Sure to survive

It suddenly strikes me that one of the assumptions I make as a relatively privileged person is that I'll survive. And not just that, but survive until a ripe old age. There are millions of people around the world who can't make that assumption.

People caught in a civil war. Refugees trekking across multiple countries. Women trapped in domestic violence. People with severe mental disorders. People caught in famines. And even people living in high-rise flats that turn out to be a major fire risk.

Centuries ago very few people could assume they would survive. Health care and living conditions were so poor that people were lucky to reach their thirties. Many children died at a tender age.

Now living conditions are so improved that the average British lifespan is 81 and there are many centenarians. So I've always taken for granted that I'll survive and very little can jeopardise it.

But many people can't assume that. They have to live from day to day, not knowing if they'll still be alive by tomorrow. Not knowing if a serious health condition will take a turn for the worse. Not knowing if their spouse might attack them. Not knowing if they'll be hit by a bomb. Not knowing if they'll be overcome by suicidal urges.

I have a sense of safety and security and a bright future that many others don't have. Instead of having to concentrate first and foremost on keeping myself alive, I can take my survival as read, sit back and enjoy my comfortable lifestyle.

It's a huge privilege that it's easy to overlook.

Pic - February 2013: a woman in Aleppo, Syria, in the ruins of her house, destroyed by government warplanes, killing 11 members of her family.

Lifestyle choice

The idea that those who don't fit in, who aren't like you and me, don't deserve any sympathy or support because their behaviour is merely "a lifestyle choice" astounds me.

Apparently to some people it's a "lifestyle choice" if you happen to be a refugee, a welfare claimant, a single mother, a homosexual, transgender, or even a rough sleeper. They've supposedly "decided" to be those things and therefore it's up to them to deal with whatever difficulties they face. The rest of us can happily ignore them.

From this weird viewpoint, a refugee isn't simply someone desperate to get away from unbearable violence and oppression. They woke up one day and decided it would be fun to live somewhere else for a change.

A welfare claimant isn't someone who's too disabled or mentally ill or frail (or just on a low wage) to pay their way. They woke up one day and decided to sting the welfare system for everything they could get.

Those fortunate enough to be able to choose what they do in life, and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, often fondly believe that other people have "chosen" a more difficult or unpleasant life and could easily make things better for themselves if they really wanted.

They don't like to admit that their privileged position is as much a matter of luck as it is of judgment, and that a different twist of fate could have thrown them into the same situations as the people they habitually scoff at.

There aren't many "lifestyle choices" if your country is being bombed month in and month out. The only choice is survival.

Looters

Once again there are dramatic headlines about a clampdown on post-disaster looting, this time in Chile. But isn't a lot of this so-called looting simply taking what you need to survive?

Sure, if someone's walking out of a shop with a computer, that's looting. You can survive without a piece of electronics. But if they're grabbing food, water, clothing or bedding, maybe it's because they urgently need them.

Shopkeepers may condemn it, but what's more important - keeping people alive or keeping your stock intact? Suppose you or I were starving hungry and right in front of us was a supermarket heaving with food? Would we just stroll past or would we take a few things?

The only problem is that if you turn a blind eye to "necessary looting", you encourage looting generally, and if people see easy pickings they pile in and take everything they can lay their hands on.

They stagger out not with a few loaves of bread but with trolley loads of saleable goods and blatant crime takes over.

It's hard to see how you can allow justified looting without opening the floodgates to unprincipled opportunists. When it comes down to it, despite urgent human need, you have to protect people's property against those who are out for their own ends and ready to exploit a chaotic situation.

But those in need of life's essentials shouldn't be forced into looting, they should be getting the help they need from elsewhere. If the authorities were doing their job and organising emergency supplies of necessities, people wouldn't be so desperate.

PS: It's reported that looters in Chile have handed back £1.3 million ($2 million) of stolen goods including hundreds of TVs, washing machines and other electronic and furniture items.

Thanks to Los Angelista, who also wrote about looting a while back.