3 ms·

It's hard to read your comment as anything but a middlebrow dismissal. > Wealth comes from passing through the difficult stages of development oneself Is havi

by unmole 4y ago

It's hard to read your comment as anything but a middlebrow dismissal. > Wealth comes from passing through the difficult stages of development oneself Is having people go blind from preventable causes or children growing up stunted supposed to build character? > you personally should do the good things you want to do in the world rather than just donating money for someone else to do it on your behalf The point is to do good, not feel good. Specialization is the very basis of human civilization. Software engineers donating their surplus to fund salaries for trained full time teachers is going to be a lot more effective than the alternative you're suggesting.

paganel 4y ago
Not the OP, but those kids need parents that have a steady pay-check (we can't all be entrepreneurs). Nowadays a steady pay-check is mostly associated with making things, especially in non-Western countries, things which are later sold (on the same internal market or to export markets). Once a much bigger player from the outside comes in and gives stuff for "free", like it has happened with some of the Western aid, then that kid's parents I mentioned at the start of the comment risk losing their jobs. After all, it's not worth it anymore for their employer to keep them, well, employed, cause the market that he's targeting is getting dumped by all the free stuff coming in via Western "aid". These are, in retrospect, basic economics-related things, but which nevertheless took a while to sink in into some people's minds in the West (some are still oblivious to it all). I remember a book written by an African lady (I think she was from Botswana or from that general area), former worker at a big financial institution in the West, and imploring the West to stop "aiding" the African countries if they want to see them actually develop.
- unmole 4y ago
  I'm sorry, what exactly does your comment have to do with effective altruism? The free stuff that EA advocates want to distribute are deworming pills and mosquito nets. That in no way precludes development of local manufacturing. Moreover, cash infusions like with GiveDirectly help kickstart a virtuous cycle of local production and consumption.
- elil17 4y ago
  Except the "stuff" isn't everything, it's a few specific things (medicine and bednets). No one being given this stuff was about to go synthesize malaria drugs and make a fortune. Nothing is getting in the way of Africa's biggest economic activities such as mining, agriculture, and financial services.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Just manufacture the nets and drugs in the destination country, two birds one stone.
    - elil17 4y ago
      You face a very real short term trade off between manufacturing at a higher cost in the destination country (thereby saving fewer lives) and manufacturing at a lower cost elsewhere (thereby saving more lives but contributing less to the local economy). I would argue you want to do the latter because both net and medicine manufacturing are capital intensive - a small number of people are employed despite the large cost of setting up a factory. Most of the local economic contribution is going to come from hiring people to handle distribution.
m101 4y ago
I don't think i am pushing for feeling good. I am just suggesting that we should be the change we want to see at a low level. Be the good neighbour (literally). This change in culture would permeate creating good people, which would continue to do good things. These days we either pay taxes so others do good for us, or we donate money, for the same reason. We need to go to the local community centres to represent the interests of those in need, and tackle problems of poverty directly. These days there is a disgust in people about poor people. They are a "problem" and not only in the sense of "poverty is a problem" but also in the sense that "it is a problem for me to have to look at them". In engaging directly we view them more as people and we can try to connect again, rather than the only connection they have is with some local govt representative who needs to be paid to speak to them.

by unmole 4y ago

paganel 4y ago

Not the OP, but those kids need parents that have a steady pay-check (we can't all be entrepreneurs). Nowadays a steady pay-check is mostly associated with making things, especially in non-Western countries, things which are later sold (on the same internal market or to export markets). Once a much bigger player from the outside comes in and gives stuff for "free", like it has happened with some of the Western aid, then that kid's parents I mentioned at the start of the comment risk losing their jobs. After all, it's not worth it anymore for their employer to keep them, well, employed, cause the market that he's targeting is getting dumped by all the free stuff coming in via Western "aid". These are, in retrospect, basic economics-related things, but which nevertheless took a while to sink in into some people's minds in the West (some are still oblivious to it all). I remember a book written by an African lady (I think she was from Botswana or from that general area), former worker at a big financial institution in the West, and imploring the West to stop "aiding" the African countries if they want to see them actually develop.

unmole 4y ago
I'm sorry, what exactly does your comment have to do with effective altruism? The free stuff that EA advocates want to distribute are deworming pills and mosquito nets. That in no way precludes development of local manufacturing. Moreover, cash infusions like with GiveDirectly help kickstart a virtuous cycle of local production and consumption.
elil17 4y ago
Except the "stuff" isn't everything, it's a few specific things (medicine and bednets). No one being given this stuff was about to go synthesize malaria drugs and make a fortune. Nothing is getting in the way of Africa's biggest economic activities such as mining, agriculture, and financial services.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Just manufacture the nets and drugs in the destination country, two birds one stone.
  - elil17 4y ago
    You face a very real short term trade off between manufacturing at a higher cost in the destination country (thereby saving fewer lives) and manufacturing at a lower cost elsewhere (thereby saving more lives but contributing less to the local economy). I would argue you want to do the latter because both net and medicine manufacturing are capital intensive - a small number of people are employed despite the large cost of setting up a factory. Most of the local economic contribution is going to come from hiring people to handle distribution.

m101 4y ago

I don't think i am pushing for feeling good. I am just suggesting that we should be the change we want to see at a low level. Be the good neighbour (literally). This change in culture would permeate creating good people, which would continue to do good things. These days we either pay taxes so others do good for us, or we donate money, for the same reason. We need to go to the local community centres to represent the interests of those in need, and tackle problems of poverty directly. These days there is a disgust in people about poor people. They are a "problem" and not only in the sense of "poverty is a problem" but also in the sense that "it is a problem for me to have to look at them". In engaging directly we view them more as people and we can try to connect again, rather than the only connection they have is with some local govt representative who needs to be paid to speak to them.