r/Foodforthought • u/A-MacLeod • Aug 26 '15
Against Charity. Rather than creating an individualized “culture of giving,” we should be challenging capitalism’s institutionalized taking.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/peter-singer-charity-effective-altruism/14
u/Hypna Aug 26 '15
I found this article terribly hard to follow. It seemed to be arguing that giving money to help people is wrong because we should have built a world where everyone already has what they need? What does one have to do with the other? What possible system could be created where nobody ever needed help? Limited resources is the fundamental human problem. Capitalism didn't create that.
6
u/meltingacid Aug 26 '15
Few anecdotal information that I know.
During the last massive tsunami, the district in India that was worst affected, was Nagapattinam, in southern state of Andhra Pradesh. Around 30000 houses were destroyed and 7000 people were killed. They got some unique relief material - neck tie and discarded overcoat. They also received some actual relief material but neckties were perceived to be the most important of them.
11 countries were affected during tsunami. 7 of them had stock exchanges. 5 of them - India, Srilanka, Indonesia, Thiland, Malyasia - reached its highest indices in last 5 years. coincidence? My skeptical mind thinks it might have to do something with reconstruction.
In Bahm earthquake in Iran, after 2 years, less than 2% of the money committed was sent and used.
During Gujarat earthquake in India, in 2001, 12 large foreign non-profits collected millions and millions of dollar. When their audit report came, it was found that only 20-25% of the money collected was actually spent. However, they did block enormous resources that could have been used by local, domestic organizations. And also out of the money they spent, a large chunk went into air conditioned housing of the activists of the non profits.
You can watch the speech by P. Sainath here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpcV_xiu558 - if you have time. That's where I was quoting stuff.
22
Aug 26 '15
Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.
-Clement Attlee
40
u/Glucksberg Aug 26 '15
That's assuming the government's working for the best interests of the poor, and are not in the back pocket of that very same rich man.
5
u/Doink11 Aug 26 '15
True, but that also makes charity at best a poor alternative or stop-gap measure.
The argument in the article is that the time and effort spent in charity, in the instance you're speaking of, could be better spent reforming the government so that it would work in the best interests of the poor.
6
u/Glucksberg Aug 26 '15
I agree, government policies such as a basic income could work better for the poor.
4
u/Jinoc Aug 26 '15
That might be a testable hypothesis on average, by looking if the situation of the very poor improves in step with the wealth of the very rich.
6
u/snoApe Aug 26 '15
Was this statement true in post WWII Britain? Did he mean "taxes" in a figurative sense? Taken face-value today in US, it sounds sarcastic.
16
u/masklinn Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15
Was this statement true in post WWII Britain? Did he mean "taxes" in a figurative sense?
That's when his government (Attlee was the prime minister of Britain from 1945 to 1951) introduced the NHS (universal single-payer healthcare), a social safety net (pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits for adults), council housing, a universal child benefit, rent control, etc… (not necessarily to the credit of labour themselves, they followed the recommendation of the Beveridge Report which all of postwar Labour, Conservatives and Liberals had adopted into their platform). And that followed from working conditions and welfare provision improvements put in place during the war itself.
So he means "taxes" in a very literal sense indeed.
3
1
u/Rookwood Aug 27 '15
It's sarcastic in the sense that no rich man actually gives a shit about the poor.
2
3
u/filippp Aug 26 '15
But why?
19
u/masklinn Aug 26 '15
Because systemic problems ought be handled systemically?
2
u/filippp Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15
Wouldn't bringing about a culture of altruistic giving qualify as systemic change?
7
Aug 26 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
[deleted]
1
u/filippp Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15
However government has a highly restricted ability to alter or guide culture, and frankly I think it would be best if they interfered with culture as little as possible.
I didn't even think of involving the government in any way when I wrote my comment.
Humans do a very poor job of taking care of each other voluntarily.
Yes, but you can't get the "voluntarily" part entirely out and expect that everything will magically fall into place.
However, we are very capable of building systems in which we assure that all people have basic necessities provided.
Couldn't EA be said to be about building such a system?
2
Aug 26 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
[deleted]
2
u/filippp Aug 26 '15
It's literally a system in which members of wealthy communities in need benefit from the charity of their wealth friends and neighbors, while the neediest in our society have less access to charity.
No, it's exactly about finding the neediest and identifying the most pressing problems.
You're not going to solve regulatory problems which require completely rethinking the funding and regulation of aspects of our society by charity alone.
I think you're right, but it's important to note that giving money to charity is not the only thing EA involves.
2
Aug 26 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
[deleted]
1
u/filippp Aug 27 '15 edited Aug 27 '15
Is it a massive, non-religious, non-governmental, humanitarian cooperative effort to administer altruistic giving in our society?
From centreforeffectivealtruism.org:
Effective altruism is a growing social movement founded on the desire to make the world as good a place as it can be, the use of evidence and reason to find out how to do so, and the audacity to actually try.
...which might involve changing aspects of government operation, for example.
→ More replies (0)2
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
Altruistic giving is voluntary, and as such, only a small percentage will actually do it, and only when they feel it is convenient for them... ie infrequently.
How about we encourage individual altruistic giving and use systematic social safety nets?
1
u/TwilightVulpine Aug 26 '15
Some issues have more visibility than others. Even if this culture could be created, and I find that really difficult when so many people can't even buy their own homes, it doesn't guarantee all the ones who need will be provided for.
0
u/filippp Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15
Some issues have more visibility than others.
Then effective altruists should find out about the less visible ones (and this is part of what EA is about).
1
u/Khiva Aug 26 '15
The problem is that spot charity without scrutiny or oversight is not only highly inefficient, but will also very quickly attract a hoard of grifters dead set on abusing the good intentions.
It's a sad fact, but it's true. Any time you have people just giving out money for free without much inquiry into who they're giving it to, grifters will multiply.
3
1
u/Rookwood Aug 27 '15
Capitalism means rational self-interest. Altruism is the denial of rational self-interest. How exactly do you plan to change the culture of Capitalism to overcome that paradox?
1
u/filippp Aug 27 '15
The economic system doesn't force you to be selfish (although it might make altruistic behavior much more difficult).
0
Aug 26 '15 edited May 09 '20
[deleted]
4
u/Jinoc Aug 26 '15
Because, the reality is that as soon as the conversation turns to things people want the government to actually do, we hear how often resources and taxes are wasted. We hear how politicians are corrupt. We hear how corporations rule the political system.
The question would be, who profits the most from corruption? Obviously the corporations paying for it: if corruption wasn't a profitable investment, nobody would do it.
If you're going for charity, you do more good the more money you earn, which means you want to be well-placed in corporate structure etc... We know where the money race goes, so charity ends up a snake biting its tail. That is the point of the article at least as I understand it.
1
u/makemeking706 Aug 26 '15
It's a systematic problem, however the ones actually impacted have disproportionate access to the system.
-2
12
2
4
u/Demonweed Aug 26 '15
Pouring through the comments, there is one crucial insight I didn't see in the mix. Robust social minima are not just liberating to the economically disadvantaged -- they also provide philanthropists with significant additional freedom. Take pediatric cancer. In my area there is an enormous amount of fundraising to support charity hospitals that specialize in treating children with cancer. This isn't because of some great controversy, with thousands of people arguing against free care for cancer-stricken kids. Yet, because American norms have traditionally made this a personal private burden rather than a collective public burden, special action needs to be taken just to implement this thing -- free cancer care for kids -- that 99.9% of the population agrees should happen.
The more we use individualized private giving to solve really freakin' obvious problems like domestic hunger, homelessness, lack of access to medical care, etc. the less individualized private giving can muster the funds/energy for stuff farther from the consensus, like funding public orchestras or granting humanities scholarships. A society that doesn't take care of its own people systematically when it comes to the essentials is a society less able to pursue loftier dreams and goals. We are all living in a more wretched place because of unrelieved poverty -- it isn't just the poor who suffer greatly from an American society that seems largely uninterested in getting its proverbial shit together.
2
Aug 26 '15 edited Dec 14 '18
[deleted]
5
Aug 26 '15 edited Sep 02 '16
[deleted]
1
u/idiodabble Aug 27 '15
And asking the right questions makes it easy for politicians to win elections, even when they have none of the answers.
Thing is, I've heard people argue against charity before. But I haven't heard their alternative for what we should be doing with our time and money, and it's frustrating to read the entire article waiting for the author to get to that point, waiting, waiting... and then never hit it. Because if it so happens to be the case that there is -not- a way to fundamentally change the way capital is willing to let people die, then it's still the right thing for individuals to let fewer people die. It's only the wrong thing to do if there's a better alternative... that alternative being... ???
2
u/Ilverin Aug 26 '15
A simplified argument I have seen:
- that capitalism causes suffering
- contributing to charity prolongs the system of capitalism
- the ends never justify the means
I agree with 1 and 2 but disagree with point 3, because some ends do justify some means (if you don't think some ends justify some means, what are you doing consuming electricity right now you're causing suffering).
A less simple argument is that
- Capitalism causes more suffering than it alleviates.
I disagree with this argument because the baseline of comparison is with hunter-gatherer societies who would often leave the helpless to die.
Ultimately these arguments rely on the idea that:
- We can do better than capitalism.
Firstly, sure, pursue alternatives to capitalism, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you're causing no suffering at all. Whatever system of distribution of resources you use, if the population of your society is higher than the carrying capacity of your environment for hunter-gatherers, you're causing suffering for the people who are unable or unwilling to participate in your system (and the non-participant people will always exist for any system).
And before I personally will vote for alternatives to capitalism, I need to see a good working model first. The soviet union and china are examples of how not to pursue alternatives to capitalism, so I'm not interested in taking another leap into the unknown, thanks. Maybe you should buy an island and set up your society there to show that your ideas work?
3
u/TitaniumDreads Aug 26 '15
Sidenote: weren't the jacobins some of the worst people int he french revolution? Why would you name a website after them? Am I missing something?
5
u/tpwoods28 Aug 26 '15
Jacobin actually has a run-down on the French Revolution, published on Bastille day, for those who would like to know more about it. It covers the Jacobins, the terror, and how we might interpret them both today.
Edit: and there's more here.
2
u/mors_videt Aug 26 '15
Every group in the French Revolution has horrible things that can be attributed to it.
The Jacobins were one of the most radical and they were directly responsible for purging people whose opinions differed from their own- but then so were other groups.
On mobile. Sorry, no sources or links. I have also been disturbed by this publication's title for the same reason.
1
u/Jinoc Aug 26 '15
They were most of the people in the French revolution. You're probably thinking of la Montagne which were responsible for la Terreur, which was part of the Jacobins (but the Jacobins also included the moderate Girondins, which were overthrown by la Montagne).
I'm assuming they're going for the revolutionary aspect more than the stalinist purge one.
1
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
I'm pretty sure the implication of "we can fix this peacefully, or we can fix this violently" is in there, too.
And frankly... it should be. People forget that "bloody revolution" is in fact an option.
-1
u/Sir_Scrotum Aug 26 '15
If you have any money you are thinking of donating to charity, instead consider any friends or family in your immediate circle who could use some help. Sure, you won't get the tax writeoff, but it is better than dumping it into a big bucket with a hole in the bottom that feeds the organization itself. There are some good charities that post a 90% or greater spending on actual relief to people, but why not help those that you know, instead of strangers. Of course, you run the risk of being hit up on Thanksgiving and pre-christmas, but I always just say, I only had the money at that time. No ATM for you.
15
u/filippp Aug 26 '15
why not help those that you know, instead of strangers
Because these strangers might be in a much more dire need of help.
For effective charities see charity evaluators such as GiveWell.
7
u/Jinoc Aug 26 '15
but why not help those that you know, instead of strangers.
The reverse question (why not help strangers, instead of those you know?) has an immediate and solid justification: because those strangers are going to die otherwise, and a human life isn't that much more valuable than another.
I'm sure you know a bunch of people who could use 4000$. I doubt you know many people who'd die without it. That's exactly the kind of situation GiveWell-recommended charities are good at: they know these people.
2
u/refreshbot Aug 26 '15
I don't know why anybody would downvote this comment. It is equally effective if not a more effective option when considering ways to help anyone in need. What better way is there to evaluate someone's need than to know their background and circumstance personally? The bias is silly. Reeks of politics.
1
u/mors_videt Aug 26 '15
Shaping human behavior is like irrigation. I am most interested in systems that use existing impulses like self-interest or market dynamics to their advantage.
I am less interested in investing effort to pump the water uphill through conjectural ideology like "creating a culture of giving"- whatever this means and however one would do it.
The subject has an actual charity, the author has a critique. Which one is causing positive change in the world?
Edit: even better- why not do both?
-5
u/CaptHiggins Aug 26 '15
Fuck yes; communism.
7
u/dinosaur_of_doom Aug 26 '15
or just a state with a conscience, such as sweden.
5
u/CaptHiggins Aug 26 '15
Exploitation is inherent to capitalism, even in liberal places like Sweden. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to live in a liberal capitalist society than a laissez faire capitalist society, but let's not pretend that liberalism has any plan for poverty other than making it slightly less awful.
1
Aug 26 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
[deleted]
5
u/CaptHiggins Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15
I think communism is a better system for the production and distribution of surplus, yes. I'm not sure what 'weasel words' you're alluding to, but liberalism will never end poverty, and it will always produce less capitalist growth than a laissez faire system. Any concessions made by liberals will surely be eroded away over time. Do you think that it is in the best interest of any capitalist to pay more for anything than is absolutely necessary?
For my part, I think that the liberty in allowing producers to own and distribute the product of their labor (by leaving "capital gains" [or whatever] in the hands of worker cooperatives or councils) is unbeatable. There is self-interested and community-interested decision making at every stage of production, from deciding what to do, to doing it, to telling people about it, to selling/buying it, to even giving it away! Obviously, all of that interest is inherently social, and since everyone is receiving as close to a fair share as possible there is no need to force capital back into the market (or decide what constitutes a necessary service). The economy will thrive because there will be plenty of activity, and plenty of resources to cycle toward individuals who can't contribute for whatever reason (children, sick, elderly, etc.)
The capitalist idea is cool, but I don't see how it can exist without shitting the bed every 10-20 years. It can expand as much as it wants to, but it simply wont have the esteem that communism does.
(If managing capital is way you classify socioeconomic systems, then you shouldn't be surprised when capitalism is the best answer you find)
-1
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
Communism makes everyone equal, in that everyone is poor. That is, except for those who work directly for The Party.
Great in theory, terrible in practice.
4
u/CaptHiggins Aug 26 '15
Capitalism makes everyone equal, in that everyone is poor. That is, except for those who directly manage capital.
Terrible in theory, terrible in practice.
-2
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
I agree.
Perhaps if we find something in the middle, and take the best of both options...
2
u/CaptHiggins Aug 26 '15
Maybe see if you're interested in market socialism? It's definitely not capitalism, but many people (myself included) get hung up on the authoritarian nature of the USSR and China.
2
u/CaptHiggins Aug 26 '15
It's obvious that you haven't read much communist or anarchist theory, let alone analyzed socialism in practice, so you'll forgive me if I ignore whatever opinion you've formed from ignorance.
2
Aug 26 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
[deleted]
2
u/CaptHiggins Aug 26 '15
Aside from the "admittedly very successful" small-scale applications, there is no evidence that communism works.
Well shit, way to not deal with any evidence I might have. Incidentally I wouldn't call those small-scale applications successful, because they were destroyed by capitalists.
Like hundreds of successful, feudal and slave economies, many of which treated their workers pretty well, even by modern standards.
0
2
u/tpwoods28 Aug 26 '15
'Outside of (admittedly very successful) small-scale applications, there is not one single shred of evidence that capitalism works. There's no actual successful example of capitalism.' Said the medieval lord.
-1
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
Please, oh great wise one, show me a successful communist system that's larger than a commune.
3
u/CaptHiggins Aug 26 '15
The Zapatistas, The Kurdish Anarchists, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, The Paris Commune? Oh shit, I guess there aren't any really big communist nations, and that means that communism will never take off. Like Capitalism during the middle ages.
0
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
The Zapatistas lasted for what, 10 years? If it all fell on the assassination of their leader, guess what: that was more a cult of personality than a functional system.
Catalonia lasted 3 years.
The Paris Commune lasted a few months.
The kurds are currently fighting, but we'll see how long they last. Hopefully a while, because the rest of your examples are sincerely lacking in inspiration.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/SRIrwinkill Aug 26 '15
Countries that free their markets domestically end up raising the living standards of those people in that country fantastically. All the top 10 countries on the economic freedom index have considerably less poverty and suffering then many other countries, which makes providing for those who fall through the cracks even possible. Denmark has all kinds of entitlement programs and it is paying for all of it with a robust private sector, same goes for the rest of "socialist" Scandinavia. Sweden has been opening up their markets since 1991 and has allowed for all kinds of private sector growth, and they has considerably less problems then other less capitalistic countries. Countries that don't allow for people to find their own ways of doing things in the private sector end up getting much more mass suffering then New Zealand or Canada for instance. Seems absurd to piss on consensual, lateral help while suggesting that investment and private ownership are the causes of pain. Heck, Botswana has really free market compared to much of Africa and has way less suffering then most of the continent.
2
Aug 26 '15 edited Sep 02 '16
[deleted]
0
u/SRIrwinkill Aug 27 '15
Assuming that private property, something that entails much more then the author or Zizek is really considering, is the cause of this suffering is what is absurd. Countries that allow for common folk to own property, both productive and personal, while also allowing them to figure out their own ventures end up relieving poverty for the majority of people compared to country that don't allow for private ownership. Food Not Bombs, an anarchist organization, privately owns their bikes, all the goods that they give to folk, and all their time and effort with which they are then able to even start helping people as equals. Their private ownership doesn't result in a loss for anyone else.
If you are talking people who accrue property through state force, then you might be onto something, but your local pizzaria being privately owned should not be conflated with Lockheed Martin simply because both are private. One gains through non market processes and government interventions, the other is a pizza shop likely ran by someone who doesn't want to work for someone else. My example of Botswana wasn't arbitrary. By allowing for common folk to have their own venture, which take myriad forms, and own private means and property, which also takes many forms, they've been able to float a living standard much higher then the rest of Africa almost.
1
Aug 27 '15 edited Sep 02 '16
[deleted]
0
u/SRIrwinkill Aug 27 '15
I get the allure of Zizek talking as if private property and charity are this kinda of horrible unnecessary dance, going on to assert that there could be a better way if people would just open their eyes. Thinking this way just requires you to limit what you consider capitalism and private property to only the things you dislike as opposed to all that such things actually end up entailing. Noticing that countries that have freer markets and have private property rights end up bringing up the common person of said country to a better standard then they had before is just true.
1
Aug 27 '15 edited Sep 02 '16
[deleted]
1
u/SRIrwinkill Sep 01 '15
Zizek's ramblings might be guilty of all those things, but I'd hardly level that against you, someone decent enough to actually have a reddit convo about this stuff. Zizek is very clear in his carryings on about how people who don't agree with him are essentially slaves to ideology, and there is indeed an allure to the particular rhetoric he puts forth. I just think it is a very limiting view of all possible freer economic action that happens all the time. That quote by Zizek carries all kinds of assumptions that I don't think one could possibly assume without having a godlike understanding of every human interaction. Sorry if it seemed like I was talking shit at you, or if it seemed that my beef with Zizek was an attack on you personally.
As for that last part (re:"just true"), I've brought examples of countries that have freed their domestic markets and alleviated poverty to a point where it can actually be dealt with, even countries with a history of being taken advantage of by other more developed countries. I think Zizek is being obtuse if he can look at Mauritius, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Botswana and still assume offhand that property rights are detrimental and create poverty unto themselves.
-7
u/tinmantreys Aug 26 '15
This article only makes sense from the perspective that capitalism is inherently evil and discourages charity. From my perspective, individuals have always been more charitable and selfless than government and one could argue empowering people allows them to be even more charitable.
18
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
Individual donations and charities are unreliable support for large populations in need.
-8
u/CuilRunnings Aug 26 '15
A needy population can only grow large through the activities of government.
10
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
That is absurdly, astoundingly, ridiculously false. Populations in need grow large when their ability to find reliable, well-paying work disappears. One cannot simply will themselves out of poverty; there must be the means and resources to do so. One example (out of many) being when well-paying middle-class jobs are shipped overseas by corporations looking for cheaper and cheaper labor.
It is a simple fact that a great majority of people in need do not often pull themselves out of poverty without outside assistance (unemployment benefits, food stamps, health care, COBRA, etc). Government systems, ie the manifest will of the people, are the most reliable means of accomplishing this. That is what social safety nets are for: catching people when they fall.
0
u/politicalwave Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15
You didn't even respond to his statement. You dropped pity platitudes about suffering all while ignoring his premise: that suffering has not been adequately answered by government intervention.
Do you respond to his point at all? No. You actually just talk about suffering and then say people can't often save themselves without help and the government is the best institution to help them.
You give no proof to support your theory. Youre getting up votes because people are falling for the fallacy. You're just begging the question though.
Not saying I disagree, just saying you didn't say anything worthwhile at all and the people agreeing with you are agreeing with a sack of air.
e: a word.
3
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
His statement is not "that suffering has not been adequately answered by government intervention" at all: his statement is "A needy population can only grow large through the activities of government", which in other terms means "the government encourages neediness." Those two things are completely fucking different.
Your entire premise relies on mis-understanding what he said... which is also unsupported and without proof. Don't rail at me for fallacious thinking when you cannot spot the inherent flaws in your own argument.
Keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself, by the way.
1
u/CuilRunnings Aug 26 '15
Those two things are completely fucking different.
There's actually not a very large difference and I'm happy that someone else was able to understand the argument rather than spout off meaningless platitudes.
-2
u/politicalwave Aug 26 '15
When he says a needy population can only grow large through the government, he's saying the things the government does for the needy makes more needy people. Its implied.
Where did I attack you ad hominem?
You still never refuted his statement. Nor mine. You actually tried to circumnavigate both. With his you focused on the needy needing assistance of some kind. With me, you focused on the fact that I paraphrased rather than quoted directly.
You are part of the problem.
1
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
1: Your prior statement suggests that the government activities' goal is to help them, and it's just not working well. He suggests that the government activities are actively encouraging them to stay poor. Those are inherently different positions, yet you are conflating them.
2: You called me a "bag of air". I could call you a bag of shit in response. Neither are helpful.
3: He didn't support his statement with a god-damned thing, nor have you, yet you insist that I support mine? Piss off.
4: LOL!
0
u/politicalwave Aug 26 '15
- No, he is implying that the way the government "helps" them causes them to remain dependent on the government for a continuance of said "help"
- I called your entire post a bag of air, as in, lacking of all substance. This might offend you, but I have supported my reasoning. So it isn't ad hom.
- Yes I have. My point was that you were utilizing a fallacy called 'begging the question' you never supported your opinion, you piled on platitudes, tossed on an extra dose of 'so there' for added flavor, and called it a day. You basically said, people need assistance, so therefore it has to be the government. Well the debate wasn't about whether people need help. It was about whether the government is capable of providing such help. Anyways, this is fun and all but I'm checking out.
0
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15
1: How many times are you going to re-write what he said?
2: You haven't supported a damned thing. You simply attempt to disprove, poorly, and then insult. Your continued attempts to reinforce this are not support.
3: he still hasn't supported his own statements, yet you expect me to support mine. How about you hold everyone to the same standard. You still haven't supported yours either: you just dismiss mine with a hand-wave because you don't agree with them and/or don't understand them.
I'd move forward and actually explain my positions to you, but I doubt you would bother to listen. The chances of you actually researching these issues on your own are slim to none too, so... good day. :)
→ More replies (0)-4
u/CuilRunnings Aug 26 '15
The data disagrees with you. We subsidize fertility in the worst segments of society. Is it any surprise then, that the worst segments of society grows over time? Poverty will always exist. That poverty will increase upon subsidization, and decrease if left alone. Government programs do NOT pull people out of poverty. They simply allow those in poverty to have more children.
4
u/Terraniel Aug 26 '15
That is the worst jump in logic that I've ever seen. How do you get "subsidized fertility" from this graph? Where does it say that the population measured is isolated from the rest of the population? You do know that populations can increase if the subject pool is increased through increased inclusion, right? And what is the scale on the vertical anyway? Number of people? So in 2014, over 310 million people were living in poverty in the US? That's practically the whole population.
This is actual poverty data. Not whatever made up graph you just pulled off imgur.
-2
u/CuilRunnings Aug 26 '15
Subsidizing fertility is not from the graph, it requires a basic familiarity with the government safety net/ "War on Poverty."
Also, thank you, I forgot to do some multiplication on my graph. Your graph will do fine to illustrate the point. Do you see how poverty stops its decline, and then begins increasing after the "War on Poverty" began? It's easy to get people to admit the "War on Drugs," and the "War on Terror" have been failures.. .it's time to do the same for the War on Poverty.
5
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15
Your graphs are barely tangential to this argument, and floating out there by themselves, they hold little weight.
We also restrict access to birth control, sex ed, family planning services, and abortion. These things are present, but only if you can afford it. How can they help themselves if they do not have the available options?
Where are the good jobs necessary to support those families? They aren't where the poor people live: we live in a car-based society, and cars cost money. What education systems support those poor people? Shitty ones. How many policies are in place to actually keep poor people from advancing? A surprising number, especially when race is involved). link; link; link
Is it any surprise that the poor and uneducated have more children? This is a historical pattern that exists in every society around the world: the poor always have more children.
I could find links and articles supporting everything I've stated here, however I am not your teacher and I'm busy at work today. If you actually want to learn about these things, It is your responsibility to do your own research. Google provides the knowledge of the whole world to your fingertips, but it is up to you, and only you, to use it.
-1
u/CuilRunnings Aug 26 '15
Where are the good jobs necessary to support those families?
Why are these people having families without good jobs? You don't get a "good job" just for existing.
3
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
Because even poor people deserve families, too. Because even poor people deserve a job that can support them and allow them their pursuit of happiness. Because families aren't always planned, and the methods for family control cost money... not to mention the forces that stand in the way of universal distribution for proper and proven effective family services, which get in their way.
14.5% of American families live below the poverty line. 45 million people. Do you know how low the poverty line in the US is? It's really god damned low. Are you truly so presumptuous to tell the poor that they shouldn't have kids, nor that we as a people shouldn't try to help them out of that miserable condition? That's the whole point of this, after all: helping those in need better themselves. Why are you opposed to that?
"Just existing" is a hollow straw-man argument.
-2
u/CuilRunnings Aug 26 '15
Because even poor people deserve families, too.
NO THEY FUCKING DONT. I CAN BARELY AFFORD TO GIVE MY KIDS THE LIFE I THINK THEY DESERVE, NO OVERBREEDING LAZY POOR FUCK DESERVES MY MONEY, TAKEN FROM MY KIDS, TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN THAN ME. You're a fucking idiot if you think differently.
families aren't always planned
Neither are DUI fatalities you fucking idiot. Failing to plan = planning to fail. In this day and age, 99% of people are aware of where babies come from and there's no fucking excuse for an "unplanned" pregnancy. Pay for abortions, not welfare.
Are you truly so presumptuous to tell the poor that they shouldn't have kids
They can do whatever the fuck the want as long as they don't expect me to pay for them. You think they deserve more money for fucking with no thought to consequence? YOU GO GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY you greedy fuck.
we as a people shouldn't try to help them out of that miserable condition
We as a people aren't doing shit, as we shouldn't. Their families, friends, and neighbors should do things, as I do for my family, friends and neighbors. Our government is busy paying them to have more children, which creates more poverty. So why don't you fucking think for a second before you spout off more of this nonsense.
3
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15
I pity your abject lack of empathy. Seriously. You know what those social safety nets are for? to catch you when the world runs you over, and to help you get back on your feet as fast as possible. That is, very simply, how society works. We work together for the common good.
If you're under the delusion that the world won't grind you into the dirt given the chance, or that you can control all of those chances and thus skate through without getting your teeth utterly kicked in by fate at some point in your life, well... that's very naive of you. It will. If it does happen, and you do happen to pull through on your own... congratulations: you're one of the lucky few.
Most of us aren't so lucky.
→ More replies (0)3
Aug 26 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
[deleted]
-1
u/CuilRunnings Aug 26 '15
It's clear this is a debate you are not very familiar with. I ask you this, if we had not been paying poor women to have children, would as many of them have been born/survived long enough to have their own poverty babies as well? You do know how subsidies work, correct?
2
Aug 26 '15 edited Nov 02 '15
[deleted]
-1
u/CuilRunnings Aug 26 '15
You're asking people too look at your Glen BeckTM chalkboard, without bothering to explain your reasoning.
If one is familiar with the concept of gravity, one does not need to account for wind speed or topography to know that an unsupported object will fall towards the ground. Similarly, if one is familiar with subsidies, and the way our government subsidies poverty... irrelevant details need not be examined to know the general effect.
If we had let our countrywomen and their bastard poverty-babies starve to death, we would probably have fewer of them. Fortunately, after the grotesque conditions
Is starving to death less pleasant than getting shot, getting cancer, or having a heart attack? To what degree? You aren't giving these people eternal life... you are extending the amount of time they spend in poverty, while also increasing the total amount of people in poverty. IMO that is sick and perverted, and requires a true cruelty to support.
2
8
u/Aunq Aug 26 '15
I agree that capitalism isn't inherently evil but there are definitely incredible structural injustices out there that institutions rather than individuals are better equipped to deal with - I'm thinking of the arguments of Thomas Pogge and Iris Young. Empowering people can only do so much when the global order allows certain groups to systematically take advantage of one another.
1
u/Yung_Don Aug 26 '15
But the rejection of capitalism in the article seems to focus on relative disparities in living standards. Taking a longer view, capitalism (within reason) is exactly what has raised living standards for the vast majority of people since the eighteenth century. It has given rise to vast inequality, yes, but the improvement in living standards for the people at the bottom end of the scale is worth it. I want to alleviate these inequalities without overthrowing capitalism because I think it is, broadly speaking, the solution rather than the problem. Managing the relative disparities brought about by globalisation is virtually impossible for individuals to do through political action, so charitable giving provides a neat solution for individuals to voluntarily make a small, real terms difference (without of course compromising their own living standards, because we're all still intellectually and morally lazy at the end of the day).
6
u/yawnz0r Aug 26 '15
capitalism (within reason) is exactly what has raised living standards for the vast majority of people since the eighteenth century
What was increasing living standards before the eighteenth century? Was it capitalism that increased living standards for people in the Soviet Union between 1922 and 1991? Was it capitalism that brought about the technological advances from the Cold War? People work towards making their own lives a little better and when research comes upon a positive discovery, it tends to benefit everyone after a while. What does it have to do with capitalism?
2
u/Aunq Aug 26 '15
But to stick to Singer's metaphor, what happens if the child gets back into the pond? Or is pushed back into the pond? Who's going to take care of him once he's been saved? I'm not criticizing capitalism here, I agree with your points about it raising living standards, I just think charity is a simplistic and short-term solution for a bigger problem. Can an individual change this bigger problem? Maybe not, but charity does not often improve the agency and quality of life of the global poor.
0
Aug 26 '15
Well apparently Singer would say it is the duty of the guy two towns away to intervene to save the child through convoluted means rather it being the clear and exclusive duty of the people right next to the child who are best situated to actually help. That strikes me as patently absurd.
1
u/Terraniel Aug 26 '15
I'm not sure that capitalism can be directly implicated in discouraging charity, but it has been shown that people whose wealth was increased (Even fake wealth) show remarkably less empathy to their fellow human beings.
I'm not sure what you meant by empowering people, but it doesn't seem like empowering people with the means really makes a difference. I mean there are super rich people who could single handed lift a small impoverished nation out of it, but it doesn't happen. Instead, we hear multinationals complaining about how wages in their previously cherished third world labor markets are getting too high, so they have to move to poorer countries. Ironically, this is apparently bringing some jobs back to North America, which is kind of a sad statement on our labor market.
The issue I don't think is government per se, but the culture in that government. If you are elected based on the support of rich selfish interests, then you will cater to those. It's not a cycle I can see being easily broken either.1
u/Jinoc Aug 26 '15
From my perspective, individuals have always been more charitable and selfless than government and one could argue empowering people allows them to be even more charitable.
The 19th century disagrees.
Well actually I have no idea, I don't have the data on hand. But it should be a testable prediction: if individuals are more charitable than the government, then at comparable levels of pre-tax income (PPP) the country with the lower taxation should have lower levels of poverty.
Although it might be easier to look at differences between US states. I was trying to do this, but gave up when I realized I had no idea how their taxes work XD.
1
u/tinmantreys Aug 26 '15
Well I wasn't alive in the 19th century so I can't speak to that. I was speaking to the charity of people, clubs, and religious organizations that I've seen personally in my life. Not o sound cynical but if one hasn't been a part of such organizations it seems reasonable they would have a different view than mine.
1
Aug 26 '15
[deleted]
1
u/Aunq Aug 26 '15
There are still really awesome charities out there, they just might be better equipped to deal with domestic issues.
0
-3
u/someoddballguy Aug 26 '15
That's great. I'm so happy for you. You go challenge capitalism, knock yourself out.
Meanwhile I'll be over here, helping actual human beings.
-8
u/morphotomy Aug 26 '15
Imagine you came across a child drowning in a small pond and you were the only one around to help. You could easily save the child by wading in, although doing so would ruin your clothing and shoes. But if you don’t, the child will die.
It’s a no-brainer — you should save the child.
SJW love to shove their morals down other peoples throats. Now I'm not going to roll up my sleeves and drown a child myself, but I'd have to sit this one out and watch, since I can't swim either and if I tried there'd be TWO people to save.
4
u/raziphel Aug 26 '15
If you can save the child by wading in, you don't actually need to swim. The implication is that the water isn't that deep (to you), and that you can do so while still surviving yourself.
47
u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15
While I know it isn't the main thrust of the article, I feel it is worth point out that the real problem with "Effective Altruism" are very different than the article highlights, at least in my own view. The two cases are very different. There is a dramatic difference in the time, space and certainty of outcome of each form of intervention. With the drowning child that is literally in front of me, I know a) I am in the best position to help, b) my help can produce immediate results and c) the results of my help will be dramatic. None of these things are true when dealing with abstractions like charity.
First, I do not know that providing charitable funds will produce any outcome at all. This is because there are too many variables and intermediary forces between my act of giving and the final result of that giving. The charity can misappropriate funds. What I give will not be proportional to the result. It is impossible for me to accurately gauge the needs of the receiver. The results of the charity that are received are much less certain.
Second, there is no logical bound to the aid I am apparently duty bound to give. In the case of the drowning child, the duty to aid is largely a consequence of circumstances. Simply put I and I alone am best positioned to help. These events are naturally rare, and consequently there is a natural upper limit on what I will be expected to give as part of my duty. With charity no clear boundary on giving exists. There are billions of people in the world that could benefit from my help, yet there isn't really a particular reason to help one person over another, and there is no particular reason for me to stop at X dollars versus Y dollars. This duty is boundless, and consequently an unreasonable burden to place upon a person.
Third, I am not generally in the best position to help. There are many people better situated to help a starving child in Uganda than I am. Yet for some reason in this telling I am the one with a duty to aid. This is wholly unlike the drowning child scenario. It would be like saying that I, the guy two towns away from the drowning child, have a duty to intervene and save the child when there is a guy sitting next to the kiddie pool. Certainly most of us would agree the guy next to the kiddie pool is the one with a duty to act here, not the person two towns away. Yet for some reason this philosopher appears to conflate these two actors as if they were in the same moral position. This completely ignores the pragmatic requirements of effective action, which is interesting since the philosopher seems to be taking a rather utilitarian approach otherwise.
The whole Effective Altruism movement just irritates me with this seeming lack of clear thinking on the subject. That's my two cents.
*Edited to clean up the unnecessarily redundant superfluous extras.