As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Does humanitarian aid prolong human suffering?
Sarcastro
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
In general terms, I would consider myself a humanitarian. Personally, I think it's a good idea to help people out and relieve suffering where one is able.
Lately though, I've hit upon a paradox, mostly dealing with famine and outside efforts to alleviate that suffering.
It goes something like this:
Faminopia no longer produces enough food to feed its people either at all or at a price the majority can afford.
People are starving, lots are dying.
United Samaritan makes a couple calls, holds a few concerts and photo-ops and collects enough food to feed the starving.
But the problem, the root problem, is still there. This country does not produce enough food, because there is a serious overpopulation problem. So when the aid runs out, people are still going to starve.
The Heartless Bastard Solution: Do not provide food.
The idea being that a harvest comes in cycles. If there is no extra food, people will die off in droves. The food supply will stretch exactly as far as the number of people it can support. The next time around, the harvest will be around the same amount which has been naturally established as enough to feed everyone. No more aid will be required, and that country will be self-sustaining.
So which is kinder? Foreign Aid seems to keep a country in perpetual need of assistance, entrapping the whole population, carrying out starvation conditions for much, much longer. Eventually, because the population base is the same, and there is only a minor change in birthrate, many many children are born only to die a short time later. These deaths will far exceed those brought on by simply allowing a certain number of people to die outright. The recovery from the Heartless Bastard Solution allows regrowth without additional suffering, as all those who are alive would be able to feed themselves and ensure thier own future indefinately.
In terms of starvation deaths, Foriegn Aid has a higher count. In terms of the number of people suffering, Foriegn Aid also has a higher count. In fact it seems like there is more death and suffering for a much, much longer period of time. Can this truly be considered a humanitarian effort when there is more death and suffering as a result? Or is the Heartless Bastard Solution really a greater kindness in the big picture?
Discuss!
Maybe a Ground Rule: Look, there's a lot personal attachments to the view of aid and also to inadvertantly or purposefully killing a whole lot of people, even if it might be for the greater good. So if we could all view this as largely hypothetical, that would be really cool. Discussion around the larger issues in play even with specific countries is great, but lets try to keep it out of the recommendations for actual foreign policy mud. Awesome!
Lately though, I've hit upon a paradox, mostly dealing with famine and outside efforts to alleviate that suffering.
It goes something like this:
Faminopia no longer produces enough food to feed its people either at all or at a price the majority can afford.
People are starving, lots are dying.
United Samaritan makes a couple calls, holds a few concerts and photo-ops and collects enough food to feed the starving.
But the problem, the root problem, is still there. This country does not produce enough food, because there is a serious overpopulation problem. So when the aid runs out, people are still going to starve.
The Heartless Bastard Solution: Do not provide food.
The idea being that a harvest comes in cycles. If there is no extra food, people will die off in droves. The food supply will stretch exactly as far as the number of people it can support. The next time around, the harvest will be around the same amount which has been naturally established as enough to feed everyone. No more aid will be required, and that country will be self-sustaining.
So which is kinder? Foreign Aid seems to keep a country in perpetual need of assistance, entrapping the whole population, carrying out starvation conditions for much, much longer. Eventually, because the population base is the same, and there is only a minor change in birthrate, many many children are born only to die a short time later. These deaths will far exceed those brought on by simply allowing a certain number of people to die outright. The recovery from the Heartless Bastard Solution allows regrowth without additional suffering, as all those who are alive would be able to feed themselves and ensure thier own future indefinately.
In terms of starvation deaths, Foriegn Aid has a higher count. In terms of the number of people suffering, Foriegn Aid also has a higher count. In fact it seems like there is more death and suffering for a much, much longer period of time. Can this truly be considered a humanitarian effort when there is more death and suffering as a result? Or is the Heartless Bastard Solution really a greater kindness in the big picture?
Discuss!
Maybe a Ground Rule: Look, there's a lot personal attachments to the view of aid and also to inadvertantly or purposefully killing a whole lot of people, even if it might be for the greater good. So if we could all view this as largely hypothetical, that would be really cool. Discussion around the larger issues in play even with specific countries is great, but lets try to keep it out of the recommendations for actual foreign policy mud. Awesome!
Sarcastro on
0
Posts
Very few charities view food aid as a long-term solution.
Is this not the case?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes and no. Some areas can get hit by horrible droughts (mainly sub-saharan Africa, but other areas as well, I'm sure) that last several seasons and screw over grain reserves etc. I'm not aware of there just not being enough food to go around being an issue specifically, but it's not like I pay too much attention to these things.
Also, giving out condoms on every aid cucumber could help solve the overpopulation issue while feeding people. And in a comical way nontheless.
I believe this is often the case. One of the problems that occurs in this situation is that food becomes such a valued commodity there is a great deal of overhead, crime and violence surrounding it's distribution - only a small percentage of donations actually get to the people they are trying to support.
Another is that long term solutions aren't always feasable - sometimes, if say half your land is turning into desert, there may be no long term solution. This happens when the reduction rate of agriculturally availible land exceeds production and reclamation increases, something that is actually happening in a great many places.
That's more an issue of the drown then drought in foreign aid as your situation becomes less TV friendly. It's also what foundations, NGO's, and the World Bank (among others) exist to help ease, but it certainly needs tweaking and more structured organization to ensure that a fairly consistent amount comes into the area in need until it's back on its feet enough.
People dying of starvation puts a lot of stress on the system you're trying to build. Is famine conducive to stable economies and governments? Furthermore, it's not as if food aid is enabling substantial population growth, because it's generally not long-term. It happens around disaster events, and mitigates the short-term disruption of the food supply.
Is there a documented case of famine ever helping a country's economy?
I thought we were contributing to population growth by providing food. How could that be if very little of it reaches its destination?
Elkamil is made of win and awesome.
Hey, what about me and my cucumbers with condoms programme?
I agree this would be more ideal. In practice, birth control methods are startlingly ineffective. One is the cost of the products in play (A day's wage for a condom is pretty steep for some, female BC is another luxury often out of range) and another relates to prioritization. Medication to stop deadly illnessness first, then running water, then food, then stuff to hold off the babies. By the time they hit the end, there isn't much or anything to go around.
Is there a documented case of famine ever helping a country's economy?[/QUOTE]
Heh. Dunno, we didn't really start caring until after the fifties, by which time we had intervention methods in play. Certainly there are cases where a country's famine is exploited by warlords to create a false economy, and many cases where foriegn aid is exchanged for 'favors' cashed in by other countries. I'm thinking specifically of Africa, where a number of countries became heavily in debt by means of trying to improve thier overall quality of life to a minimal subsistance level.
Most of the time those agencies provide condoms for free, not for a day's wage. They aren't available anymore thanks to Bush barring funding for agencies that hand 'em out rather than solely teaching abstinence to the little heathens, but ignoring that idiocy AIDS agencies and similiar have plenty of barrier type birth control methods free and clear to whoever takes them. Making people consider it normal to use is another matter.
Also, these generally don't follow a specific or logical course. Everyone has their own pet issue and they try and promote it/give it aid before they deal with other stuff. AIDS organizations don't give as much of a shit about malaria as 'The Council to Promote DDT Usage in Sub Saharan Africa' does, which really couldn't give two shits about malnutrition outside of all those flies the starving babies seem to attract, etc.
Until there's a solution to the depostic government systems of the third world the hunger issue will persist
No no, it's not really about the situation, as much as I was hoping to explore the morality of a few (possibly) opposing ideas.
One being 'when is it okay to allow a person to die?', another being 'if helping someone puts them in a state of dependancy where they could/can not exist without your help, should you have helped them in the first place?' and with that, 'if your help extends the situation, but the situation itself is [bad], is that extension harmful, and should you do it?'. These are somewhat in conflict with 'I should help whenever I can in whatever way is possible, and indeed may even have an obligation to do so.'
I thought famine as an example grouped these nicely in a collective, as it includes elements of all of these things. Since it deals with a group of people, the tangental effects of the interplay between these ideas show up as portions of the group.
For example, the interplay between the dependancy issue and the allowing people to die issue shows itself as a general willingness to help, but shows many people personally unaffected but aware of the issue who choose not to help. This suggests (to me anyways) that most people feel (not when pressed for an answer but in real life action) that it is quite alright to allow someone to die if you are not personally affected by the issue, and are only minimally aware of thier situation. It also suggests that there are those who feel a strong enough attachment to those outside their local picture that they would give a portion of thier resources to see that person's continuation - even when not directly involved.
I may have erred slightly in choosing an example which holds no real innate conflict for people, but I didn't want a biased representation either. Famine makes a good choice because it's everywhere. There's even ads for it. "Pay me a dollar every day or I kill this random kid." and such. Am I to believe that I am party to murder for not responding to a TV ad? What are my obligations, in real terms? Am I involved in every bad situation I am aware of? Are there opportunities for enmurderment I am unaware of, and am I a bad person for not actively seeking them out?
Where does that line lie? Is awareness obligation, and even if it were obligation, what right does society have to hold me to it? Is there justification in thinking that people should fend for themselves by default? Is standing by and letting the default occur actually evil? Is not intervening the same as being part of the cause?
These are the issues I would hope to see explored, although I admit I am unsure as to how to make that happen.
Edit: Meanwhile, carry on, carry on - World Hunger, totally an important issue. Definately some world wide inequalities going on with that.
What's with these warlords grabbing all the food? Don't we have enough guns to make them stop that?
The only problem with bringing in food aid is that it damages the potential for the country to grow more. Flood the market with a commodity - for free - and it becomes that much harder for the farmers to stay in business. However, in the short term there's often not much else you can do. I guess ideally you dump your sacks of USAID grain on them, as well as stuff like fertilizers, irrigation equipment, infrastructure, etc. that will help offset the costs of the local food producers.
Ugh, anytime I hear someone say something stupid like this...
Just because there hasn't been a documented case doesn't mean it can't happen.
There are very good reasons to suppose that famine will almost never help a country's economy, though. What with how starving people go from contributors to dependents, and how significant starvation contributes to political unrest and violence, both of which further destabilize a community.
What!?
I forget who said it, but.
Fixed
Famine incapacitates healthy adults who could be working, and brings tremendous instability.
If you want to argue that that's good for the economy, be my guest.
The logic here is getting circular as hell.
If they really were working hard why would they be in a famine in the first place? To me that implies there is a different problem.
Famines are from a lack of food, not just effort. Hard work doesn't always pay off.
Destitution not dearth
.....O_o
Yeah, those damn lazy farmers and their not controlling rainfall, pestilence, or nature through the sweat of their brows.
Then what does it matter whether or not they are incapacitated because of a famine? There wouldn't be any bullshit work to do anyway even if they were healthy.
...what?
Anyway, to play along with the madness, one result of a famine is that it's not just farmers dying. In fact, depending on the severity, the farmers may be the least affected - if they manage to eek out some kind of crop, they can take care of themselves, but won't be selling any surplus. Every other person in the community however is out of luck - teachers, shop owners, labourers, etc. etc. etc.
Now, if Diebold can make a case of how that could be a good thing, I'm all ears.
The lack of food at home means there will be a greater need to import food from other places, making the currency stronger by comparison.
Buying up the necessary foreign currency will devalue the local currency.
At which point, what you do is you set the value of your currency at a 1 to 1 ratio internally in your own country. So for each dollar your third world government recieves, you give 1 credit to your citizen worker. In reality, 1 dollar may be able to purchase many credits because your currency is so worthless, but only on inbound exports. The result is that the government hordes a lot of cash, and the citizens get less cash than the government.
But the cash the citizens are using on the streets is enough for their everyday needs.
How, exactly, do you solve a problem of supply and demand and the effect of the global economy on both by working harder?
After you pull yourself up by your bootstraps you can sell them to other developing nations at a permium.
That is your position?
What are you implying? That they should work less? If you want them to work less then a famine is right up your ally.
I'm suggesting that it's a supply and demand problem that has nothing to do with how hard they've been working.
Then what the hell was the point of that?