the vote for "best idea," I must admit that my cynical nature took control and I couldn't help but feel disappointed in Google. Maybe it's my complete lack in humanity, or maybe it's just the fact that people have been trying to change the world for the better since the dawn of humanity, and we always come back to one thing: The world changes for the worse when money and power comes into the equation; The world changes for the better when blood comes into the equation. I believe the equation looks like this:

World Change > Blood ≠ World Change < Money

Take, for example, a perfect balance of this formula that can be seen on Google's Project 10^100. There is an idea in there to change the way we are notified about genocide. It states that we already have the monitoring tools to do it, we just haven't done it. It also states that it can be done so that we will have early-warning detection signs to prevent genocide. So the question I have, being the cynical and negative individual I am, is this: If we already have the technology to do it, why haven't we done it?

Since the genocide of WWII, all the major powers of the world signed that wonderful little piece of paper stating that they would never again let genocide happen. So here we are, years later, watching as 100,000 human lives are lost in a single night in Rwanda, watching as countless people are slaughtered in Somalia, and instead of intervening, we argue that we can't confirm that these events actually meet the definition of "genocide."

Why?

It all comes down to my formula. And the best way to look at it would be to use President Obama as my example. Obama has been documented, back in his Senator days, to be an extremely powerful advocate in regards to stopping global genocide. He was arguing constantly in favour of taking a stand against the atrocities in Somalia. Then he becomes President, and all of a sudden that argument vanishes. Why? Because now he makes decisions that impact the way money will be spent in the country.

Human life in a country that doesn't impact the direct economy is less valuable than the money that would be spent to stop the spilling of blood.

The point here is this: Genocide will never be fixed, no matter how much money Google pours into it. As sad as it may be, blood is far less valuable than money, and the only time that money will be spent to stop blood from being spilled is if that blood will directly impact the amount of money the decision maker will be receiving. So don't waste your time, Google. Just face it. People don't care about other people.