4 ms·

I agree that travel can definitely open our eyes to various conditions outside our own culture. However, the cost of travelling often could be put directly tow

by oboizt 14y ago

I agree that travel can definitely open our eyes to various conditions outside our own culture. However, the cost of travelling often could be put directly towards donations. There are so many opportunities to serve close to home in our own communities that often get overlooked because that kind of volunteering doesn't sound as glamorous as building schools in Africa.

Pwnguinz 14y ago
Giving money to charitable organizations that have 30~% waste ratio isn't the way to go. What you want are driven, motivated and open-minded individuals that can create disruptive innovation; entrepreneurs. Edit: typos.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >What you want are driven, motivated and open-minded individuals that can created disruptive innovation; entrepreneurs. As if the problems of the third world are not already in large part created by greedy enterprises operating there?
  - wheels 14y ago
    No, mostly not. At least not without help from regional oligarchs or colonialists. There's very little utility to the west in most of Africa being poor. Like, most of sub-saharan Africa isn't especially resource rich, their food production isn't very efficient so we don't source much of that, nor do we outsource much labor there. Economic growth is pretty clearly the most effective means of lifting populations out of poverty. In the early steps it often looks pretty ugly (as industrialization did in the now rich countries), but it works, over time. It'd be hard to argue at the moment that China is getting the short end of the stick in their economic relationship to the west. Being poor sucks, and the kind of work poor people get usually sucks, but taking away that suckage for the most part requires helping people become not poor rather than trying to ease the suckage of being poor. South Korea and Taiwan are both interesting case studies in development -- both were impoverished about 30-40 years ago and are modern, rich democracies now. When I was a kid, Taiwan sounded like a magical country. The only way I knew of it was that every toy I'd ever owned seemed to have been made there. Contrary to the grandparent's statement, entrepreneurs aren't always (or perhaps even usually) the catalysts of that growth; a lot of it comes from foreign investment, mega-conglomerates, etc. Most of the drop in poverty in Eastern Asia in recent decades has not come from small business owners.
    - pretoriusB 14y ago
      >No, mostly not. At least not without help from regional oligarchs or colonialists. Those two types tend to be at best relationships with new "enterpreneurs" in the areas. >There's very little utility to the west in most of Africa being poor. Like, most of sub-saharan Africa isn't especially resource rich, their food production isn't very efficient so we don't source much of that, nor do we outsource much labor there. Well, I wouldn't be so sure. See Shell and Nigeria, Congo and blood diamonds, C.A.R, etc. Things like this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-frances-secret-war-396062.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-france... And the West might not get much utility of some particular African states being poor, but it gets much utility of them not being richer and stronger: it gets to keep the nearby states at the status quo it wants. A stronger sub-saharan state might alter the power status in the region for states the west _does_ get utility from. It's for that very reason that the West would never allow some "pan-african" federation to operate freely.

by oboizt 14y ago

Pwnguinz 14y ago

Giving money to charitable organizations that have 30~% waste ratio isn't the way to go. What you want are driven, motivated and open-minded individuals that can create disruptive innovation; entrepreneurs. Edit: typos.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
pretoriusB 14y ago
>What you want are driven, motivated and open-minded individuals that can created disruptive innovation; entrepreneurs. As if the problems of the third world are not already in large part created by greedy enterprises operating there?
- wheels 14y ago
  No, mostly not. At least not without help from regional oligarchs or colonialists. There's very little utility to the west in most of Africa being poor. Like, most of sub-saharan Africa isn't especially resource rich, their food production isn't very efficient so we don't source much of that, nor do we outsource much labor there. Economic growth is pretty clearly the most effective means of lifting populations out of poverty. In the early steps it often looks pretty ugly (as industrialization did in the now rich countries), but it works, over time. It'd be hard to argue at the moment that China is getting the short end of the stick in their economic relationship to the west. Being poor sucks, and the kind of work poor people get usually sucks, but taking away that suckage for the most part requires helping people become not poor rather than trying to ease the suckage of being poor. South Korea and Taiwan are both interesting case studies in development -- both were impoverished about 30-40 years ago and are modern, rich democracies now. When I was a kid, Taiwan sounded like a magical country. The only way I knew of it was that every toy I'd ever owned seemed to have been made there. Contrary to the grandparent's statement, entrepreneurs aren't always (or perhaps even usually) the catalysts of that growth; a lot of it comes from foreign investment, mega-conglomerates, etc. Most of the drop in poverty in Eastern Asia in recent decades has not come from small business owners.
  - pretoriusB 14y ago
    >No, mostly not. At least not without help from regional oligarchs or colonialists. Those two types tend to be at best relationships with new "enterpreneurs" in the areas. >There's very little utility to the west in most of Africa being poor. Like, most of sub-saharan Africa isn't especially resource rich, their food production isn't very efficient so we don't source much of that, nor do we outsource much labor there. Well, I wouldn't be so sure. See Shell and Nigeria, Congo and blood diamonds, C.A.R, etc. Things like this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-frances-secret-war-396062.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-france... And the West might not get much utility of some particular African states being poor, but it gets much utility of them not being richer and stronger: it gets to keep the nearby states at the status quo it wants. A stronger sub-saharan state might alter the power status in the region for states the west _does_ get utility from. It's for that very reason that the West would never allow some "pan-african" federation to operate freely.