Many people are claiming that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge wastes water. Here are some common lines I see everywhere:

"Meanwhile in Africa, kids are deprived of water."
"California is in a drought and you are here wasting water!"

Okay, let's agree with those first. It is true that pouring water over your head doesn't make Africans or Californians feel any better. They'll probably be unhappy about you wasting your water when they barely can get theirs. Imagine seeing someone smash a Rolex watch while you watch (no pun intended) them. It breaks your heart because you can't get it, yet someone else is smashing his, right?

But I can probably generate more arguments for the opposite claim.

Let's start off with what the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is about. It's about raising awareness for a disease that can kill. Although it isn't a worldwide pandemic or anything, it is still something. Definitely nothing compared to bigger things like AIDS or cancer.

The purpose of pouring ice over your head is so that you can feel the sensation of being numb for a small amount of time. Take that feeling, multiply by a large time period, and you get the sensation of suffering from ALS. So no, first rebuttal is made, the ice pouring isn't for fun or for no reason.

Secondly, let's talk about the transfer of water. Yes, let's all admit, the challenge is indeed a waste of water; but it is not enough to justify why Africans are lacking water. You see, the world isn't as simple as we think. It is not a large common pond where countries and continents suck water from, and the rest of the world sucking more from the pond doesn't directly equate to Africa not having enough water left. The problem in Africa is more complex - it is about the lack of clean water, not water in itself. The problem is with purification, with the cleanliness and hygiene of water resources. So, using more water for the challenge doesn't mean that Africans will all suffer immediately. If it's anything, the impacts are insignificant.

Okay, California-wise, I can probably understand. There really is a drought.

But that then leads to my 3rd point about ethics vs what we have. We have to understand that the world isn't equal or driven by pure equity; everyone starts off on a different footing. A person who is born in a drought-prone zone may have less access to water compared to a person born in the humid tropics. So here is when human ethics come in - we attempt to neutralise this problem, and ensure everyone will have the same access to the same resources.

But it is also a fact that that is absolutely impossible. There are more factors to that than just transferring money or building more water pipes. Corruption, climate, education etc. The factors are endless. They can go on and on. Many people neglect that, and appear totally daft and clueless about the complex world we live in.

Fact is, nobody is given the same thing; some have more, some have less. I have more food than my brother, so I can just dump a bit of my plate on his. But it's not that simple when it comes to water. You can't just mail water over to Africa or fly a jet plane and spray water all over the continent. There are more obstructions than you think.

Forth point is about lifestyle. Just because we have more access to water, doesn't mean that we should still use the same as those in Africa. It's impossible. The way our lifestyles differ, it's just not plausible for everyone to use the same amount of water. Most of us are fortunate enough to be living in a developed country. But do we do the same things as the Africans? It's a sad reality that we do use more water than them because of the way we differ in lifestyles, but it is unavoidable. Nobody from the developed world can say they've used less water than the less developed world, because it is just the way it is.

Then there's this final point that may be highly controversial, but I felt I had to say it. It's about the rights to access what you have. Africans may not have as much water as we have, but that doesn't mean that we cannot use more water than them. That's like disallowing all the rich people to buy Prada or BMWs because the poor can only afford peanuts. Why can't the rich have the rights to spend? And similarly, why can't the people who have access to water do whatever they want with them? It's there, so just use it! You can call me selfish or whatever, but I stand firm on this. If you have it, then why not use it?

"Oh but you can still donate!" Yes I can, and yes I will donate. I will donate to ALS and to causes that help Africans get better access to clean water. But I won't stop taking the shower twice a day just because others can't. I can save water on the basis of a global hydrological crisis, but not on the basis that others receive less. Call me unethical, rude, but that brings me back to my second argument: the water that I don't use may not be transferred to those that need it anyway. So instead of saving water and hoping it gets to them but to no avail, I'd rather help them build a purification plant so that I know they will get the water.

Think with the big picture in mind. Water shortage isn't a zero-sum game; you using more doesn't deprive others of less.

Song of the day:
Ariana Grande - Break Free ft. Zedd
(Probably one of the worst MVs I've ever seen. The sense of perspective is just so horrible. CGI was so bad. But the song is good. Aha.)