‘Charity’ is definitely a positive and a very noble word. It makes us identify with our inherent goodness, our compassion towards fellow human beings. It’s a universal truth that we have to lose something in order to gain something. But is charity really worth losing precious water? This is an era which definitely reeks of antihuman elements in the society, and which is characterized by a general lack of sensitivity, concern and empathy for humanity, but isn’t it also an era when we rant about saving our environment?
When I first heard about the Ice Bucket Challenge, I realised that it was indeed a challenge. But I wasn’t convinced. I wasn’t convinced because doing charity at the expense of wasting this much water did not seem prudent to me. I was appalled at the idea itself.Where are all the environmentalists? Why is nobody talking about the judicious use of our resource? I applaud Matt Damon. Now, what he did was a REAL challenge, in my view. How many people would actually come forward and volunteer to take up the challenge of having toilet water poured over them?
New ideas should be welcomed, but when the choice is between a lesser good and the greater good of a greater number of people, the latter should prevail. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is not a disease most of us knew about, but the only reason I am aware about the disease is because I am against the idea of a sheer wastage of a commodity as precious as water. On second thoughts, was this dissent intended to be their ulterior idea in a not-so-environmental-friendly guise?