4 ms·

Ok, let's see some numbers. What percentage of the African GDP comes from foreign aid? What percentage of Africa is fed by free food? The ability of both sid

• sho 18y ago
  Numbers? What numbers would you like to see? I'm talking from first principles here, like Singer. He's saying it's unethical to not help the poor, I'm saying it is often counterproductive to do so in a naive manner. No numbers are necessary to debate this point. And sure, a country with no food production capacity is addicted to foreign food aid exactly like Heroin. Look, I'm trying to argue from first principles here, not get into a number-slinging exercise. I'm trying to counter Singer's broad strokes with some broad strokes of my own - kind of "concept V. concept". I can get nuanced if you like. For example, you ask what percentage of the African continental GDP comes from foreign aid? Well, the answer is "not much". But take out the "rich" countries and it multiplies rapidly. Remove the oil revenue, mostly kept by the elite, and it goes up even further. I don't want to commit too much but I would estimate that in the real, nominal GDP of aid-receiving african areas (just the people, not the oil industry nearby) foreign aid is above 30%. That is a hugely distorting figure, and it is very conservative btw. What percentage of Africa is fed by free food? That's the wrong question. The right question is about food dependency in a single area over time vs an area that didn't receive food aid, and I don't have any numbers for that. I didn't say aid is the primary cause. It's an attempted solution, although it then goes on to cause a whole range of secondary failures. The primary cause would be governance, but that's not what Singer talks about. That link does have some interesting discussion, and I'm also a fan of Overcoming Bias.
  • jibiki 18y ago
    That makes sense; I have to admit that I haven't read Singer's book, but it seemed like you were telling a story about foreign aid being Africa's biggest problem. This story is very common, but it's just not true. Cutting off all foreign aid to Africa would, literally, be letting people die. Lots of people. That's a very sobering thought, but it's easier to accept it if you tell yourself a story about foreign aid turning Africa into a giant welfare state. Libertarians love to hide behind this comforting fiction. Phil Greenspun's point is exactly the same. The bleeding heart types tell themselves a story about saving children for $0.30 a day which totally ignores the long term repercussions of their actions. The story is infinitely more complicated than your first principles deductions, as we can see by looking at real world countries that have received massive influxes of outside money (Dubai, Israel, South Korea(?), Cuba vs. numerous African countries and oil producers.) I think the correct answer lies in the fact that giving aid to a government that isn't ready for it is a recipe for disaster, or at least, not a recipe for progress.
    • sho 18y ago
      Yes I agree, and sorry for oversimplifying, but the problem is whenever you do try and touch on a detail or two, the complexity multiplies under your fingertips like a frickin' fractal. I mean you name it, it's a problem, and they all feed back into each other in this huge spaghetti mess of unsolvability. To try and talk about it at all in a format such as this is to oversimplify by necessity. I'm try to do so in a reasonably non-misleading way, though. I agree with pretty much everything you say - you had (correct) criticism of my "deductions", correct criticism of the libertarian line, correct critcism of the Singer argument. But at least all these arguments are solutions on the table. We can correctly poke holes in all of them, but until we have something to offer ourselves, a "peer" argument if you will, it's all just nitpicking. The crisis is current and ongoing and in our faces - well, in their faces, anyway. Some kind of action is necessary, even imperfect action - it's got to be better than nothing. Your argument about cutting off aid killing people is of course understandable and very human, but to me our differences on it sound a lot like a variation on the "Trolley Problem" ethical dilemma - where whether killing less people now to save more people later is moral or not seems to simply be a matter of directness. To whit: from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/ http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/ - I am quite a fan of this guy: First, we have the switch dilemma: A runaway trolley is hurtling down the tracks toward five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. You can save these five people by diverting the trolley onto a different set of tracks, one that has only one person on it, but if you do this that person will be killed. Is it morally permissible to turn the trolley and thus prevent five deaths at the cost of one? Most people say "Yes." Then we have the footbridge dilemma: Once again, the trolley is headed for five people. You are standing next to a large man on a footbridge spanning the tracks. The only way to save the five people is to push this man off the footbridge and into the path of the trolley. Is that morally permissible? Most people say "No." Is it possible that differing arguments between the "libertarians" and the "Singer-esque" reduces to this phenomenon? Succinctly, the libertarians are thinking of the switch, and Singer is thinking of the footbridge? As for my own views, well - I think the governance situation is insoluble and propose a UN agency backed by force of arms who will put any country who can't feed, say, more than 0.1% of its population into "bankruptcy" adminstration, to be reorganised and released later in a more competent shape. However, I usually can't even say this because of post-colonialist western guilt, which seems to be even more powerful a force than the "realeconomik" or "feed the hungry" arguments.