Quoting from that site’s front page about the book’s author: “Dambisa is a Patron for Absolute Return for Kids (ARK), a hedge fund supported children’s charity.”
I take it that she does not disapprove of all aid? I can readily imagine that there are indeed harmful forms of aid (e.g. that gets intercepted by corrupt governments).
My preferred form of aid would in fact be in the area of education, because you can only be a self-reliant adult if you’re given in childhood the memes required for self-reliance. Aid that does allow people to bootstrap out of aid.
If I cure one person of TB, who would otherwise die, and the patient goes on to have several decades of happy life, I have solved a problem. That’s so even if the patient isn’t turned into a rich-country computer programmer whose kids never get sick.
This is like attacking the idea of working at a job to buy food for yourself: since you’ll just get hungry again later it’s not a solution to the problem of your hunger.
If it makes one happy to go around and cure people of TB, then one should by all means do so. However, I do not perceive this as significantly different, or more valuable, than running a huge animal shelter, if the recipient of aid doesn’t pay you back. As with an animal shelter, you are expending external resources to maintain something for the sake of it. Doing so does not contribute towards creating resources. It is a form of indulgence, not investment.
So valuable_denisbider charity is charity that is a profitable investment for denisbider? Or profitable for the giver? Even if the recipients were highly functional and creative thereafter?
If the recipients are highly functional and creative thereafter, they should make money. If they make money, even if you don’t want it, they can pay you back.
I do approve of charity which gives to things that do go on to create more than was invested. An example would be investing into basic research that isn’t going to pay off until decades later. Investing in that is, I think, one of the most commendable charitable acts.
Most charity, however, is not that. It is more so charitable indulgence; it is spending money on something that is emotionally appealing, but never provides a return; neither to the giver, nor to anyone else.
I despise the travesty of such acts being framed as morally valuable charity, rather than as an indulgent throwing of resources away.
Well, if you want to say that curing a TB patient to have a mostly happy life with low economic productivity in tradables is a despicable “travesty” and an “indulgent” waste of resources (and not because the return on investment could be used to do more good later), you can use words that way.
But in future it would be nice to make it plain when your bold conclusions about “cost-benefit analysis” depend so profoundly on normative choices like not caring about the lives or welfare of the powerless, rather than any interesting empirical considerations or arguments relevant to folk who do care.
No one is powerless unless they are physically or mentally incapacitated.
To give an example of someone who is physically incapacitated. A pig. He’s smart, but he doesn’t have thumbs and can’t speak. Are you out to help him?
For another example of someone who is mentally incapacitated. A chimpanzee. He has thumbs, but he’s not so bright. Are you out to help him?
If you believe that Africans are somehow physically or mentally incapacitated, then you should treat them much the same as you treat chimpanzees.
On the other hand, if you believe that they are not incapacitated, then they aren’t powerless. If they aren’t powerless, they can organize their community any way they like.
They haven’t yet created any highly functional societies over the past few decades, whereas many others have. So apparently, they’re either incapacitated (so proper treatment = same as chimps), or they’ve decided that their current situation is what they want.
Either way, foreign aid is inconsistent. Either we should be helping animals as much as we help Africans, or else, they are people who have the power to better themselves, and do not need aid.
Edited to add: Again, people downvoting, but nary a peep about why this logic is wrong. Focus on the essence, rather than the blasphemy? Anyone?
Sigh...
I think I’m just going to give up on this community. Good luck with your goals, everyone. ;)
Your analogy is flawed. We cannot spend a few dollars to ensure that a chimpanzee gains cognitive ability. We can spend a few dollars to ensure that someone with nutritional deficiencies or easily curable diseases has a vaccine or proper vitamins to substantially increase their IQ and ability to function. In which case, the “incapacitation” you refer to is actually a vicious cycle, a structural problem, that’s aid-solvable.
Also, there’s an enormous leap from “they’re not incapacitated… ” to “they can do whatever they want!”
Also, there’s an enormous leap from “they’re not incapacitated… ” to “they can do whatever they want!”
Yes.
In which case, the “incapacitation” you refer to is actually a vicious cycle, a structural problem, that’s aid-solvable.
Surely some part of it reflects such positive feedbacks, but not obviously all. E.g. public health aid is not very well-suited to overthrowing kleptocrats and replacing them with efficient institutions, or changing cultural norms.
Also, note that there has been a Flynn Effect in Africa too, and it’s one of the only regions of the world that still lacks broad iodization of salt, and thus suffers from the associated IQ deficiencies and retardation. Likewise for iron..
Edited to add: Again, people downvoting, but nary a peep about why this logic is wrong. Focus on the essence, rather than the blasphemy? Anyone?
Sigh...
I think I’m just going to give up on this community. Good luck with your goals, everyone. ;)
Firstly, I am not obligated to tell you why I downvote.
Secondly, it is hard to justify responding to a comment like this. The amount of clarifying questions I need to ask to fully understand how your examples relate to the point requires more effort than I want to expend.
As best as I can tell, this is the crux of your point:
If you believe that Africans are somehow physically or mentally incapacitated, then you should treat them much the same as you treat chimpanzees.
On the other hand, if you believe that they are not incapacitated, then they aren’t powerless. If they aren’t powerless, they can organize their community any way they like.
If we narrow the field from Africa to someone unjustly imprisoned, should we help them? The point of this question is to clarify whether there is a difference between someone who is powerless and someone who has the potential for power. It makes no implicit claim on whether we should help Africa.
This is similar to Rain’s comment about spending a few dollars on chimp cognition.
Quoting from that site’s front page about the book’s author: “Dambisa is a Patron for Absolute Return for Kids (ARK), a hedge fund supported children’s charity.”
I take it that she does not disapprove of all aid? I can readily imagine that there are indeed harmful forms of aid (e.g. that gets intercepted by corrupt governments).
My preferred form of aid would in fact be in the area of education, because you can only be a self-reliant adult if you’re given in childhood the memes required for self-reliance. Aid that does allow people to bootstrap out of aid.
Aid in health care and education would in fact be the best way if the problem was something that can be solved with health care and education.
If I cure one person of TB, who would otherwise die, and the patient goes on to have several decades of happy life, I have solved a problem. That’s so even if the patient isn’t turned into a rich-country computer programmer whose kids never get sick.
This is like attacking the idea of working at a job to buy food for yourself: since you’ll just get hungry again later it’s not a solution to the problem of your hunger.
If it makes one happy to go around and cure people of TB, then one should by all means do so. However, I do not perceive this as significantly different, or more valuable, than running a huge animal shelter, if the recipient of aid doesn’t pay you back. As with an animal shelter, you are expending external resources to maintain something for the sake of it. Doing so does not contribute towards creating resources. It is a form of indulgence, not investment.
So valuable_denisbider charity is charity that is a profitable investment for denisbider? Or profitable for the giver? Even if the recipients were highly functional and creative thereafter?
If the recipients are highly functional and creative thereafter, they should make money. If they make money, even if you don’t want it, they can pay you back.
I do approve of charity which gives to things that do go on to create more than was invested. An example would be investing into basic research that isn’t going to pay off until decades later. Investing in that is, I think, one of the most commendable charitable acts.
Most charity, however, is not that. It is more so charitable indulgence; it is spending money on something that is emotionally appealing, but never provides a return; neither to the giver, nor to anyone else.
I despise the travesty of such acts being framed as morally valuable charity, rather than as an indulgent throwing of resources away.
Well, if you want to say that curing a TB patient to have a mostly happy life with low economic productivity in tradables is a despicable “travesty” and an “indulgent” waste of resources (and not because the return on investment could be used to do more good later), you can use words that way.
But in future it would be nice to make it plain when your bold conclusions about “cost-benefit analysis” depend so profoundly on normative choices like not caring about the lives or welfare of the powerless, rather than any interesting empirical considerations or arguments relevant to folk who do care.
No one is powerless unless they are physically or mentally incapacitated.
To give an example of someone who is physically incapacitated. A pig. He’s smart, but he doesn’t have thumbs and can’t speak. Are you out to help him?
For another example of someone who is mentally incapacitated. A chimpanzee. He has thumbs, but he’s not so bright. Are you out to help him?
If you believe that Africans are somehow physically or mentally incapacitated, then you should treat them much the same as you treat chimpanzees.
On the other hand, if you believe that they are not incapacitated, then they aren’t powerless. If they aren’t powerless, they can organize their community any way they like.
They haven’t yet created any highly functional societies over the past few decades, whereas many others have. So apparently, they’re either incapacitated (so proper treatment = same as chimps), or they’ve decided that their current situation is what they want.
Either way, foreign aid is inconsistent. Either we should be helping animals as much as we help Africans, or else, they are people who have the power to better themselves, and do not need aid.
Edited to add: Again, people downvoting, but nary a peep about why this logic is wrong. Focus on the essence, rather than the blasphemy? Anyone?
Sigh...
I think I’m just going to give up on this community. Good luck with your goals, everyone. ;)
Your analogy is flawed. We cannot spend a few dollars to ensure that a chimpanzee gains cognitive ability. We can spend a few dollars to ensure that someone with nutritional deficiencies or easily curable diseases has a vaccine or proper vitamins to substantially increase their IQ and ability to function. In which case, the “incapacitation” you refer to is actually a vicious cycle, a structural problem, that’s aid-solvable.
Also, there’s an enormous leap from “they’re not incapacitated… ” to “they can do whatever they want!”
Yes.
Surely some part of it reflects such positive feedbacks, but not obviously all. E.g. public health aid is not very well-suited to overthrowing kleptocrats and replacing them with efficient institutions, or changing cultural norms.
Also, note that there has been a Flynn Effect in Africa too, and it’s one of the only regions of the world that still lacks broad iodization of salt, and thus suffers from the associated IQ deficiencies and retardation. Likewise for iron..
Firstly, I am not obligated to tell you why I downvote.
Secondly, it is hard to justify responding to a comment like this. The amount of clarifying questions I need to ask to fully understand how your examples relate to the point requires more effort than I want to expend.
As best as I can tell, this is the crux of your point:
If we narrow the field from Africa to someone unjustly imprisoned, should we help them? The point of this question is to clarify whether there is a difference between someone who is powerless and someone who has the potential for power. It makes no implicit claim on whether we should help Africa.
This is similar to Rain’s comment about spending a few dollars on chimp cognition.