3 ms·

I figure you could be living on the other side of 12th Street and be largely unaffected by this. I think you're assuming too much about people's innate prefere

by mortehu 13y ago

I figure you could be living on the other side of 12th Street and be largely unaffected by this. I think you're assuming too much about people's innate preferences. You can slice the world to arbitrarily small groups of people, making any problem someone else's. I don't feel the national borders are particularly meaningful in this context, especially considering the amount of Indians living in Silicon Valley.

dylangs1030 13y ago
You're misinterpreting Rayiner's point, and debating this in the wrong way. You're speaking from an ethical perspective, but Rayiner is not. He's making a point about logical sphere of influence - it's not cold and uncaring towards distant suffering, just not prioritized. I'm sure Rayiner feels deep sympathy for places that are not presently near to him (such as India, in this thread). If every major problem in the United States were already solved, it would be more reasonable to then try to help others solve their problems. But that's not the case. If you have people suffering right in front of you, it just makes sense logistically to help them first. Helping our own homeless and unemployed would aid in stimulating the American economy. The bottom line is that there isn't any sane reason why an American would prioritize the needs of another country before his own. Nor would it be sane for an Indian to prioritize America's while she lives in India. It just doesn't make sense. You tend to your side of the street first.
- mortehu 13y ago
  > If every major problem in the United States were already solved, it would be more reasonable to then try to help others solve their problems. > If you have people suffering right in front of you, it just makes sense logistically to help them first. > there isn't any sane reason why an American would prioritize the needs of another country before his own You're making several statements basically asserting that proximity is the only relevant factor when determining how easy it is to help one person or grow an economy. But we're not all paramedics. I'd argue that the American economy has already grown so much, and people are already given so many opportunities here, that making improvements here is going to be way more expensive in terms of natural resources and manpower, than improving an area where much simpler problems are still unsolved. For example, spending $1M fighting malaria in Africa improves the GDP of Africa by $12M.[1] > Helping our own homeless and unemployed would aid in stimulating the American economy. This seems to be evidence of national bias. Why should I care about the American economy in particular? 1. http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/330/415680a_r.pdf http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/330/415680a_r.pd...

by mortehu 13y ago

dylangs1030 13y ago

You're misinterpreting Rayiner's point, and debating this in the wrong way. You're speaking from an ethical perspective, but Rayiner is not. He's making a point about logical sphere of influence - it's not cold and uncaring towards distant suffering, just not prioritized. I'm sure Rayiner feels deep sympathy for places that are not presently near to him (such as India, in this thread). If every major problem in the United States were already solved, it would be more reasonable to then try to help others solve their problems. But that's not the case. If you have people suffering right in front of you, it just makes sense logistically to help them first. Helping our own homeless and unemployed would aid in stimulating the American economy. The bottom line is that there isn't any sane reason why an American would prioritize the needs of another country before his own. Nor would it be sane for an Indian to prioritize America's while she lives in India. It just doesn't make sense. You tend to your side of the street first.

mortehu 13y ago
> If every major problem in the United States were already solved, it would be more reasonable to then try to help others solve their problems. > If you have people suffering right in front of you, it just makes sense logistically to help them first. > there isn't any sane reason why an American would prioritize the needs of another country before his own You're making several statements basically asserting that proximity is the only relevant factor when determining how easy it is to help one person or grow an economy. But we're not all paramedics. I'd argue that the American economy has already grown so much, and people are already given so many opportunities here, that making improvements here is going to be way more expensive in terms of natural resources and manpower, than improving an area where much simpler problems are still unsolved. For example, spending $1M fighting malaria in Africa improves the GDP of Africa by $12M.[1] > Helping our own homeless and unemployed would aid in stimulating the American economy. This seems to be evidence of national bias. Why should I care about the American economy in particular? 1. http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/330/415680a_r.pdf http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/330/415680a_r.pd...