8 ms·

Maybe a closer comparison would be famine of 1876-8, where some estimate go as high as 8.6M fatalities on a population of ~58M. > In its first full year, 1846

• Loughla 2y ago
  >which was in keeping with a prevailing belief of the time, was that any excessive payment might create 'dependency' ... Now where have I heard that recently
  • Henchman21 2y ago
    From people who want to take us back to feudalism.
    • red-iron-pine 2y ago
      and that keep succeeding in those attempts
  • zdragnar 2y ago
    The generic term is: perverse incentive.
  • munificent 2y ago
    Indeed, and ironically, from people who have largely inherited their wealth instead of working for it.
    • DrillShopper 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • transcriptase 2y ago
        That would be an odd thing for him to think, given the alleged emerald mine was claimed to be in Zambia which was never apartheid.
      • heavymetalpoizn 2y ago
        [dead]
      • blackhawkC17 2y ago
        Ignorant opinion. The mine was in Zambia and had incredibly low output. There was no fortune made there. They’re many legitimate things to criticize about Musk. No need to cook up BS stories.
        • thowawatp302 2y ago
          Low compared to what? How much is low?
        • defrost 2y ago
          According to Errol Musk (Elon's father): We had so much money we couldn't even close our safe' Elon Musk's Dad tells BI about the family's insanely casual attitude to wealth ~ https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-dad-tells-bi-about-the-familys-casual-attitude-to-wealth-2018-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-dad-tells-bi-abou... Musk [ Errol - the father ] studied electromechanics at the University of Pretoria, worked as an electrical and mechanical engineering consultant, and developed properties, especially retail and office property development. His lucrative engineering business took on "large projects such as office buildings, retail complexes, residential subdivisions, and an air force base." He also owned an auto parts store, at least half a share in an emerald mine, and even "one of the biggest houses in Pretoria" In 1979, Musk and his wife Maye divorced. Maye's book recalls that at the time of the divorce, he owned two homes, a yacht, a plane, five luxury cars, and a truck. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errol_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errol_Musk One of Elon's grandfather's was a senior politician in the (white) S.A. Government, the other grandfather a staunch Hitler supporting nazi who left Canada for SA for better acceptance.
  • salomonk_mur 2y ago
    Dependence on assistantialism is a real phenomenon. Here in Colombia (and probably all over the developing world?) it has been well proven that permanent help does create complacency and dependency. Help must be conditioned to effort and have a limit, so recipients have an incentive to improve their conditions under some timeline.
    • cool_dude85 2y ago
      Where was this proven in Colombia?
    • abeppu 2y ago
      1. "permanent" help is not what's required during an famine due to crop failures, and not what anyone was demanding 2. focusing on the "assistance" without mentioning the circumstances which create the crisis is missing a big part of the picture. In the case of British policy in India, some important components leading up to that famine were: a. favoring a bunch of non-food cash crops, including opium production for export to China, tea for export to Britain, and materials for industry like jute and cotton. All of this diverted land away from food production which only set up for the famine to be a larger and more deadly crisis. b. of the food that was produced, as in the Irish context, the British exported a lot of it. And didn't stop exporting it when there was a local famine. c. in some areas imposing extremely high taxes, and in others switching farmers to owe taxes to be a percentage of land rents rather than as a percentage of their production -- i.e. if your crops failed you became insolvent and were pushed off the land, _preventing you from working_. The narrative that colonizers shouldn't "assist" the victims of a famine when the colonizers were the ones driving down food production and exporting grain is so mind-bogglingly backwards. This is only a step away from an arsonist setting fire to your house and preventing the fire department from responding because that would only teach you to become dependent on the state bailing you out of every crisis.
      • lurk2 2y ago
        Blaming the British for the famines in India is like blaming Democrats for the forest fires in California; it only has an air of respectability about it because Brahmins have been doing it for 200 years.
  • Panzer04 2y ago
    The main problem seems to be setting the backup payment below the rate necessary to sustain life. I have to disagree that you won't become dependent on assistance given too freely. Obviously these crises leaned way, way too far in the other direction to avoid it, however.
    • Plasmoid2000ad 2y ago
      It's a deep and complicated part of history, but I think calling out a single main problem really risks skipping over the depth and scale of the problems. Scattered points - but during the famine to earn 'wage' of insufficient grain ration, you had to work. This happened in work houses and camps, not necessarily in their homes or home areas. Workhouses existed in most towns where labourers lived, leaving their homes and families or after being evicted. Families were split up, Men, Women and Children did not live together. The workhouses and camps had terrible conditions, and the work was hard enough to have injuries and deaths even ignoring the illnesses that spread and grew worse from conditions. The work was often pointless - famine roads for example, roads to nowhere, so the work effort did nothing to improve the situation. Those that had been evicted for failing to pay their rent, as they couldn't afford food or had not potato crops to sell, were considered convicts. As they were paid for their labour in food and sometimes lodging, they could not work their way out of situation or pay for healthcare when they got sick or injured. Many immigrated as things worsened year-on-year, on famine ships, but were refused and rejected from docking in multiple countries due to fear of the infectious illnesses they carried and burden they would inflict - and those stuck on ships became more unwell. There was enough food, in fact a surplus in Ireland - but the "excess" was exported and cheaper questionable alternatives were imported for the soup kitchens and workhouses. Potatoes were such a single point of failure not by coincidence - many lived as tenants on landlords land, on tiny holdings but were expected to produce their own food. Potatoes were the only crop able to do this, or rather the holdings had sized down because Potatoes allowed it. To me, that all screams of a systems failure and would not have been fixed with simply larger rations. Even ignoring the morality part to how the system was formed, how Ireland was ruled and Landlord system worked - the Potato Famine exposed the problems and limitations of the system with urgent crisis. The system did not adapt, did not act proactively or even react, and did not seem to learn in time to respond to a growing crisis. One of the learnings surely was how terrible the concept is of worrying about people becoming too dependent on assistance in a crisis - debating the morale hazard and long-term dependency concerns runs the risk for short term death, disease and collapse. It isn't said in Ireland that the famine was caused by the Potato, or by the meagre rations - It's said it was caused by the British, really the system in place rather than the British race but that doesn't simplify as well.
  • blackhawkC17 2y ago
    Because it’s true. Aid makes governments less accountable to their people and more accountable to donors. It has made many countries refuse to create robust healthcare/education/military (etc.) systems with local resources and instead depend on foreign resources that can be zapped away anytime and are often used to control local leaders to do the donor’s bidding. Many locals in aid-dependent countries (including mine) say the same thing, yet it seems do-good Westerners want to force people to collect their aid. All the aid to Haiti, Afghanistan, and many other countries…their only achievement is now needing even more aid. Yes, a famine is a special case where aid is necessary in the short term, but it’ll be a disaster and destroy local agriculture output if continued in the long term..
    • rob74 2y ago
      If you're mentioning Haiti, it's only fair to add that they were saddled with a crippling debt to France (later to the US - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_independence_debt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_independence_debt) from the very beginning of their existence, and many of their current problems can be traced back to that. It's important to see both sides, especially now that it's clear how corrosive this narrative is if you're looking at Musk's attitude toward USAID...
      • blackhawkC17 2y ago
        We’re likely in agreement. What Haiti needs is investment in domestic industries to be competitive in a capitalist world. These investments can be provided by foreigners, but it’s ultimately the locals that need to rise up to the occasion and use it well. Unfortunately, Haiti is rooted in endemic corruption, stemming in part from aid dependency. There’s no point of giving aid to Haiti while maintaining the status quo of the country being a little more than a raw material supplier to richer countries. My exact complaint is that many countries give aid to feel good…and also for the recipient to do the donor’s bidding instead of what’s right for their countrymen. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. If Haitian leaders remain more accountable to foreign donors than their local population, there’s no incentive to improve.
  • bboygravity 2y ago
    Maybe Singapore? They deliberately never accepted help from outside for that exact reason. It worked for them.
    • blackhawkC17 2y ago
      > On the international stage, if you have to put your hand out for assistance, it means you have no say. It is a big advantage for Singapore not to have to beg for aid. We have no need for assistance or loans that will subject us to external pressure. We are not dependent on any single external partner. And perhaps even more importantly, and you have just heard Minister Ng’s speech earlier, we do not depend on any external country to defend Singapore. We have the capability and the will to defend ourselves. The above is from a recent speech by Singapore's foreign minister; https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2024/02/FM-COS-2025-Speech https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts.... I think it's a reason why a handful of Westerners detest Singapore: that it developed without being dependent on them. "How dare they?!" A fitting example is that Europe is currently learning a lesson about the implications of depending on an external partner (the U.S.) for defense. It means being bullied at will by that country and having no say.
      • soco 2y ago
        The difference is that both Singapore and the EU did, or start doing, things by themselves. Just blaming the US for their misdeeds might feel good but does exactly nothing to help the bullied further.
        • blackhawkC17 2y ago
          Agreed. Other countries should follow the same path instead of depending on foreign aid to solve their issues.
  • concordDance 2y ago
    It's one of those things that is generally true but should not be the only consideration. A bit of dependence that would need reducing later is a very small price to pay to avoid a million starved.
    • Telemakhos 2y ago
      There were other methods that could have prevented starvation: the British could have closed Irish ports for export, so that the food raised in Ireland stayed there to feed the Irish. Instead, the British continued exporting food from Ireland. They could also have forbidden the distillation of grain (a potential food source) into whiskey, but they didn't, although some distilleries shut down as depopulation led to lower demand.
      • concordDance 2y ago
        Having now checked the wikipedia page, that doesn't seem like it would have made a particularly big difference. The imports dwarfed the exports, particularly during 1847 when they were 8x larger.
• ants_everywhere 2y ago
  This reminds me of Vladimir Lenin's claim that an important socialist principle is "He who does not work shall not eat" [0]. Just let the people eat dudes. Also Russell's party during the famine was the Whigs. O'Toole gets that wrong, referring to them as "The Liberals." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_...
  • tux 2y ago
    Yeah this reminds me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • lurk2 2y ago
    The sentiment goes back as far as the Bible: 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. 14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. - 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15
    • sapphicsnail 2y ago
      That's very different from saying you shouldn't help people in a famine. Jesus also said, "blessed are the poor" full stop in Matthew. Also the KJV version is a pretty inaccurate translation and I don't know why people quote it in 2025 when there are translations that are both more accurate and more comprehensible.
• cryptonector 2y ago
  Was Malthusianism in vogue in the British government back then?
  • donall 2y ago
    Very much so. Tim Pat Coogan covers this in his book "The Famine Plot" (which is one of the major proponents that the great hunger was a genocide and has received a lot of criticism, but which covers the basic facts in good detail). [edit: somebody elsewhere in this comment section has (apparently seriously) proposed Malthusianism as the root cause. In the Year of Our Lord 2025. With all of human knowledge available at their fingertips. You can't keep a bad idea down]
    • scandox 2y ago
      Despite being a much liked figure in Ireland Tim Pat Coogan is not taken seriously as a historian by anyone here at all.
      • piltdownman 2y ago
        Except by your Secretary of State, who Schumer petitioned to get Coogan his visa for academic touring when it was strangely denied by the Dublin Embassy. He is also a hero solely based on the defamation case he lost raised by Ruth Dudley Edwards, where he (correctly) posited that Ruth had 'grovelled to and hypocritically ingratiated herself with the English establishment to further her writing career'.
      • donall 2y ago
        I'm aware that he has his detractors. I'm not a Coogan apologist! I'm just saying that the book covers the Malthusian angle well enough and it cites sources. The genocide angle is controversial to some but 90% of the book is straightforward fact.
    • cryptonector 2y ago
      I figured. Thanks.
• KingMob 2y ago
  > Maybe a closer comparison would be famine of 1876-8, where some estimate go as high as 8.6M fatalities on a population of ~58M. Uh, this is the Bengal famine the parent comment refers to, right? Ireland has never had 58M people in it.
  • abeppu 2y ago
    Uh, no, the parent comment explicitly said the Bengal famine of 1943, which had up to 3.8M deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 The famine of 1876-8 in addition to being worse from the percent-causalities view, and a lifetime earlier (65 years), was also not centered in Bengal but in other regions of India generally further south and west. Different in time, place and severity, and different in the policy response in part b/c the 1943 famine was during WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931878 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931...
• newsclues 2y ago
  Sounds like an attempt at genocide. Something that has led to billions in reparations for some groups but not the Irish.
• nextts 2y ago
  Addicted to basic survival huh. Can't have that.