Should We Give Aid To Black People or Handicapped People First?

maxx

I hate to say this; however by judging all of your posts; I suggest we help black redneck handicap chickens first. @Barnardot

just_sayin

Since money is a limited resource, I believe we should be intentional with it and not just give to those in need, but spend it where it will make the most difference and have the best return on results.  You can spend a lot of money and not do a lot of good - take Dreamer's climate change ideas for example, which would spend trillions, and then not slow the global temperature rise by more than 0.02 degrees Celsius. .  Instead I suggest we look to spend where it will make the most difference, in the quality of lives, around the world.  A great book, that has used multiple Nobel Prize economists to see where the money would get the most 'bang' for the buck, is 

Best Things First

The book selects 12 projects to invest 35 billion a year, short term, in, to help poor people around the world and gives concrete detailed ideas on what to do.  Each idea has about a 50:1 return on investment, meaning for every dollar spent it will generate at least 50 dollars to continue helping the world's poor ongoingly.  From Amazon:

Governments and philanthropists should focus on these 12 smartest things. Fix tuberculosis, malaria, and chronic disease, tackle malnutrition, improve education, increase trade, implement e-procurement, and secure land tenure. This will improve the world amazingly. The cost is $35 billion a year. The benefits include saving 4.2 million lives each year and generating $1.1 trillion more for the world’s poor.

Most of the things on the list are not 'flashy' with this approach.  Distributing micronutrient packages for kids isn't as glamorous as giving out Christmas presents, but the result is that millions of children will not starve to death and grow up to be healthy.  Rather than virtue signaling how awesome we are for what we are doing, the book just tries to show how to do the most good with the money.

Barnardot

@maxx ;I hate to say this; however by judging all of your posts; I suggest we help black redneck handicap chickens first.

Well I reckon that that could work.

Where I work we knock off thousands of chickens and once your put them on the electric clips and they come out of the de feathering machine those chickens have got pretty red necks all right.

But we dont allow blackies in our factory because we cant see them if they slip off the conveyor belt. One day a blackie got through and did just that and after a couple of days it got jammed in the cogs and no one noticed until it smelled. Next thing you know the inspectors came and we had to close the plant for a hole day while the mess was cleaned up and diss infected then inspected again. So we tell the farmers that if we see any blackies in any of the cages that come in then they can turn the truck a round and take them back.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ; Rather than virtue signaling how awesome we are for what we are doing, the book just tries to show how to do the most good with the money.

Okay then so your a man of faith and it says some thing in the Bible like if you give a man a fish then he will live for a day. But if you give him some string and a hook and a couple of fishing lessions then he can feed the hole village for a life time. So don't you reckon that gives a better return rather than chucking bags of milk powder at them.

Bogan

When I was a kid, there were 3.5 billion people on planet earth, now there are 8 billion and that number is growing exponentially.     All of that increase is within third world African, South American, and Muslim countries where average IQ compared to the rest of the world is very low.    Advanced societies would have negative population reductions if not for legal and illegal immigration from third world sheetholes.     This is not going to end well.     The advanced societies can not continue funding the growth of low IQ people who are unable to create functioning societies, berceuse it amounts to throwing money into an endlessly growing black hole.        All we can do is wait until the traditional means of population reduction, starvation, war, and disease, naturally reduce the populations of the world's most troublesome people.   

Barnardot

@Bogan ;All we can do is wait until the traditional means of population reduction, starvation, war, and disease, naturally reduce the populations of the world's most troublesome people.   

Well this is totally right because when all the red necks and bogans run out of road kill to eat and keep piking fights with every one and getting the clap from loose bar tarts then starvation, war, and disease will naturally reduce the populations of the world's most troublesome people.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ; Rather than virtue signaling how awesome we are for what we are doing, the book just tries to show how to do the most good with the money.

Okay then so your a man of faith and it says some thing in the Bible like if you give a man a fish then he will live for a day. But if you give him some string and a hook and a couple of fishing lessions then he can feed the hole village for a life time. So don't you reckon that gives a better return rather thanrett chucking bags of milk powder at them.

The issue is often not about giving more money or 'teaching to fish' but about implementing the right policies that will make a difference.  An example in the book is tuberculosis.  Its pretty much eradicated in rich countries. But 1.4 million people die from it every year.  A third of the deaths each year come from India.  A problem is that people must take a pill every day for 4 to 6 months. Not having to go to a doctor each day for the pill would make it easier.  Government healthcare is slow, hence most Indians have had TB for 3 to 4 months before they get government healthcare and have been to see private doctors, but cost keeps them from taking the pill each day for 4 to 6 months.  The book outlines strategies for dealing with that, and the stigma that people with TB have - 1/3 loss their job, and 1/4th divorce over it.   

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;A third of the deaths each year come from India.

Its the same with fishing because you have to go to the root cause and build from there because as sure as you try to patch up the health system there will be other problems. The biggest under laying problem is poverty through a culture that doesn't work noerdays. If we can poor more money in educating those people then there mindset will change but it will take generations. Many of them dont take pills because of cultural beleifs and superstations.

MayCaesar

There is nothing that uplifts people across the board as much as technological progress, as far as I can tell. The Internet, smartphones and laptops helped billions of people and created a foundation for further, more rapid progress. In contrary, direct aid in the form of food, water, hospitals and schools only helps people in specific regions, and only temporarily: food and water run out, hospitals fall into disrepair, and schools get contaminated by obese bureaucracy and propaganda.

It seems to me that, as heartless as it might sound, philanthropy is much less effective than tech investment (with expected return, so the recipients of investment have a strong incentive to put the money to good use and not squander it). The best thing Elon Musk or Bill Gates can do for the world is focus on what they do best, that is running organizations creating marvels of technology that push humanity forward at a cheetah's pace. That technology will then be used to create derivative products for all intents and purposes, including those involved in food and water production and distribution, and building and sustenance of hospitals and schools (the latter will soon be completely digitizable, so anyone can receive the best education in the world regardless of where they are physically located).

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

There is nothing that uplifts people across the board as much as technological progress, as far as I can tell. The Internet, smartphones and laptops helped billions of people and created a foundation for further, more rapid progress. In contrary, direct aid in the form of food, water, hospitals and schools only helps people in specific regions, and only temporarily: food and water run out, hospitals fall into disrepair, and schools get contaminated by obese bureaucracy and propaganda.

It seems to me that, as heartless as it might sound, philanthropy is much less effective than tech investment (with expected return, so the recipients of investment have a strong incentive to put the money to good use and not squander it). The best thing Elon Musk or Bill Gates can do for the world is focus on what they do best, that is running organizations creating marvels of technology that push humanity forward at a cheetah's pace. That technology will then be used to create derivative products for all intents and purposes, including those involved in food and water production and distribution, and building and sustenance of hospitals and schools (the latter will soon be completely digitizable, so anyone can receive the best education in the world regardless of where they are physically located).

What makes technologies valuable.  I would not see having access to more diverse types of porn, or TikTok dance videos as all that valuable.  I would place a greater value on lives saved from death and starvation.  So if technology saved lives by increasing food output, or improving medical outcomes, I'd see that as more valuable.  Technology is a but a tool.  It can be used for noble or ignoble purposes.  I'd refine your claim to technology that saves lives.  Otherwise, I think the ROI on your investment is not as good as directly digging wells in Africa, or planting crops in 3rd world countries.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

By "technology" I did not mean every single implementation of a new scientific discovery, but, rather, the general set of technological opportunities available at the moment. Nuclear fusion can be used both to build incredibly efficient energy sources, or to build incredibly efficient weapons of mass destruction - either way, once nuclear fusion is discovered and put to practice, the set of tools people can build has expanded semi-permanently, and every single human being benefits from it.

You can donate a trillion dollars to a charity fund and save 100,000 people from starvation today - with tens of millions more still starving. Or you can invest a trillion dollars into thermonuclear plant research, and in a few decades you will be able to save everyone in the world from starvation with a tiny fraction of that amount. You can catch 20 fish with your fishing pole and feed a beggar in your village - or you can build 20 fishing poles, and your village will be fed forever (although the beggar in question might not live long enough to see that).

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I think this is a false dichotomy.

We could give equal parts to both Black and handicapped people. I more of a fan of help everyone by getting rid of the bad and the idea is the poorest and most in need of help generally benefit the most. For example end monopolies/monopsony, tax cigarettes more, lower air pollution by shutting down all coal plants and many more.

Each of these would help Black and handicapped people. Also note that Black and Hispanic people have higher rates of disability due to environmental inequities like rats and coach-roaches that leads to negative health outcomes including asthma and diabetes. Helping one helps the others so don't worry about which one you help first, just get out there and do some good.