5 ms·

> Or, the parents wouldn't have had kids they couldn't feed. While this would be nice in an ideal world, your analysis severely underestimates just how strong

> Or, the parents wouldn't have had kids they couldn't feed. While this would be nice in an ideal world, your analysis severely underestimates just how strong the desire to have sex is, and vastly overestimates the ability of someone without education, money, or healthcare to access reliable means of birth control.

crusso 14y ago
Being enablers of dysfunctional behavior is an acceptable solution? In the long run, the enablers and the dysfunctional are equally guilty for destroying the overall society. At some point, you have to expect members of a society to meet some minimum behavioral requirements in order to be allowed the benefits of that membership.
- genwin 14y ago
  > Being enablers of dysfunctional behavior is an acceptable solution? It seems for most people the answer is a firm yes. They can't think beyond the short run positive (e.g. free food keeps child alive) to see the overwhelming long run negative (e.g. millions die when free food can't be sustained). When you point out the long run negative you usually get a blank stare or a downvote.
- aasarava 14y ago
  I think you might be overlooking the fact that aid does have a long term goal. It's not simply about feeding someone in the short term -- it's to help the impoverished fulfill their most basic needs so that they can go to school, get educated, get a job, and earn a living. If you haven't eaten in three days, you're not going to be in school, you're going to be on the street begging.
  - genwin 14y ago
    As part of a super holistic solution, aid could work, especially when a big chunk is birth control and gov't corruption / dictators are addressed. But today's solutions lead to even greater problems. Search for: Former World Bank economist, Dambisa Moyo argues that the current approach isn't working. In her book, "Dead Aid", she says it has proved to be an "unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster".
    - tsotha 14y ago
      Yeah, aid to Africa has proven to be just that. Sub-Saharan Africa has been booming in the last decade at least in part because NGOs have lost interest.
- narrator 14y ago
  >Being enablers of dysfunctional behavior is an acceptable solution? It's funny that some people are fervent believers in Darwinian evolution and at the same time they think an organisms desire to propagate its genetic information is somehow dysfunctional. It's like they disavow the divine yet they can't let go of the idea of divine teleology. I'm not saying creationists are right, I'm just saying that they are ideologically more consistent than most Darwinian evolutionists.
- rayiner 14y ago
  At some point you have to acknowledge that a substantial portion of your population is in the bottom 10% of the IQ distribution. Holding them to behavioral requirements isn't going to really change their behavior.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > At some point you have to acknowledge that a substantial portion of your population is in the bottom 10% of the IQ distribution. Say what? How can 10% of the distribution be a "substantial portion"? Ten percent is ... ten percent. For a normal statistical distribution, 10% of the IQ distribution is normally 10% of the population as a whole. To see why, ask yourself what percentage of the population is at or below the 50% IQ level. Then, having pictured that, ask yourself how 10% of the population could represent "a substantial portion" without contradicting what's just been demonstrated. Your remark reminds me of the special conditions in fictional Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.
genwin 14y ago
I don't buy that argument. I think the consequences of having kids one can't feed can be strong enough even in poor countries, to prevent the conception of those kids. Basic forms of birth control should be free (that's way better than providing free food). The least educated, poorest people can understand their usage.
- aasarava 14y ago
  I'm not saying poverty, hunger, and overpopulation aren't problems that can't be solved, but I do think they're more complicated than you propose. In India, healthcare workers have had trouble convincing villagers to accept free vaccines for diseases like polio because of rumors (with some loose history behind them) that the government is actually trying to sterilize the poor. Culturally, discussing sex is a very big taboo. Even in a "first world country" such as the United States, politicians regularly block the availability of contraception on shaky religious grounds. In the city Mumbai alone, it's estimated that the number of people living in slums could be as high as several million. People in slums may see having children as a way to increase their potential income (kids can work too), or intake from begging, or as a way to ensure that someone will take care of them in their old age. Given these issues, how would you roll out a program to provide condoms to the slum dwellers in Mumbai alone, and how do you convince them that they should not have children?
  - genwin 14y ago
    Great points! Yes the problems are complicated. I'm against giving aid that isn't part of a super holistic temporary (even if decades) solution that could conceivably work. Today's solutions have mostly failed; they've made the problems worse. The Indian villagers may be justified in being wary of the vaccine, because the Indian gov't is highly corrupt. So the holistic solution should deal with the corruption too. If that's too hard to do it may be better to do nothing. The same is true with the larger cultural issues. I do believe the problems are intractable in many countries. We don't have enough resources to solve them. (Esp. since the US is perhaps the poorest country when our national debt and unfunded liabilities is considered.) So, rather than make the problems worse with nonviable attempts, I think it's best to do nothing and let Nature sort it out.

crusso 14y ago

Being enablers of dysfunctional behavior is an acceptable solution? In the long run, the enablers and the dysfunctional are equally guilty for destroying the overall society. At some point, you have to expect members of a society to meet some minimum behavioral requirements in order to be allowed the benefits of that membership.

genwin 14y ago
> Being enablers of dysfunctional behavior is an acceptable solution? It seems for most people the answer is a firm yes. They can't think beyond the short run positive (e.g. free food keeps child alive) to see the overwhelming long run negative (e.g. millions die when free food can't be sustained). When you point out the long run negative you usually get a blank stare or a downvote.
aasarava 14y ago
I think you might be overlooking the fact that aid does have a long term goal. It's not simply about feeding someone in the short term -- it's to help the impoverished fulfill their most basic needs so that they can go to school, get educated, get a job, and earn a living. If you haven't eaten in three days, you're not going to be in school, you're going to be on the street begging.
- genwin 14y ago
  As part of a super holistic solution, aid could work, especially when a big chunk is birth control and gov't corruption / dictators are addressed. But today's solutions lead to even greater problems. Search for: Former World Bank economist, Dambisa Moyo argues that the current approach isn't working. In her book, "Dead Aid", she says it has proved to be an "unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster".
  - tsotha 14y ago
    Yeah, aid to Africa has proven to be just that. Sub-Saharan Africa has been booming in the last decade at least in part because NGOs have lost interest.
narrator 14y ago
>Being enablers of dysfunctional behavior is an acceptable solution? It's funny that some people are fervent believers in Darwinian evolution and at the same time they think an organisms desire to propagate its genetic information is somehow dysfunctional. It's like they disavow the divine yet they can't let go of the idea of divine teleology. I'm not saying creationists are right, I'm just saying that they are ideologically more consistent than most Darwinian evolutionists.
rayiner 14y ago
At some point you have to acknowledge that a substantial portion of your population is in the bottom 10% of the IQ distribution. Holding them to behavioral requirements isn't going to really change their behavior.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > At some point you have to acknowledge that a substantial portion of your population is in the bottom 10% of the IQ distribution. Say what? How can 10% of the distribution be a "substantial portion"? Ten percent is ... ten percent. For a normal statistical distribution, 10% of the IQ distribution is normally 10% of the population as a whole. To see why, ask yourself what percentage of the population is at or below the 50% IQ level. Then, having pictured that, ask yourself how 10% of the population could represent "a substantial portion" without contradicting what's just been demonstrated. Your remark reminds me of the special conditions in fictional Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.

genwin 14y ago

I don't buy that argument. I think the consequences of having kids one can't feed can be strong enough even in poor countries, to prevent the conception of those kids. Basic forms of birth control should be free (that's way better than providing free food). The least educated, poorest people can understand their usage.

aasarava 14y ago
I'm not saying poverty, hunger, and overpopulation aren't problems that can't be solved, but I do think they're more complicated than you propose. In India, healthcare workers have had trouble convincing villagers to accept free vaccines for diseases like polio because of rumors (with some loose history behind them) that the government is actually trying to sterilize the poor. Culturally, discussing sex is a very big taboo. Even in a "first world country" such as the United States, politicians regularly block the availability of contraception on shaky religious grounds. In the city Mumbai alone, it's estimated that the number of people living in slums could be as high as several million. People in slums may see having children as a way to increase their potential income (kids can work too), or intake from begging, or as a way to ensure that someone will take care of them in their old age. Given these issues, how would you roll out a program to provide condoms to the slum dwellers in Mumbai alone, and how do you convince them that they should not have children?
- genwin 14y ago
  Great points! Yes the problems are complicated. I'm against giving aid that isn't part of a super holistic temporary (even if decades) solution that could conceivably work. Today's solutions have mostly failed; they've made the problems worse. The Indian villagers may be justified in being wary of the vaccine, because the Indian gov't is highly corrupt. So the holistic solution should deal with the corruption too. If that's too hard to do it may be better to do nothing. The same is true with the larger cultural issues. I do believe the problems are intractable in many countries. We don't have enough resources to solve them. (Esp. since the US is perhaps the poorest country when our national debt and unfunded liabilities is considered.) So, rather than make the problems worse with nonviable attempts, I think it's best to do nothing and let Nature sort it out.