I believe that all people should have the right to enjoy a good life. I believe in the 'liberal rights', to freedom of speech, religion, congregation, freedom to participate in the government, the right to due process, and equality before the law. I also believe in 'economic, social, and cultural rights' like the right to enjoy and participate in culture, the right to food, work, education, housing, health, and family.
I also believe that humans are animals, and ideally should live on the world in a way that can be sustained as the other life forms on the planet do. With the human population exploding it is difficult to see how humans can continue to prosper on this planet as we have without permanently and drastically altering the biological (ecological?) and meteorological systems that characterize Earth as we know it.
So, I want to work towards addressing these issues. It is one thing to say one supports these things, but what really matters, if one truly cares about improving the world visavis these issues, is to make positive substantive changes in them. Many people like to flout their concern about issues like these. The "bumper sticker activist" whose primary work to save the world has been to purchase the purple 'Coexist' sticker and to place it on their (gas consuming) car.
I am down with "coexisting". I would be interested in knowing how many of the people with said sticker actually practice one of the religions, Islam, Judaism, Wiccanism (like, for real though, with ceremonies and all), Taosim, Confusicianism, or Christianity, that are depicted.
That's not the point though.
The point is caring, giving-a-shit, about human rights and the environment. Since I do give a shit, posturing without substance discusts me, and as a result I am less likely to engage in "bumper sticker activism". I want to be sure, that if I am going to do something, or give my support, it helps to cause substantive improvement in the issue. If I want to do something about starving people, or AIDS, or any number of problems in Africa, I might sponsor one child. But does that really make a substantive change? It will probably make me feel better. It will take the weight of Africa off my mind. But Africa has more than a billion inhabitants. In the long run if I want to feel better about Africa I want a solution that can raise the standards of living of the most people for the longest time. I want facts to guarentee the effectiveness of my support, and to compare my chosen route of aid against others for efficiency. If I donate 5 dollars to one organization and it helps teach 5 people how to read, whereas another organization could have taught 10 people how to read, then in one sense I have just denied 5 people the alibity to read. Or if I help Botswana (which already has a UN Human Development Index score of 0.694) on a lark, instead of Congo-Kinshasa (with a HDI of 0.389). Botswana is less in need of economic aid. A donation to that country, in lieu of others in greater need based on a lack of information is almost a criminal tragedy. What if I were to donate to Portugal instead of the Congo? Or Norway? I am sure there are problems in Norway, but the same aid could make a much greater improvement for its worth, only 5 dollars, in Congo than in Norway. Or perhaps there is such great corruption in Congo that it is impossible for the 5 dollars to have its intended effect, and instead a donation to Botswana, where there is less corruption (with a Freedom House score of 4/14 {USA is 2/14}), would be more likely to have the intended effect. Without reliable information about our work to make the world a better place, we cannot know if we are merely posturing, or actually "being the change we wish to see in the world".