Juxtaposition: 4 Generations and The Singer Solution to World Hunger

4 Generations, a short film made in China, and The Singer Solution to World Hunger, a philosopher's theory paper, both try to convey the same important idea: Giving is a powerful thing that should be done more often. Although they basically said the same thing, their approaches were extremely different. Peter Singer used extreme scenarios in order to tell us that we are not giving enough, while Robert Thompson, the filmmaker of 4 Generations, got his point across by actually doing what he wants us to do.

Another key difference between the two projects was that Singer's thesis was very structured, very mapped out, providing accurate data and strong points of view, while Thompson's film was very vague. This provides different strengths. Giving the reader a well thought out map of your opinions leave little room for the reader to map out his/her opinions, so they are likely to agree with yours. Being vague in his film, Thompson allowed viewers to think about their own lives, their own opinions and discover whatever they wanted to discover. This is good because it puts less pressure on the viewer, thus allowing them to make decisions based on their true thoughts.

Personally, watching 4 Generations was a hundred times more effective than reading The Singer Solution to World Hunger. 4 Generations literally brought tears to my eyes and touched me so much that I would be willing to donate money for fifty water buffaloes if I could. The film's entire approach was so much more real than Bob, the guy who had to sacrifice a boy to save his car. The fact that the person who made the film got to see how much it changed the receivers' lives evokes so much compassion towards those in need, whereas Singer's paper just made me angry because it seemed like he was trying to make me give to the poor by making me feel like a bad person for spending money on a few unnecessary things. Also, the scenario's that Singer presented, like Bob's, as well as his proposals, like giving 30-40% of an annual income, were just too unrealistic to be able to compare to. Thompson's scene was much more convincing because he showed things that are really happening to thousands of people every day, and provided reasonable solutions for them. To put it in simpler terms, Thompson's video provoked compassion, while Singer's paper provoked irritation.