If you do something very well, you simply cannot do it for everybody

"If you do something very well, you simply cannot do it for everybody" (The Bank of New York)

---

Isn't that the problem? On the one hand, people are suffering. But should there be nothing else in the whole world than more people suffering to resonate with the suffering of the suffering people? (What, in ㎐, is the resonant frequency?) Is one person's life long enough to start in poverty, raise everybody else up out of poverty, then pull oneself up too and have time left before going Alzheimer's to enjoy some living time really worth living?

Not every person is fortunate enough, like Mohandas Gandhi, to enjoy self-mortification and self-denial and also get their family to self-deny too when the latter did not want to have such an existence, to advance his or her (or other's) selfless good works with good PR. If one does something very well, one simply cannot do anything of more lasting value than necessary labor to reproduce species life for everybody. Isn't that true? If one does not fear the "Or else!" of eternal damnation in Hell, why bother? If the poor would stop reproducing they would, in far fewer than 100 years, bring the apocalyptic vengeance of having to wipe their own upon the rich.

Should there be nothing done very well on the face of the earth because it cannot be done for everyone? In America, if you work hard enough, you can do anything (CNN, "United Shades of America"). But can "you" do it fast enough to have time to enjoy it while you are yet on this side of the ground and have vital energy enough left to enjoy it? Doing it for the next generation? Isn't this generation itself also a next generation? (Run the recursion.) The host of CNN's "United Shades of America" is a black man whom I speculate is getting a big enough paycheck from CNN to be not less-than-living in poverty, but he is interviewing persons on "skid row". He is interviewing them for the sake of helping them get up and out of poverty. But shouldn't he himself still be in poverty if they are, too? If he was in poverty and had not even been able to finish high school, much less go to college, could he still help people in poverty by hosting a CNN show? To be or not to be That, I think, is the question.

Latitude 41.238453, Longitude -73.746493 (41°14'18.4308"N 73°44'47.3748"W) should be accurate enough GPS coordinates for a B-52 weapons officer to take out myself, or at least the house I am mortgaged for (Spare the cats!). This is not The Hague and it is not the International Court of Justice. But I do believe that every person is a Judge of the World, and every day is Judgment Day (no, resolve that more precisely to: every second). This sounds to me like a good term paper assignment for a college [select the subject] course. Wozu, dichter? – or should no person be permitted to be a poet until all persons have operationalizable opportunity to be poets, at least unless sasid person has already got themselves an audience? (←the preceding sentence is intended to be self-confuting, because it postulates already having an audience as a necessary precondition for attracting an audience to have).

Let those who have more than enough help those who have less than enough to have enough. Let "conspicuous consumption" and the waste of "fashion" (malignant Kardasheanoma, Martha Stewartitis, sublunary Rap "stars", with gold teeth not repairing natural decay, and flaunting other glittering accoutrements, etc.) be disdained and eschewed. But let decent folks who are trying to live peaceful lives have evening meals better than Big Macs and Chicken McNuggets, and some half-decent wine with it.

Come to think of it, how can anybody ethically justify such an extravagant luxury as eating a Happy Meal, or, a fortiori, taking a family vacation/trip to Disneyland, when millions are unhappily starving and perhaps even so misfortunate as not even to be able to go to a refugee camp?