6 ms·

I have a son who is just about 10 years old, and he’s getting to the age where he’s beginning to realize how irrational our world is. We recently had a convers

I have a son who is just about 10 years old, and he’s getting to the age where he’s beginning to realize how irrational our world is. We recently had a conversation discussing the fact that we could eradicate hunger and the need for clean water globally, but for a whole host of reasons we have not yet done it. He continues to probe “why“ and all I can say is, essentially, because people are greedy and unmotivated generally, and unwilling to sacrifice a modicum for others (not to mention corruption and other collective action problems). I don’t think there is an answer.

joelbondurant0 5y ago
chillacy 5y ago
Adam smith wrote a short philosophy book about this back in the day about this very topic. (something like: what is worse: stubbing your toe, or a natural disaster somewhere remote which kills thousands but doesn’t affect you personally). I wouldn’t say it’s “the answer” but it is “a candidate answer”
- thathndude 5y ago
  Yeah. The classic formulation I’ve seen of that is “would you cut off your pinky to save 100 people’s lives in China”
frutiger 5y ago
> and unwilling to sacrifice a modicum for others I agree with your sentiment but I have to disagree with that phrase. The vast majority* of people of people pay quite a lot of money in taxes, which ostensibly** only exist to help others. (*) I know the billionaires have their wealth as unrealized gains; I chose my words carefully (**) I know we all disagree on how that revenue should be spent, but the purpose of taxation is all the same
- oneoff786 5y ago
  People pay taxes to avoid going to jail. Your tax return has an option to pay more for no reason. Guess how many people choose that option.
  - tor11 5y ago
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  > I know the billionaires have their wealth as unrealized gains; I chose my words carefully That they use as collateral to get loans from banks that actually have that money. "Billionaires don't actually have that money" is peak bootlicker logic.
  - frutiger 5y ago
    That’s why I said “vast majority of people”.
  - landemva 5y ago
    No, the banks don't actually have the money. Banks are regulated and licensed to print money based on undercollateralized loans. A house mortgage with 20% down is designed to be undercollateralized. When the regulators and debt rating agencies don't do their jobs, it is easily apparent those loans were not fully collateralized. Therefore, the loans created money out of thin air. The banks are licensed to print money.
    - ohgodplsno 5y ago
      Big bootlicker energy here. It doesn't matter if what your bank gives you isn't paper money. That's not the point. The point is, you go to the bank, you can buy absolutely anything you want with your loaned money, even if it's just a line in a database called fake_money_literally_just_printed.
- imtringued 5y ago
geertj 5y ago
> We recently had a conversation discussing the fact that we could eradicate hunger and the need for clean water globally, but for a whole host of reasons we have not yet done it. It depends at what level you mean ‘could.’ Yes, agro-technically we can produce enough food to feed everyone. The issue with world hunger is mostly due to non democratic governments preferring power over feeding their people. At that level, the ‘could’ becomes difficult and maybe impossible. I think the real answer is that human nature has a dark side that, unless kept in balance by a culture of accountability, will cause harm to others. A related realization is that, I think, cultures of accountability can be traced back to just luck and a small number of enlightened people that set things up in the past at the right time in the right place. So let’s not pretend things will always get better automatically, and, for those who enjoy freedom under a democratic government, let’s make an effort to cherish and invest in our culture, starting with educating our kids how special this really is.
- krainboltgreene 5y ago
  You literally just described their own comment back to them.
  - HKH2 5y ago
    No, the first post implies that the problem is that [the West] is too greedy, and the second post implies that even if [the West] were generous by any measure, it still wouldn't fix the problem.
oneoff786 5y ago
If you give food to poor areas for free then their farmers go out of business, the area becomes more poor, and they become dependent on aid. Breaking systems always has consequences. It’s not easy.
- esarbe 5y ago
  How about industrialized nations get rid of their agricultural subsidies?
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    Then the price of food goes up, and farmers have a bad time?
    - esarbe 5y ago
      Then the rich countries cannot dump their chronic surpluses on the international markets and kill the local markets of developing countries for small-scale farmers.
      - oneoff786 5y ago
        Oversimplified beyond the point of usefulness. The effects of reducing farmer subsidies are enormous and far more wide reaching than dumping implications in developing countries. The original question was why can’t we just feed everyone.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Yes, USA corn subsidies are obscene and often encourage over-use of fertilizers and pesticides. Governments should stop manipulating price signals. If government was moderately okay at setting prices and production, there would not have been starvation of tens of millions under Mao's rule. If government manipulation of production worked, today North Korea would be the bread basket of the world.
  - iggldiggl 5y ago
mistrial9 5y ago
you are speaking in a fictional "we" .. the wealthiest economies are built on pure selfish action, and grew like ivy in the garden in the last 500 years of expansion. Meanwhile, plenty of other cultures teach their children to compete with others based on language, "tribal" affiliation, other reasons.. You are trying to explain half of a world-view, and your ten year old easily finds the dissonance in that. source: a person raised in the fictional "we" whose neighbors were not
- imtringued 5y ago
  Singapore and Hongkong are not very selfish. They have public land ownership for example.
imtringued 5y ago
Just think about it. The lay man definition of rent seeking is making a profit without putting any effort (i.e. letting someone else carry the burden of earning the profit). Who doesn't want to earn a profit from doing absolutely nothing? All you need to do is tax the rent seeking and it goes away. The reason why that hasn't been done is that those who would be impacted have good connections with elected politicians. The most humble example is a homeowner who is involved in local politics at the expense of the renter.
shagie 5y ago
I'm quite fond of the YouTube channel Kurzgesagt which has deep videos that are targeted at a "you don't need to be an expert in the subject to understand." There's a video on this subject - Can YOU Fix Climate Change? https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc You may also like A Selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place – Egoistic Altruism https://youtu.be/rvskMHn0sqQ https://youtu.be/rvskMHn0sqQ

joelbondurant0 5y ago

chillacy 5y ago

Adam smith wrote a short philosophy book about this back in the day about this very topic. (something like: what is worse: stubbing your toe, or a natural disaster somewhere remote which kills thousands but doesn’t affect you personally). I wouldn’t say it’s “the answer” but it is “a candidate answer”

thathndude 5y ago
Yeah. The classic formulation I’ve seen of that is “would you cut off your pinky to save 100 people’s lives in China”

frutiger 5y ago

> and unwilling to sacrifice a modicum for others I agree with your sentiment but I have to disagree with that phrase. The vast majority* of people of people pay quite a lot of money in taxes, which ostensibly** only exist to help others. (*) I know the billionaires have their wealth as unrealized gains; I chose my words carefully (**) I know we all disagree on how that revenue should be spent, but the purpose of taxation is all the same

oneoff786 5y ago
People pay taxes to avoid going to jail. Your tax return has an option to pay more for no reason. Guess how many people choose that option.
- tor11 5y ago
ohgodplsno 5y ago
> I know the billionaires have their wealth as unrealized gains; I chose my words carefully That they use as collateral to get loans from banks that actually have that money. "Billionaires don't actually have that money" is peak bootlicker logic.
- frutiger 5y ago
  That’s why I said “vast majority of people”.
- landemva 5y ago
  No, the banks don't actually have the money. Banks are regulated and licensed to print money based on undercollateralized loans. A house mortgage with 20% down is designed to be undercollateralized. When the regulators and debt rating agencies don't do their jobs, it is easily apparent those loans were not fully collateralized. Therefore, the loans created money out of thin air. The banks are licensed to print money.
  - ohgodplsno 5y ago
    Big bootlicker energy here. It doesn't matter if what your bank gives you isn't paper money. That's not the point. The point is, you go to the bank, you can buy absolutely anything you want with your loaned money, even if it's just a line in a database called fake_money_literally_just_printed.
imtringued 5y ago

geertj 5y ago

> We recently had a conversation discussing the fact that we could eradicate hunger and the need for clean water globally, but for a whole host of reasons we have not yet done it. It depends at what level you mean ‘could.’ Yes, agro-technically we can produce enough food to feed everyone. The issue with world hunger is mostly due to non democratic governments preferring power over feeding their people. At that level, the ‘could’ becomes difficult and maybe impossible. I think the real answer is that human nature has a dark side that, unless kept in balance by a culture of accountability, will cause harm to others. A related realization is that, I think, cultures of accountability can be traced back to just luck and a small number of enlightened people that set things up in the past at the right time in the right place. So let’s not pretend things will always get better automatically, and, for those who enjoy freedom under a democratic government, let’s make an effort to cherish and invest in our culture, starting with educating our kids how special this really is.

krainboltgreene 5y ago
You literally just described their own comment back to them.
- HKH2 5y ago
  No, the first post implies that the problem is that [the West] is too greedy, and the second post implies that even if [the West] were generous by any measure, it still wouldn't fix the problem.

oneoff786 5y ago

If you give food to poor areas for free then their farmers go out of business, the area becomes more poor, and they become dependent on aid. Breaking systems always has consequences. It’s not easy.

esarbe 5y ago
How about industrialized nations get rid of their agricultural subsidies?
- oneoff786 5y ago
  Then the price of food goes up, and farmers have a bad time?
  - esarbe 5y ago
    Then the rich countries cannot dump their chronic surpluses on the international markets and kill the local markets of developing countries for small-scale farmers.
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      Oversimplified beyond the point of usefulness. The effects of reducing farmer subsidies are enormous and far more wide reaching than dumping implications in developing countries. The original question was why can’t we just feed everyone.
- landemva 5y ago
  Yes, USA corn subsidies are obscene and often encourage over-use of fertilizers and pesticides. Governments should stop manipulating price signals. If government was moderately okay at setting prices and production, there would not have been starvation of tens of millions under Mao's rule. If government manipulation of production worked, today North Korea would be the bread basket of the world.
- iggldiggl 5y ago

mistrial9 5y ago

you are speaking in a fictional "we" .. the wealthiest economies are built on pure selfish action, and grew like ivy in the garden in the last 500 years of expansion. Meanwhile, plenty of other cultures teach their children to compete with others based on language, "tribal" affiliation, other reasons.. You are trying to explain half of a world-view, and your ten year old easily finds the dissonance in that. source: a person raised in the fictional "we" whose neighbors were not

imtringued 5y ago
Singapore and Hongkong are not very selfish. They have public land ownership for example.

imtringued 5y ago

Just think about it. The lay man definition of rent seeking is making a profit without putting any effort (i.e. letting someone else carry the burden of earning the profit). Who doesn't want to earn a profit from doing absolutely nothing? All you need to do is tax the rent seeking and it goes away. The reason why that hasn't been done is that those who would be impacted have good connections with elected politicians. The most humble example is a homeowner who is involved in local politics at the expense of the renter.

shagie 5y ago

I'm quite fond of the YouTube channel Kurzgesagt which has deep videos that are targeted at a "you don't need to be an expert in the subject to understand." There's a video on this subject - Can YOU Fix Climate Change? https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc You may also like A Selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place – Egoistic Altruism https://youtu.be/rvskMHn0sqQ https://youtu.be/rvskMHn0sqQ