How is Madonna a joke pick? She is the top selling female artist of all time and 100% defined the direction female solo artists have taken since her. Lady Gaga is a terrible choice because she is a direct result of Lady Gaga. It is hard to think of one person more influential on the modern conception of women than Madonna.

To say Madonna is a joke pick and people like Marie Curie, Salvador Dali, or Ernest Hemingway are not is ridiculous in my opinion. Scientists should only be considered influential if they drove science forward, not if they came up with the next step a year before someone else did. And Salvador Dali is famous really only because he advertised himself, not because he was inherently better than any other Surrealist.

let me just say that uh salvador dali is also dumb... hemingway too... he wasn't THAT big of a deal.

but madonna, even less so. according even to you, all she's affected is "the direction female solo artists have taken since her"

so you need to look at scope here... since we're talking about the entirety of *human history*

female - cuts out half of us
artists - cuts out quite a lot of people
solo - cuts out even more

and your biggest narrowing point - it was only like 20 years ago. 20 years out of 10,000.

Do you really think people will care about Madonna in 200 years?

I think a good litmus test for something like this is to imagine the world 100 or 200 years from now and try to think about who on that list would be relatively inconsequential.

One that I like, but I think is more controversial than the former is; if aliens came to Earth, which people would they care about? Although I think this one basically limits importance to scientists, and completely denies creative people. An alien might be interested in knowing which person unified electricity and magnetism, but probably doesn't give a crap about Shakespeare's sonnets.

@spyman:

Yes--even if we accept natural selection (and believe me, I do and try to argue for it in my Philosophy of Religion class...yeah, I don't win that argument very often, same with causality, neither one seems attractive to otehr folks...) then we must ask the LARGER question...

What is the MEANING of being in the first place, naturally selected/evolved or not?

THAT is, to me, the ultimate question, and so I tend to credit thosea tad more highly (if there's a "tie" accomplishment-wise) on who I thought gave a better or more interesting account of being and meaning, or even approaching the reason at all, hence my inclination a tad more towards philosophers and artists in addition to world leaders and, yes, ahead of all but the A-listers of science (namely the Einsteins, Hawkings, Newtons, Galileos, Darwins...those I rank up there with the highest and even higher than many or even all the artists and philosophers, but between, say, John Locke and Sir Alexander Fleming I'll always maintain Locke is the 'more important,' the "greater" between two true greats, as I believe not only his theories of government but the metaphysical and epistomological groundings for his theory (ie, "all men are created equal" coming from the idea we're born a Blank Slate) are more influential and thus more important than antibiotics, which I'm sure I'll get BLASTED for (what else is new, lol) but with no disrepsect to the great Fleming at all intended, I do believe that, in general, science will come to show itself in time, whereas an idea like Locke's seems, while influenced itself, still more original and with at least as huge of an impact as antibiotics, now and to come (it essentially forms the precurssor and almost a "rough draft" for the USA's ideology, and the USA being so important, like us or not, in the last century or so, and likely beyond, that's already huge, but the fact that most Western states have democratic states and likely will far into the future) and that jsut being the political side of Locke, I'll take Locke over Fleming any day, while still wishing I could take them both, as both are great figures.

But yes--I'll name more Mozarts and Shakespeares and Platos for that reason, and less, say, Niels Bohrs or Keplers...



And to he who asked Why NOT Madonna, she's the higehst selling female pop star...




Sorry--but on a list that includes the leader of the Hebrews, the leader and founder of the Muslims, Einstein and Newton, Shakespeare and Plato...

When the optehrs have "I founded a religion/culture!" or "I discovered/improved our ideas of gravity and the physical universe!" and "I'm probably the greatest author/first great philosopher in hsitry and still impact tought to this day!"

...

Deosn't "I made more money than Whitney Houston!" seem to pale in comparison?

Just saying...same with Arthur C. Clarke; though I at least do enjoy his work, the Improbability Drive and 42 just don't quite seem up to snuff with the others on the list...Amelia Earhardts's a bit sketchy, too, not sure of she's really Top 100,. though being one of the first great aviators and paving the way for that huge field is certainly something, as si the feminism factor, so at least she has more of a case than Ms. Vogue herself...

Moses
Plato
Shakespeare
Isaac Newton
Zumbi
Washington
Shaka Zulu
Mozart
Sitting Bull
Gandhi
Nelson Mandela
Albert Einstein
Alexander Fleming
Carl Friedrich Gauss
Nikola Tesla
Charles Darwin
Marie Curie
Friedrich Nietzsche
Adolph Hitler
William Burroughs
Leonardo Da Vinci
Salvador Dali
Ernest Hemmingway
Euclid
Alexander the Great
Mohammed
Copernicus
Vladimir Lenin
Winston Churchill
Socrates
Rousseau
Hammurabi
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Karl Marx
Jesus
Homer
Galileo Galilei
Napoleon Bonaparte
Martin Luther
William III
Fydor Dyostoevsky
Marco Polo
Adam Smith

Questionable:
Ammelia Earhardt (didn't even invent the plane or pull a Lindberg...?)
Madonna (...really...?)
Abe Lincoln (I love Honest Abe, but does he have the world significance to be here?)

"What is the MEANING of being in the first place, naturally selected/evolved or not?"

I don't think anyone has ever given a satisfactory answer to that question, whereas natural selection is a brilliant explanation of how evolution works with implications which extend beyond biology.

43 down, 47 to go...still not a lot of women not a lot of royalty, too, that sort of surprised me...and Mozart's still playing his harpsichord solo...no painter/sculptures yet, da Vinci counting I suppose but he did that and a ton of other things, no just-painters, though if they and other musical figures would belong is a guess...though Beethoven, Michaelangelo, and maybe Tchaikovsky/another composer and Van Goh...)

@spyman:

I agree no one has ever answered it fully, but my point is I value the attempts to answer THAT question a tad more than others just de facto, as that IS, in my opinion, the highest question and so worthy of the highest honors (that's not putting down natural selection or anything, just saying...)

I disagree. I don't even really like Madonna, but to say she is not influential is crazy.

Madonna is the reason every single girl in your philosophy class is wearing the clothes they are, and affects everyone's self-image in ways you don't understand. As far as anyone who ACTUALLY affects all of our everyday lives, there is no one (perhaps your religious leader) who has a big of an impact on the way you live life. Period.

obiwan, your dismissal "Deosn't "I made more money than Whitney Houston!" seem to pale in comparison?" isn't an argument. At all. For example, here is Shakespeare: "People read my plays in 10th grade English." I am not saying that Shakespeare doesn't belong, he does. I am just saying that that is a non-argument.

Further, Madonna will be the person you read about in your history books in 200 years when they talk about the liberalization (or whatever word you want to use) of the entertainment world in the second half of the 20th century.

To dismiss people only because they are relatively new is ridiculous.... especially when you consider that there are as many people alive today than there has been in the rest of history combined (or whatever it is).

Also, one more example of who Madonna clearly beats: the guy who invented the TV (whose name I have already forgotten because it is so unimportant). TVs are already borderline obsolete, and he didn't do anything that someone wouldn't have done 1 year later. That MUST be the test of a scientist's contribution and greatness. That is why Einstein's general relativity is so incredible and (gasp) Darwin's idea of natural selection (while it is an incredibly powerful idea) should not elevate him to the ranks of the uber-scientists because others were developing the same idea simultaneously with him. He was not ahead of his time really at all.

Athelstan the Glorious
Richard I
Edward I
Edward III
Henry V

My five royal contributions

Sitting Bull? Worldwide significance? please

uclabb...did you seriously just compare the influence of MADONNA to SHAKESPEARE???

I think the "I made more money than Whitney Houston!" knock at her "importance" is quite valid, if her great accomplishment is simply she's been a successful recording artist...well, again, how does that rank with founding a religion billions have been affected by, discovering gravity or antibiotics, founding philosophy as we know it and postulating that all men are created equal, giving the first modern accounts of both capitalism (Adam Smith and economics) and socialism/communism (Marx/Lenin), really, how?

But it's the SHAKESPEARE one that gets me.

Let's see...

Poplar female singer for 25 years and influencing girls to dress and act like her in that period (might we attribute such adulation and attempts at emulation to someone ELSE, like, say, Cleopatra, who actually did more and did it first, and didtto Marilyn Monroe for being that same sort of 20th century female trendsetter, so might this lessen Madonna's "influence?") on one hand...

And...

37 plays written centuries ago, at least a dozen--Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, The Merchant of Venice, Julius Caesar (who really should be getting on this list, by the way), Romeo and Juliet (no matter how trite, it's the REASON it's so trite, every cheap love story since has copied it in part or nearly it's whole in cases), A Midsummer Night's dream, Twelfth Night, The Taming of the Shrew, Richard III, and Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 (and that's being VERY conservative out of the canon...more like 20-30 of those plays are literary gold, and then the rest mixed or dated or both)--with the reputation as being the most quoted writer in history this side of "In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth," 154 sonnets, nearly all of which are still considered at the worst just "good, early pieces" and at their best some of the best poetry in the , thus Shakespeare, Homer, and Dante form a sort of "Classical Holy Trinity" when it comes to pre-1700 works, poetry in particular being a monopoly of theirs, that influence still being spread today...the man invented about a hundred or so words...

And besides all of that, still being very conservative with the Shakespeare trumpeting...

HIS works have impacted the WORLD, and had a HUGE impact on the West to the point where he really is THE primary author of at the very least plays and certainly in the Top 10 poetry-wise, and he's done this, impacted our language and way of life with so many ideas--T.S. Eliot going so far as to call him "a metaphysical poet" and my favorite philosopher Man with the Mustache lauding his work when he knocked the majority of all other English works--to the point where he's influenced how men and women have thought, spoken, and accted since the late 1500s and was among the first to show signs of care for minority classes (Othello for the sympathy of blacks, The Merchant of Venice giving a Jewish villain but also the infamous "Hath not a Jew eyes?", and finally most of the comedies and some of the tragedies feature some of the earliest, strongest female characters in history)...



And Madonna...has been successful and been a fashion influence for 25 years against all that and more for the Bard?

...

Where's the contest?

It's not "My plays are read in 10th grade" it's "My plays are read, performed, viewed, and loved, have been for over 400 years, and I've been called the greatest playwright, one of the best poets, and arguably the best writer in the West!"

That seems to win out.

And come to think of it, so does Mozart.

And Beethoven.
And Tchaikovsky, Strauss, Puccini, Rossini, Bizet, and Wagner.
Even mroe recently, even with pop stars, Bono and John Lennon are LEAGUES ahead of Madonna.

Is Madonna successful?
Yes, and good for her for being so successful, even influential if you want that...
Is she a Top 100 and comparable to the Bard and Boy Wonder Mozart?
...

No.

Moses
Plato
Shakespeare
Isaac Newton
Zumbi
Washington
Shaka Zulu
Mozart
Sitting Bull
Gandhi
Nelson Mandela
Albert Einstein
Alexander Fleming
Carl Friedrich Gauss
Nikola Tesla
Charles Darwin
Marie Curie
Friedrich Nietzsche
Adolph Hitler
William Burroughs
Leonardo Da Vinci
Salvador Dali
Ernest Hemmingway
Euclid
Alexander the Great
Mohammed
Copernicus
Vladimir Lenin
Winston Churchill
Socrates
Rousseau
Hammurabi
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Karl Marx
Jesus
Homer
Galileo Galilei
Napoleon Bonaparte
Martin Luther
William III
Fydor Dyostoevsky
Marco Polo
Adam Smith


Athelstan the Glorious
Richard I
Edward I
Edward III
Henry V

How important are those royals, Euros? Besides Henry V and Richard, I've no idea...

Sargon of Akkad-1st warlord

Ok uh. On all the "are they significant" things:

Sitting Bull is significant because he is the most significant Native American of North America. An entire vibrant civilization. So he is significant.

Abe is significant because he is a forerunner of modern messages of racial equality. Borne out the radical Republican tradition whose liberal ideas shape the discourse down to this day and will do so into the future.

Madonna, again, will only be discussed in the future in music classes. It's like trying to say that Leonin or Perotin is significant. Can I point to HUGE things that they did? Yes. They invented polyphony in the Western musical tradition. However, they are relatively obscure. They aren't remembered. Other did greater things... like Mozart and Mahler for instance. So just because Madonna (according to you... I sort of disagree) revolutionized pop... doesn't mean much. Elvis revolutionized pop of his day, and so on. Popular musical figures are really not going to be remembered past a century except in the annals. Be realistic. Even granted that Madonna has a big impact on today's culture, it's not important if it only lasts 20-50 years. What about the much more enduring cultures?

We have a tendency to focus on the most recent figures because they mean the most to us, but in terms of significant people groups and events, there is such a thing as a timeless figure.

Alexander the Great will not soon be forgotten.... 2500 years and counting. Ernest Hemingway? Much lower on the list in terms of will he be forgotten.


I think these arguments may stem from what we define as a big deal. To me, Sitting Bull and Shaka Zulu are historical greats because they are greats from their own cultures, cultures which are timeless*

The problem with artists is that art goes in and out of vogue. Many (most) styles and artists are popular in their own day only to be forgotten by subsequent generations. If anyone seriously believes people in 2250 will speak reverently of the music of Elvis or the writings of Kurt Vonnegut, they are fooling themselves. These people are culturally relevant to us today, but will not remain as such.

Political leaders have more lasting impact, because their importance does wane with cultural shifts. (sort of).

For instance, just because I'm not Mongolian and don't give much of a shit about Mongolia doesn't change the fact that a few Mongolian men shaped the modern world. They deserve mention on that basis.

Also I think Amelia Erhart (sp) was discussed. She was a pilot. She deserves no more mention than the CEO of Pepsi today, who is a woman. Within her own field, groundbreaking, in the context of human history, inconsequential.

I think whoever sent in Hammurabi is hardcore though he definitely gets my vote.

That guy invented laws.... you can't argue with that. That's fucking HUGE.

"I agree no one has ever answered it fully, but my point is I value the attempts to answer THAT question a tad more than others just de facto, as that IS, in my opinion, the highest question and so worthy of the highest honors (that's not putting down natural selection or anything, just saying...) "

I find the question "what is the meaning of life" an odd question, almost nonsensical. If it means why does anything exist then I think science is doing the best job at answering this question.
The other key question what is consciousness? I can understand why beings should act as if they are conscious, but why is it that we are actually conscious (well I am at least, maybe the rest of you are unconscious automatons).
But I think science is doing the best job at answering these questions and not philosophy.

Sequential Order (preserve this as you add... wiki is a good tool):

Hammurabi
Moses
Homer
Socrates
Plato
Alexander the Great
Euclid
Jesus
Mohammed
Athelstan the Glorious
Richard I
Edward I
Marco Polo
Edward III
Henry V
Leonardo Da Vinci
Copernicus
Martin Luther
Galileo Galilei
Shakespeare
Isaac Newton
William III
Zumbi
Rousseau
Adam Smith
Washington
Mozart
Napoleon Bonaparte
Carl Friedrich Gauss
Shaka Zulu
Charles Darwin
Sitting Bull
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nikola Tesla
Marie Curie
Karl Marx
Fydor Dyostoevsky
Gandhi
Vladimir Lenin
Winston Churchill
Albert Einstein
Alexander Fleming
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Adolph Hitler
Ernest Hemingway
Salvador Dali
William Burroughs
Nelson Mandela

I agree on some of those, Thucy, but not on all of them:

-First: YES, BIG THUMBS UP to whoever sent in Hammurabi, he's far too overlooked, really...the Ancient World is split in terms of philosophy, religion, laws, etc., down the same lines generally, the Hellenistic World-Mesopotamian cultures (so the Greeks, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, etc.) and the Tribes that would become the Hebrews, then Jews, and finally divide into Jews and Christians. As such, we have Moses and Justinian as the great lawgivers on the one side, and Hammurabi on the other...and between The Ten Commandments, The Code of Hammurabi, and the laws of the Romans from Augustus-Justinian (he briefly reunited the fallen Western Empire and Eastern Empire, and was a great leader worthy of the "Roman Emperor" title, so really I'd consider Justinian, while technically a Byzantine, to be the last Roman Emperor) we get the backbone of the governments and laws we see today. Moses was apparent and an easy nod, but definite props are in order for bringing in the other side of the equation as well, not to mention arguably the greatest pre-Persian ruler of the Middle East...Hammurabi's an awesome pick.

-Sitting Bull...well, on the one hand he DID unifiy a lot of the remaining Native American tribes, and DID win...but the dual facts that the victory wasn't lasting insofar as the Native Americans lost the fight anyway and the fact the "Native Americans" were really a great collection of tribes, and so to say that Sitting Bull united "the Native Americans" would be sort of like saying that an Asian ruler "united all Aisans." Even if they did so by conquest, that's not so much uniting as conquering; granted Sitting Bull obviously didn't conquer them and was a pretty damn good field tactician, ousting Custer's forces and all, but how lasting was his victory? Not very, they lost. How much did he really "unite" them? Iffy...

-Abe Lincoln's certainly a Top 10 figure in American history (you'd have proponents clamoring for him to take the #1 spot in American Importance, and they'd certainly have a case) but his world impact? He kept America from flying apart, but other than that, did anything he ever did (not to knock Great Old Abe) really stretch across the Pond?

-Madonna I've gone on long enough about and we both seem on the same page anyway

-Alexander the Great weill be remembered so long as mankind lives, FOR SURE...

-Ernest Hemmingway's an interesting case, becaue at first I WAS a bit dismissive of him, as much as I like his work (obiwanobiwan's Public English Major Service Announcement: If you want a good Southern writer that's not named "Poe" or "Twain," look no further than Hemmingway, and look away from Faulkner and his loose grip on hos own characters and time shifts, with dry descriptions to boot...not a bad writer, but far overrated, and Hemmingway is everything I think Faulker gets credit for/tried to be and I can Ernestly say Hemmingway's the man...if you've enver read "A Farewell to Arms," get thee to thy bookstore and buy it and read it, it's short and one of the best love and war stories in American literature, ranks well in all literature...in a sea of WWII novels, it's a WWI book that stands out) he IS "just" a "grea" writer. But the one class on our list--national leaders, war leaders, scientists--that has the greatest capacity ot rise after death is the artist/writer/philosophy class...why, someone even once opened a book by the name of "The AntiChrist" by saying "Some are born posthumously." Hmmm...he rose from obscurity pretty well, I think...and Hemmingway's got some great stuff--we shall see...

-Right on about pop culture heroes fading fast; if we're lucky, they're lucky, maybe Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, and The Beatles will be remembered...all three have a good chance, Robinson with one of the first Civil Rights Movement actions breaking the color barrier, Ruth personifying America's national pastime and the 1920s in America, and The Beatles...really I DO think of all the pop culture things, actors and atheletes and all the rest, John, Paul, George, and Ringo WILL endure, they changed music and changed the social consciousness of a lot of folks in America and England at the time, and still do have a great residual impact, their music is still loved and still sending huge ripples...and John Lennon especially was a poet and an activist. Maybe I'm being overly-romantic, just a a Fool on the Hill here (it's the law-- at least one Beatles pun per Beatles mention...and that's actually one of my favorite Beatles songs, it really makes me think of all the artists and philosophers who msut've felt like they were all alone and the world called them crazy, but look what they turned out to be) but...what do you think, Thucy, others:

Will even The Beatles, probably the biggest popular and musical culture influence of the last century, be rembered When I'm 364? Or even just the music, or John Lennon?

I think so, I certainly hope so, one of the few acts in the modern age I really do think were both pop culture fun and meaningful and influential in an artistic and cultural way...

-"Political leaders have more lasting impact"

To an extent I agree, but still--all the philosophers, writers, and the like...Queen Elizabeth has endured (there's one for the list) and will, but surely she hasn't eclipsed William Shakespeare? And Mozart and Beethoven certainly seem to overshadow their leaders...

"I find the question "what is the meaning of life" an odd question, almost nonsensical. If it means why does anything exist then I think science is doing the best job at answering this question."

But simply why we exist as we do isn't the whole question, or even the tip of the iceberg, it goes deeper--

Why SHOULD we exist?
Is their a MEANING to our lives, or is it just a crapshoot?
If there is a meaning inherent, what is it? How do we know? Who gave us this meaning? How do we accomplish it? What happens if we do? What does it mean to accomplish what you were truly meant for?
If there is no inherent meaning, then why does anything exist, if all is contingent? Why should we bother/ Should we at all? Should we set up our own meaning? What?
What does it mean to be a "human," and not simply a "human being/homo sapein?"



And on and on.

They're questions science can't answer because science isn't designed to, they're questions that deal with the most abstract notions that DO form the backbone of human experience, for good or for bad...

On the other hand, philosophy has the issue of proof; logical proofs work well, but can we ever prove things as concretely as a scientist may his findings?

No.



I think philosophy and science should be two seperate fields, but not enemies, or viewing each other wioth superiorty or disdain, but rather striving towards a like goal..

Science can tell how we got ehre better that philosophy but has a harder time asking why we're here as we are and if we have a meaning and what that means and all of that.
Philosophy has the converse issue, being able to do that but lacking the certainty of science.

If there's ever going to be an answer, I think it'll require both...and I have great respect for both (I can just do one fAR better than the otehr...Biology I'm actually pretty good with, and if I wasn't an English person I'd probably want to be a research or medical doctor...but all that math, and physics, and I could just never get chemistry down, barely passed hS chem...I'll stick to my philosophy and plug away at this end, science can do it's part, and we'll meet in the middle for a good, long drink.) ;)

Marco Polo but not Magellan or de Gama?

Still slightly more than half the spots open left...if you want them in...

William the Conqueror, Robespierre and Tokugawa Ieyasu

Mary Seacole

Hannibal Barca,

Socrates, Aristotle, Plato
Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha
Alexander
Amenhotep IV aka Ekhnaton
Constantine I
Napoleon
Rousseau
Kant
Hitler, Stalin, Mao
Marx
Josua
Bismarck
Hegel
Nietzsche
Caesar Augustus

I completely agree that the Beatles were hugely influential and think that if they were 1 person, they should absolutely be included. Unfortunately, they are not (and John Lennon alone doesn't cut it for me), so I chose Madonna instead. I think she is a good choice, especially since you all seem to want to be politically correct and have some women.

To me, greatest should mean doing something that others wouldn't have done a year later and doing such a thing when there are 5 billion people in the world is much more impressive than doing so when there are only a couple million. A person isn't great just because they were born 300 years ago.

As to the Mozart is much, much better argument, I don't pretend to be incredibly knowledgeable about such things, but to suggest that what he wrote is better than things people are currently producing in his field is kinda ridiculous in my opinion. So Mozart's impact is mainly as a part of history and to influence an incredibly small part of the modern music world. Also, Mozart was very much not in my history book. Just saying. To my knowledge (oh gosh, here comes obiwan's fury), Mozart was just especially good, he didn't necessarily redefine music except to perhaps make operas a bit more lively. Madonna, on the other hand, at least caused a shift in how music was created and consumed.

Again, I don't really care if Madonna is actually on the list, I am just saying that to support some of the people currently on the list like scientists who nudged science forward a year or two than it otherwise would have or kings from the 1300s who really did nothing at all except be kings (ie the fact that it was THEM who was king was insignificant) is pretty ridiculous if you are going to dismiss Madonna in the same breath.

There needs to be someone who represents modern culture. That shizz matters. If you don't like my choice, pick someone else.

I agree with the Madonna pick 100%, though I wouldn't put her on my list of 5. To suggest that her impact is limited to the last 25-30 years is ridiculous because we cannot calculate how far reaching her influence shall be. Not to mention, she didn't just influence women or fashion, she influenced an entire GENRE of music. We credit Mozart as one of the great classical composers of all time. Gershwin is one of the greatest jazz composers of all time. Is it really far-fetched to suggest that Madonna is the greatest Pop artist of all time and that her influence in that genre has solidified it as a real cornerstone of our music industry? To say otherwise would be ignorant. Anyway, here's my list.

William Penn
John Marshall
Michaelangelo
Pope John Paul II
Henry Ford

Hope that's more or less diverse enough for this thread.

Putting Bono in the same category as Madonna is almost the stupidest thing I've ever read on these forums. Bono and his Irish wonder band certainly make great music and have been involved in Rock for a long time. But there is no way to suggest that his influence in music is comparable to Madonna. Now of course, one could argue that Bono is also one of the greatest humanitarians of all time and that's what makes him a worthy addition, but answer me this. If U2 never got famous and Bono was left to live in the Irish countryside, still struggling to write songs people care about, would he have this heart for humanitarianism he seems to have over the past couple decades? I don't think he would because his FAME has generated his desire to give back. Had he never made it, Bono would have given about as much care to his fellow man as he does the shit he flushes down his toilets.