This ad, spotted by Stephanie DeH. in a physical therapist’s office, asks viewers to donate blood with the argument that it’s “easier” to save a life than to save the world:
Text:
Saving the world isn’t easy. Saving a life is.
Just one pint of blood can save up to three lives.
The ad commits two fallacies.
First, it compares saving the whole world (or maybe every tree in the world) with saving just “a” life. Saving a life may, indeed, be easier than saving the whole world, but it’s not a fair comparison. Saving the whole world is hard, but about as hard as saving every life on it.
Second, it suggests that we have to choose. “You could try to save the world,” the ad says, “but it’s pretty hopeless. It’s much easier to save a life. So put down that tree and donate blood.” Giving blood, then, is placed in competition with environmental activism as if (or because) volunteerism is a zero sum game.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 58
John Shanks — July 6, 2010
I feel like you're reaching here.
To me, the target audience is people who are already passionate about "saving the world." The ad is recognising that it's difficult, sometimes seemingly hopeless, and is offering a simple and well-rewarded option for doing the same good the audience already does or wants to do more of.
What would the flip side of the ad be, one that says the great civil rights and living standard achievements were easy, their outcomes never in doubt, and thus denigrates all the people who sacrificed to make them happen?
sue — July 6, 2010
I'm with John on this one. I don't think this poster would appeal to anyone but some one who actually did care about whether or not a whole huge area of trees was cutdown. To me it says, "hey, I know you're discouraged, so here's a way to pick yourself up a little, do this one small thing, and experience a success, then you can go back to the bigger fight renewed." That's what that poster says to me.
Undefined — July 6, 2010
A fallacy is an error in reasoning or logic. Thus, denying the antecedent (inferring 'not Q' from 'If P then Q' and 'not P') is a fallacy. This advert contains no fallacies, so far as I can tell. Even if it did contain the messages attributed to it by this post, these would not constitute fallacies (they are judgments, rather than inferences).
LaurenM — July 6, 2010
I interpreted the ad differently. I see it as equating trees with lives: You can't save every tree from being cut down, but you can save one = You can't save every person, but giving blood will save one.
Simone Lovelace — July 6, 2010
I can see this ad interpreted lots of different ways. I'm sure the creators weren't trying to say "Your efforts to change the world are futile, so give some blood instead," but unfortunately, that's one of the things this ad could convey.
Personally, I don't find this ad offensive; just odd and unconvincing. "Here's a random, depressing picture! Now go give blood!" Sorry, Red Cross, but that's just not motivating for me. Can't you go back to showing adorable, smiling children, like you used to?
Vidya — July 6, 2010
Another fallacy here is that donating blood = saving a life. I'd like to see some statistics on what percentage of blood donations are used in cases in which death would be highly likely without a transfusion. I expect it pales before the percentage that are used for elective surgeries, medicalized childbirth, etc. From what I've heard, it's common for people who have had surgery to be given a blood transfusion afterwards if their RBC count is low -- something that's generally easily fixed by a day or two of fasting and/or natural medicines. (And that's not even counting the blood that's discarded because of donor risk factors, detectable abnormalities, or expiration.)
Doro — July 6, 2010
It also implies that saving a life by donating life is easy, which it might be for some, but isn't for others. You have to have no fear of needles, no diseases, enough red blood cells, you have to be old enough (but not too old), weigh enough, you can't take the wrong medications, have travelled to certain countries, have had sex with too many (or the wrong) people ...
In short, a lot of people aren't even allowed to donate blood. Nobody in my immediate family is. I guess I'll continue with my tree hugging, then.
AR — July 6, 2010
Of course, the two aren't even comparable. Saving even a single human life is infinitely more noble and valuable than saving any number of trees.
Anyway, this ad immediately reminds me of George Carlin's routine on Saving the Planet, in particular the line:
"'Save the planet.' What? Are these people fucking kidding me? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet! We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?"
That same idea seems like another possible interpretation of this ad.
Arielle — July 6, 2010
This might be a stretch, but the first thing I thought of was the Jewish phrase, "He who saves a single life saves the entire world." Could this be a reference to that? Obviously, if so, it is not a very good reference since I'm the only one who made that connection.