His placing himself at the service of good causes, for the suffering populations, for the threatened environment is admirable. But this is not how the value of a life is measured, of none, not even of those that seem unproductive.
Like the money my grandmother still gives me on my birthday even though I’m over thirty. I fendi fog. That thing that you attach to the toilet and sanitize it with every rinse. The Disney plus subscription when you have a five-hour drive with the kids in front of you.
Useful things solve problems for you.
People are useless
That’s why I believe that people cannot fall into this category.
People care for the sick even when they cannot cure them. People remain with one hand on their shoulder even when they cannot wipe their tears or fix the situation.
People feed even though they know that tomorrow is another day and we hope someone will provide. People donate without knowing if they will actually go through. People also love when there are millions of flaws to leave.
The “waste” of love
People are not “useful” by definition. But people love. And for this, they are indispensable even when they have no solutions to pain, when they do not find the sock that is right there, when they hope without being able to do anything else, when they stay, when Alzheimer’s takes everything away from them, when they are in a bed and depend from others. Yet they can still do. Still receive. Still loving and being loved.
Love vs philanthropy
That’s why, while I appreciate Angelina Jolie’s philanthropy work (I just want to do half the things you do, Ang and be half as sexy in a beekeeper suit), I don’t quite agree with her last statement in the interview. forVanity Fair:
“I think that a life is not worth living if it is of no use to the other among us”.
Let’s understand: it is wonderful to spend oneself on others and everything we don’t give in this life is lost. But let us disengage from the point of view of utility.