3 ms·

To this inevitable complaint: Others wonder whether focusing donations on individuals, no matter how worthy, diverts funding and attention from efforts aimed a

by edw519 13y ago

To this inevitable complaint: Others wonder whether focusing donations on individuals, no matter how worthy, diverts funding and attention from efforts aimed at tackling the more systemic causes of inadequate healthcare in impoverished parts of the world. I can only respond with "The Starfish Parable": One day, an old man was walking along a beach that was littered with thousands of starfish that had been washed ashore by the high tide. As he walked he came upon a young boy who was eagerly throwing the starfish back into the ocean, one by one. Puzzled, the man looked at the boy and asked what he was doing. Without looking up from his task, the boy simply replied, "I'm saving these starfish, Sir". The old man chuckled aloud, "Son, there are thousands of starfish and only one of you. What difference can you make?" The boy picked up a starfish, gently tossed it into the water and turning to the man, said, "It made a difference to that one!"

cgag 13y ago
It's more like "with the same effort you could save thousands of starfish, just not the ones right in front of you" than "what difference can you make". Which is certainly something worth considering.
- justinsteele 13y ago
  Can you? If we took the money donated to Watsi, let these people suffer/die instead, and used it all to solve an "underlying problem" - would it help more people? Without a lot of research that answer seems difficult to get to. I think in the interim, helping these people is a fine use of some people's disposable income. Also, consider that money going to Watsi does not necessarily stop money going to a different/more effective cause. Many people donating to this may not donate to a different idea, and vice versa.
  - cgag 13y ago
    I'm not necessarily talking about solving underlying problems like lack of good healthcare, I was actually just thinking about the idea that if you have 1000 dollars to give, it's worth considering the trade offs between giving it to one person for a surgery, or buy 200 bed nets to protect people from malaria or protect 200 kids from developmental problems caused by parasitic worms: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities.
    - JoshuaDavid 13y ago
      It actually seems to be a fairly close call. It seems that bed nets prevent about 1 death from malaria for every $2000 or so [1], whereas the quality of life of some of the Watsi patients can be significantly improved for $500 to $1000 [see 2]. So the question is what the relative value of each is, and while I think the balance weighs in favor of malaria prevention, it's not a clear-cut decision. [1] http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/ins... [2] https://watsi.org/profile/8d8d49907cc9-hussein https://watsi.org/profile/8d8d49907cc9-hussein
- nknighthb 13y ago
  The world's systemic problems are almost entirely political in nature. Unless you want to try mass bribery, your monetary donations aren't going to fix those.
  - cgag 13y ago
    This isn't exactly what I meant, but it's not infeasible either. I have a friend whos working on a charity to help people give conditional donations to political campaigns, like only giving money to a politician on the condition they vote yes on bill x, or having your donation divided equally among people who voted against marijuana prohibitions. In which case, it might be more effective to do something like this than to donate to a defense fund for people accused of weed related crimes.
kyro 13y ago
Yeah, this is one of the criticisms I hate the most. In a world with Watsi and without, the former is a measurably better place.
aaron695 13y ago
And it a good parable about the real issue, how most people are selfish and will only 'help' it they get something back IE Get to meet a star fish they 'saved' Reality is the star fish are all fine come next tide but the boy goes home thinking he's done a good dead, in reality having done nothing but made himself feel better. The old man is probably wise and realises the issue is bigger than throwing a star fish in the ocean and is probably sad. He too might do nothing, but I'd like to think ever now and again one or two of these wise old people actually does something that saves millions and has a real effect on the world. Maybe something like creating a site like Watsi.

by edw519 13y ago

cgag 13y ago

It's more like "with the same effort you could save thousands of starfish, just not the ones right in front of you" than "what difference can you make". Which is certainly something worth considering.

justinsteele 13y ago
Can you? If we took the money donated to Watsi, let these people suffer/die instead, and used it all to solve an "underlying problem" - would it help more people? Without a lot of research that answer seems difficult to get to. I think in the interim, helping these people is a fine use of some people's disposable income. Also, consider that money going to Watsi does not necessarily stop money going to a different/more effective cause. Many people donating to this may not donate to a different idea, and vice versa.
- cgag 13y ago
  I'm not necessarily talking about solving underlying problems like lack of good healthcare, I was actually just thinking about the idea that if you have 1000 dollars to give, it's worth considering the trade offs between giving it to one person for a surgery, or buy 200 bed nets to protect people from malaria or protect 200 kids from developmental problems caused by parasitic worms: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities.
  - JoshuaDavid 13y ago
    It actually seems to be a fairly close call. It seems that bed nets prevent about 1 death from malaria for every $2000 or so [1], whereas the quality of life of some of the Watsi patients can be significantly improved for $500 to $1000 [see 2]. So the question is what the relative value of each is, and while I think the balance weighs in favor of malaria prevention, it's not a clear-cut decision. [1] http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/ins... [2] https://watsi.org/profile/8d8d49907cc9-hussein https://watsi.org/profile/8d8d49907cc9-hussein
nknighthb 13y ago
The world's systemic problems are almost entirely political in nature. Unless you want to try mass bribery, your monetary donations aren't going to fix those.
- cgag 13y ago
  This isn't exactly what I meant, but it's not infeasible either. I have a friend whos working on a charity to help people give conditional donations to political campaigns, like only giving money to a politician on the condition they vote yes on bill x, or having your donation divided equally among people who voted against marijuana prohibitions. In which case, it might be more effective to do something like this than to donate to a defense fund for people accused of weed related crimes.

kyro 13y ago

Yeah, this is one of the criticisms I hate the most. In a world with Watsi and without, the former is a measurably better place.

aaron695 13y ago

And it a good parable about the real issue, how most people are selfish and will only 'help' it they get something back IE Get to meet a star fish they 'saved' Reality is the star fish are all fine come next tide but the boy goes home thinking he's done a good dead, in reality having done nothing but made himself feel better. The old man is probably wise and realises the issue is bigger than throwing a star fish in the ocean and is probably sad. He too might do nothing, but I'd like to think ever now and again one or two of these wise old people actually does something that saves millions and has a real effect on the world. Maybe something like creating a site like Watsi.