SEC=UGA Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I was reading an article this morning giving a synopsis of a letter from Bill Gates to other billionaires trying to get them to donate money to his charity to help fight poverty and disease in the world. His basic goal is honorable and his logic behind giving is seemingly sound, not only is helping the poor with their medical needs and giving them the tools to be self-sufficient the right thing to do, it's also a good investment. But, is this really true, are we actually providing a "solution" to the problem of disease, overpopulation, and starvation by pumping more money into "helping" the poor (now mind you, I'm not speaking of the welfare mom in rural North Georgia here) or are we fostering an even larger problem? Populations in many of these countries continue to increase, there are more people to feed, their are more hosts for diseases... is it morally permissible to think that we may actually create better lives by in essence allowing people to starve and die from disease as there would be more resources for the survivors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I was reading an article this morning giving a synopsis of a letter from Bill Gates to other billionaires trying to get them to donate money to his charity to help fight poverty and disease in the world. His basic goal is honorable and his logic behind giving is seemingly sound, But, is this really true, are we actually providing a "solution" to the problem of disease, overpopulation, and starvation by pumping more money into "helping" the poor (now mind you, I'm not speaking of the welfare mom in rural North Georgia here) or are we fostering an even larger problem? Populations in many of these countries continue to increase, there are more people to feed, their are more hosts for diseases... is it morally permissible to think that we may actually create better lives by in essence allowing people to starve and die from disease as there would be more resources for the survivors? I struggle with questions like these. On the one hand, nature has these mechanisms to keep populations in check, and on the other, we're supposed to be compassionate and we have the technology to defeat many of those mechanisms. There is no doubt that allowing weak people to survive leads to more weak people and a weakening of the species. It's okay to make that observation about thoroughbreds, but barbaric to say it about people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 If Bill Gates wants to give away his money, more power to him. I assume he's funding the building of hospitals, wells, schools and so on because if he's simply giving money, it's going to disappear straight into the vast maw of corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 If Bill Gates wants to give away his money, more power to him. I assume he's funding the building of hospitals, wells, schools and so on because if he's simply giving money, it's going to disappear straight into the vast maw of corruption. This. Where I have a problem is when our broke government keeps doing it. I'm a big supporter of charities (and I'm not talking about my contributions), as I think they do a whole lot of good, and in most cases more efficiently than governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm not arguing what Bill Gates should do with his money, it's his, he could start a monkey knife fighting league for all I care. But, are we perpetuating a problem with all of this going to keep people alive in countries that have neither the infrastructure or the resources to handle their populations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm not arguing what Bill Gates should do with his money, it's his, he could start a monkey knife fighting league for all I care. But, are we perpetuating a problem with all of this going to keep people alive in countries that have neither the infrastructure or the resources to handle their populations? Um . . isnt building school, water treatment plants, etc all INFRASTRUCTURE? It is smart as hell to invest in some of those countries building infrastructure so they can be the next source of super cheap labor to make our shoes and kids toys. First to do things like try to establish continuous electric service, clean water, etc. then you work on helping "the people" improve their immediate plight in life by not having 50% of their kids die as chlldren and have a life expectance of 41 years old. Then you make them work for a few dollars a month, which is better than hunting gazelles. It is what GWB coined "yearning for freedom" in under developed countries. It is how we export our "freedoms", which is "freedom to work for a multinational corportaion for peanuts to improve theor corporate profit line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I was reading an article this morning giving a synopsis of a letter from Bill Gates to other billionaires trying to get them to donate money to his charity to help fight poverty and disease in the world. His basic goal is honorable and his logic behind giving is seemingly sound, But, is this really true, are we actually providing a "solution" to the problem of disease, overpopulation, and starvation by pumping more money into "helping" the poor (now mind you, I'm not speaking of the welfare mom in rural North Georgia here) or are we fostering an even larger problem? Populations in many of these countries continue to increase, there are more people to feed, their are more hosts for diseases... is it morally permissible to think that we may actually create better lives by in essence allowing people to starve and die from disease as there would be more resources for the survivors? it's arguably just feeding the cycle of the malthusian trap, driving up population while driving DOWN overall living conditions. I didn't understand this at all until I read the book "A Brief Economic History of the World" by N. Gregory Clark. but I still donate to international charities. I can't help it. there is so much pain and suffering that can be directly alleviated with so relatively little of my money (all the more so for bill gates). and I guess I cling to the notion that, come on, at some point there has to be some lower exit velocity from the malthusian trap. if they could get out of it in 18th and 19th century england, should be that much easier now with all the stunning technological advances since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Um . . isnt building school, water treatment plants, etc all INFRASTRUCTURE? It is smart as hell to invest in some of those countries building infrastructure so they can be the next source of super cheap labor to make our shoes and kids toys. First to do things like try to establish continuous electric service, clean water, etc. then you work on helping "the people" improve their immediate plight in life by not having 50% of their kids die as chlldren and have a life expectance of 41 years old. Then you make them work for a few dollars a month, which is better than hunting gazelles. It is what GWB coined "yearning for freedom" in under developed countries. It is how we export our "freedoms", which is "freedom to work for a multinational corportaion for peanuts to improve theor corporate profit line. I agree with most of this, except the word "invest". We're talking about impoverished countries that have been unable to keep a stable government for any appreciable length of time and have failed for centuries to establish and maintain the needed infrastructure. The more Gates gives for schools and hospitals, the more he will need to continue to give to maintain them, and to build new ones (as his gifts encourage population growth). It is not realistic to expect these banana republics, run by a different war lord every 9-18 months, to get their acts together just because a billionaire writes a check. Call it what it is: welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I agree with most of this, except the word "invest". We're talking about impoverished countries that have been unable to keep a stable government for any appreciable length of time and have failed for centuries to establish and maintain the needed infrastructure. The more Gates gives for schools and hospitals, the more he will need to continue to give to maintain them, and to build new ones (as his gifts encourage population growth). It is not realistic to expect these banana republics, run by a different war lord every 9-18 months, to get their acts together just because a billionaire writes a check. Call it what it is: welfare. China has been working to develop African nations for their own benefit, as they secure mineral and oil rights in exchange for aid. They are smart enough to get something out of it, unlike the US and howmuch has been pissed away in Iraq, yet China is getting oil field rights there. Call it what it is . . .self interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 China has been working to develop African nations for their own benefit, as they secure mineral and oil rights in exchange for aid. They are smart enough to get something out of it, unlike the US and howmuch has been pissed away in Iraq, yet China is getting oil field rights there. Call it what it is . . .self interest. But that is Matt's problem - the money we are giving away by the billion isn't going to self-interest (not enough anyway), therefore it's effectively welfare. And along comes China, having done jack for anyone, and gets the mineral / oil rights. Bribery, anyone? They are presumably better than us at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 But that is Matt's problem - the money we are giving away by the billion isn't going to self-interest (not enough anyway), therefore it's effectively welfare. And along comes China, having done jack for anyone, and gets the mineral / oil rights. Bribery, anyone? They are presumably better than us at it. I was referring to China with the self interest with their investmnets. They make better business decisions than we do when it comes to their international aid. They get something out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.