I just want to take this oppertunity to say a huge THANK YOU ! Hank and John for making these insights and resources universally accessible. You are doing such a great thing and I have used your videos both on vlogbrothers and crashcourse sooo many times. You guys are awesome !!!! Sincerly Hannah ( 16yrs, Devon, UK) Thank You !!!
Birth rates fall in developed countries, Japan being the epitome of this. Births are so high in sub Saharan Africa because the parents KNOW they're going to lose some children to malaria. This is seen frequently in nature where species that are vulnerable to predation, such as rabbits, produce more offspring to compensate. Read about r and K selection.
Also it ignores the fact that 10 additional bodies and minds are a more valuable resource then the space they would occupy. In this way the lifeboat analogy is debunked by the pond analogy, since both moral decisions hinge on how much you value life over non-life.
In my opinion a major problem is that people don't feel responsible to donate money because there are many people who are much richer than them, so they expect those people to donate. In the example with the pond that would mean that if someone in a bathing suit was standing next to you, you'd expect him to save the girl.
This is such an important video. i just spent six months living and teaching in Zambia, Africa, and i saw extreme extreme poverty. I dont understand how when we have all the resources to end extreme poverty globally we just dont. My lifeboat answer is, have everyone who is able to take shifts treading water while others stay in the boat, because you cant tell the future and what if another boat is coming? what if somebody is sailing around the corner.? I bought food for kids in africa knowing it would fill their bellies once but in the grand scheme of things be pointless, yet i still did it, because maybe tommorow someone else will buy them food, or their father will find a job, or they will be sponsored, but that cant happen if they die today because we refused to help them the first time. I enrolled kid in school and paid their fees knowing they wouldnt have enough money to buy uniforms when they grew out of them or books when they ran out, but isnt beggining beter than giving up. The people living in poverty, i found, never think of it as "prolonged agony" they think of every blessing God has given them, they have joy and fulfillment, and yes they have times of despair just like us, but our help is so so so so so important. every life matters.
As one who used to be a poor college student and eventually (over a decade later) got a very well-paying job, I can attest that it's much easier to donate to charities once you're making more than enough to meet your basic needs. Also it feels good when you can add that to your itemized deductions at tax time. ;)
The problem of poverty, as Hank pointed out, is not a problem of resources but of governmental and economic systems. It is not the duty of individuals to help those in extreme poverty, but rather the duty of the collective to band together to create new systems where extreme poverty doesn't exist. So while yes I would save the child and forgo my shoes, after that myself and others also have the duty to prevent future children from falling in the lake and drowning. Collective preventative action leads to less suffering overall.
“The central normative implication of conceiving the duties as duties of justice, rather than as duties of beneficence, is that it is not appropriate to frame the duties in terms of how much of our resources we should give. Rather, insofar as we are under duties of justice towards those suffering severe poverty, those resources are not rightfully ours in the first place.” - Elizabeth Ashford
i consider myself a philanthropist, and i truly identify with Singer's reasoning of saving a child even if you cant see them. due to the spread of information over the internet know a days, it is impossible to not see the suffering others go through. i believe we have a moral obligation to help others even if its difficult
The other issue with Garrett Hardin's analogy vis-a-vis overpopulation and thinking about one's own citizens/resources first is that: A) Overpopulation generally occurs in poorer nations and tends to go away once wealth gaps close and education - especially sex ed - comes about, so you can easily help avoid overpopulation without allowing a bunch of people to die (not to mention population issues nowadays has more to do with people living longer than too many people being born). B) Investing in aid and development of another country help's one's own country too. There is less likely to be immigration or refugee-ism from developed countries which solves the issue of refugee crises occurring, and it helps foster good diplomatic, social and trade relations between nations. Good will goes a long way.
After having seen CPG Grey's Keys to Power video and Crash Course Ecenomics' Tragedy of the Commons video I always find it a bit silly when I hear that we could "easily" end world poverty.
Neo-Mad Dog I think some more fencing and a bit of tech like motion sensors and ground penetrating radar trucks would go much further towards protecting our southern border than just building a great wall of Mexico. It's expensive and will only be marginally effective. Plus the environmental impacts of animals not being able to migrate and roam or rain waters being blocked up and flooding.
CGP Grey's Rules for Rulers is one of the most insightful and depressing videos I have seen. This is the way the world truly works and why fixing things is so damn hard. We can talk about the moral case for doing right but what do we do if it is in practice (due to the keys) an impossible task?
3:05 The difference is that although my cents could change a life, these unjustices are systematic and we need a systematic solution. The problem isnt that westerners arent philanthropic enough, the problem is that we are not investing enough in these underdeveloped regions. We are not solving inequality by saving childrens lives, rather we are keeping our conciens clean while ignoring the underlying problems. This is like how we handle global warming. Should the individuals make choices that reduces emission? Or is it the responsibility of the society? Should I be held accountable for all the emission I do, or is society responsible? The individual may or may not judge global warming as a serious threat, but if we are not all in this together, the problem simply wont get solved. So relying on the individual entirely is a non solution. We need society to set the rules.
This is a beautiful but horrifying at the same time. Altruism and self interest have always been in a great dance. As with everything else, it is a personal struggle that almost always results in the conclusion that a nuanced balance is required.
Well nothing is worth holding on to if giving it up would lead to something better, so it being our "nature" is no argument. In addition, i think you cant simply just loose your self-intrest, but you can be totally aware of it and act against it.
I see your point there. But based on the assumption that i think utilitarianism is the best way of approaching things, every action i do with that philosophy is whitout self-intrest. In addition, it wouldnt be altruism, because i wouldnt sacrifice myself for just one other human beeing, because that wouldnt be utilitarian
Caleb Fletcher Why should we hold up self-interest as a virtue if it's something that happens regardless of anything else we may think. It's like praising our hearts for pumping blood and our lungs for breathing, yes they do that but they do that regardless of what we think of them. It may be good to look after your own self interest but it's better to help others while your doing so. Which brings up the question of whether virtue is defined as something you "should" do or something you "need" to do.
although, this entire episode completely ignores the reality that the extremely uneven distribution of resources wasn't the result of randomness. it is the result of abuses and exploitations by powerful groups who stole from others. and the fact is, that while we are not the same people who did the taking, the people of today are the people who are still directly benefitting from that theft or the people being kept away from having the opportunity to benefit from the resources stolen from their ancestors. the wealthy and powerful have an obligation to share resources and end poverty because the money and resources they have were given to them by people who stole it from the ancestors of the poor and impoverished.
You really dont know why poverty exists do you? Places like Africa aren't still poor because of colonialism in fact when my parents were growing up in Nigeria right after decolonizations there were opportunities to get an education and get an honest career to support yourself and your family. Now many of those systems have been pilfered by corrupt politicians within thier own country and social progress has slowed to basically a standstill. The reason Africa is poor is because of corruption at all levels of government prevents the money that people pay in taxes from going into good use in building infrastructure that will allow them to succeed like in developed countries.
you are the one mistaken about why african countries are still poor. I'm saying that corrupt government officials aren't hogging all the resources that are left. of course they are! but let's take a closer look at the situation. the resources in Africa are much scarcer than they would have been without European invasion. I'm talking ENORMOUS amounts of stolen resources. there's still enough there to maybe keep everyone in Africa out of poverty. but the problem that remains is that African countries are headed by dictators and by presidents who refuse to relinquish power when they lose or complete their final term of office. why is that? it's ALSO because of the impact of colonialism. we live in a post-colonial world. EVERYTHING that is currently, is that way because European empires held colonies around the globe. you can't just pretend that everything was restarted when colonialism ended. you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Im guessing that you have never been or have not talked to anyone who actually lives in Africa. The resources are still there in abundance but there is no infrastructure to harness and mine them because of piss-poor governance. Africa is still the most resource rich place on earth but it is extremely difficult to make a profit off those resources if there are few well paved roads and the policemen take a cut of your cargo as a bribe for you to use said roads. Thinking that the colonizers just came in and made off with ALL THE RESOURCES in the relatively short time that they had to do so is ludicrous and overly simplistic.
I'm a philosophy PhD student and instructor and I approve of this video. It's really quite great, and I strive to provide my students with lectures with this level of clarity, not to mention that it was very engaging. Sadly, I found this video because one of my students plagiarized this video.
This one fills me with cognitive dissonance that I can't resolve, and an unshakable sense of anxiety. That makes it one of the best so far, in my opinion. And it's truly unbiased; a great improvement over some of the recent episodes.
The natural reluctance to helping starving and dying people across the globe, and the difficulty of rallying everyone to help these people, I think boils down to the fact that inside most people think that they're already trying their best. They have their own worries. Everyone is trying to be the best person that they think they can be. So when you come up to that person and say "how dare you not help these dying people?" most people reactions is going to be, subconsciously or not, "Excuse me?!/how dare you?!". People don't like to be told what to do. Same problem applies to global warming. Rallying people to change their ways and save the planet cannot be done by arguing and debating. It's going to be very hard to convince people to change their ways for a situation that they can't even observe. The only effective way of doing so that I can see is to inspire and educate people on the matter, and allow them to come to the conclusion of what they can do about it by themselves.
The problem is a logistical one. I may be morally obligated to help, and I may even want to, but I don't know how. As far as I can tell, there is no structure in place to guarentee that my money will actually help those in need, and not just pay some administrator in DC's salary. I don't want to help administrators, I want to help the impoverished. I feel like the failing is in developing a trustworthy framework to help that functions without friction.
I just wanted to say thank you. For me, crash course has gone from a helpful study review to one of the tools that I rely on to better understand my world
Each time he brings Peter Singer everything makes much more sense! I really like the way he argues and his philosophy. Pretty interesting: it makes you think!!!
Crash course has inspired me in so many ways. Every video I eagerly anticipated, it'll be a great sadness to have the series end. I feel I have grown so very much because of your video.
thanks for discussing this, it's been a while since this question has been stuck on my mind and thanks to that I have a distrust in humanity as a whole, myself included
I feel like this ignores the fact that a lot of donated money (not all, obviously) just goes to propping up corrupt governments. That doesn't negate the concepts in this video, but it's an important point that we don't always have control over the way our aid is used.
I would make the argument that giving physical aid to poor places may actually make conditions there worse. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. And procreates, and so on. Demonstrably, aid organizations that give shoes destabilize emerging shoe industries in those countries, making them dependent on aid. The real thing that needs to be done is providing education and tools to the people in poor nations. Giving them the tools they need to build their own economy and help themselves. Teach a man to fish. This is arguably harder and more costly initially, but in the long run saves more time, effort, and money.
@_sid Correct, but they had systems in place before we started giving them money. Their society was only damaged briefly by war, and it wasn't civil war. @sia y It is good to give the absolute necessities to keep people alive, if, and only if, they do not become dependent on them. As one of the philosophers in the video said, sometimes there is overpopulation. Feeding the excess population without the necessary farms and farmers to support that population creates dependency and allows for even worse overpopulation.
@Cycling in Edmonton -- Basic necessities (food, water, shelter) should be provided, obviously, otherwise education, training, and tools aren't useful. That should be a given. @Hotel July Did you even read into what I said or did you just rely on gut reaction? Education and training are pointless if the basic necessities aren't met, but otherwise we shouldn't interfere in their economies. Doing so will hurt them in the long run. It's about doing what you can now, but setting up systems for them to take care of themselves later. My point was that aid alone may not actually be a good thing, and can cause harm if done improperly. @sia y Carrying capacity and overpopulation are relative, as you pointed out. The carrying capacity of humans in the past was much lower because of lack of agricultural technologies. Similarly, if a wealthy country suddenly lost their means to produce food, they would become overpopulated overnight. The thing is, though, these wealthy nations would quickly recreate the means of production (if they could), because a population is 3 square meals away from a revolution.
It's like when you see someone hurt in a large city, you think "there are so many people around, they will help them; besides, what's in it for me?" But the problem is that everyone else is thinking the same thing and that is why no one helps.
After watching this video I start a monthly donation of $10 to unicef. I am a student living on government allowance, so it's not very much right now, but I hope this can help. Thank you Hank, I have learnt a lot from you. (21 yrs, Australia)
the refugee crisis is just like that lifeboat analogy 65m refugees floating in the water and we are debating pulling out a fraction of a percent of them. the amount of money the world spends on refugees could help exponentially more people if it was spent helping people where they live. for every refugee they bring there are literally thousands left behind. the wealthy and educated end up being the lucky ones to get refugee status, when theyre the ones who could help the most
Hank, you guys are normally pretty impressive and overall very helpful. Every now and then you reveal incredible biases and a reluctance to challenge those biases. This piece was a good example. You have reduced the very complex problem of world poverty to the uneven distribution of wealth and the problem's solution to folks being less greedy with their wallets. It is obviously not that simple.I am one of those people who believe it is a moral obligation of affluent people to help those in abject poverty, but being more charitable with our stuff doesn't change anything. The life boat analogy is actually a pretty good one, but it wasn't explained very well. We cannot fit them all in our boat or help by tossing food/money/etc. overboard to them. Neither is the problem addressed by reducing the populations in need of care (ahem, genocide).They need a life boat of their own, that means a functioning government, democracy, property rights, and economic stability. We would love to send these things over in a care package if that was possible, but it isn't. It is really not helpful to trivialize problems like these in order to make people feel guilty for having wealth. What helps are honest and fair discussions that don't retreat from the complexity of the situation, like those you usually deliver. Thanks.
Who threw them in the water? It is the great colonial empires who have feasted on their blood and sweat and have become rich. Our shoes has the labour of an african slave embodied in it and that is why we should help.
charity doesn't work because you'd have to pay for the people's living expenses for the rest of your life in order to get them permanently out of poverty. For example, on my way to class there's a guy that stands in front of the 7/11 everyday for 2 years. I've seen people give him money and change but he's still there every day. Charity is a band aid that's made to make you feel better about yourself. It's better to find the cause of poverty and eliminate it.
crash course - thank you for steering your dialogue towards sociological current dilemmas. we've got to correct our ways. life can still be enjoyable, but should only be for those that can agree w not misusing our existence on this precious planet.
ThomasKasper there are an infinite of ways to live in harmony w nature and still embrace technology, the arts and have fun. I'm not saying follow me in particular- just, protect this planet by being conscientious of our daily and collective practices. our imprint of killing everything off will be our legacy if we don't halt our destruction. we're suppose to be self aware! we're suppose to be smart and want to better ourselves with values and character. augh i wish I knew how to not sound like ranting cause this message needs to proliferate ~
Nooo, you have to keep making more psych videos!! I can't understand the electrical engineering ones, so you're all I have left on Crash Course!! I'm sure you can find more philosophy to talk about
The problem with this is that it removes uncertainty. Uncertainty means my "help" might be doing more harm than good, by putting local craftsmen out of business or putting money into the hands of warlords. It doesn't make sense to donate any substantial amount of money unless we can prove efficacy and that it's one of the best alternatives available. This is a major problem with donation: people don't generally donate in order to fix the problem, they do it to alleviate guilt. It's why the forces of capitalism consistently fail us when it comes to nonprofits. Imagine that you're trying to help feed the people of North Korea. If you airdropped food, it could be intercepted by the government and fed to their soldiers to further oppress the people. Even if it got to the people, that could contribute to the further stability of the regime and thus the peoples' own destruction. These things can have a real butterfly effect and dumping money into something you don't understand won't necessarily accomplish the goals you seek to accomplish.
I think this is an argument for researching the effectiveness of charity before donating, rather than an argument against donation. Surely all donations are not like this? How could distributing (e.g.) anti-malarial bednets be harmful?
Overpopulation is only a problem during the development of countries. Before countries develop, people just die a lot, children often don't make it to adulthood. That's reality. It was the same in Europe and the USA. During that period, people have a lot of kids. Otherwise, the population wouldn't have sustained itself. But now, suddenly, the country starts to develop, food isn't so rare anymore and medicine improves. As a result, people die less and less. But that doesn't stop them from having the same amount of children. Children that suddenly survive and become adults, and thus more and more people are alive at the same time. What we now have to do is help and wait. People will stop having so many childred and fall back to an amount that again makes the population self-sustaining. It's been this way for every region on earth: Europe, USA(-region), more recently China and currently India and Africa.
I know this is two years too late, but you are spreading misinformation. Truth be told, as a country becomes more developed the birth rate decreases. In America, at least it was last time a checked, the birth rate is 1.9 children per mother. That means, while slowly, the population will start to decrease over time. No society ending plague needed, because as the standard of living goes up so does the cost of raising a child. The cost is enough to deter most people to have to many children.
@@phelanglick794 He exactly described that in his post: "People will stop having so many childred and fall back to an amount that again makes the population self-sustaining."
I'm with Singer on this. If helping others would risk ourselves, then yeah, there's no benefit to helping others; but we can help others and still be just fine, which gives us the moral obligation to do so. And the idea that one person's life is more valuable than another's just because you are related to them, know them personally, or can see them, is just ridiculous. So if you met them the day before, suddenly they are worth saving, but because you personally didn't know them yet, they may as well die? That's highly selfish, as if the world's value revolves around your own personal experience. And don't even get me started on the whole "if we don't help them, their population will decrease and they'll be better off" concept--that's eugenics, and it's wrong because the "decrease in population" is *preventable death of human beings*. The way people so often restrict their own empathy scares me sometimes...
IceMetalPunk i am morally obligated to help no one. There are people in their government who get paid to to that. I'm not obligated to do what their government fails to do
+Jordan Javier-Burns And why, perchance, does getting paid to do something have anything to do with the morality of the thing? If I pay you to kill someone, it doesn't mean you're morally obligated to murder. And if I don't pay you to pull the drowning child out of the lake, it doesn't mean you're not morally obligated to do so. Thinking that you shouldn't do something because someone else should is known in psychology as the Bystander Effect, and it's dangerous because it leads to inaction where help could be provided.
If I have to choose between saving my brother or stranger from danger (and there is no plot twist I can save them both), I will choose to save my brother. The reason is pretty obvious I think.
There is a danger to it on a large nation to nation scale. Overpopulation. The world is going to be massively overpopulated soon, and the planet cannot sustain that many people. If by help, you mean help with pregnancy planning, birth control, and sex education, then we should help. That would have a benefit greater than the cost. Those children would not be dying because they would not be born, and the planet could sustain itself.
We are all tribal by nature q: Of course someone with enough empathy will save the drawing girl but would still save their sister over a stranger. Just as they would worry about the safety of their own state or country when an exterior threat arises because it's where they themselves live. It's near instinct. Over compassion can get you killed.. just as much, being over tribal will cause war. blah blah balance, as with everything else in life blah blah lol
Yeah... except that states and countries are made up things. We already have governments for this exact reason, because every family for themselves gets really stabby really fast... So I'm still not sure why it makes any logical sense for a government to use my tax money to feed a needy dude i will never meet 500 miles away (No, I'm not complaining about that at all), but to NOT feed a starving dude I will never meed 2500 miles away. Other than the fact that like, a lot of selfish people would whine if they did?
@@reidwallace4258 Because you need to understand it in a way of how the government's work. A government has a responsibility to it's own people first, sort of like a a family where you would save your family over a stranger. A government needs to save it's own people first before it saves some random person. Think of it this way: two natural disasters have happened at the same time, one in your country and one in some far off place. What makes sense for your country to do; a) help out the people in your country the best they can or, b) send all their resources to help the people in another country and leave your own people to fend for themselves?
Yeah sure, you don't even have 50cents to spend to save someones life...stop lying to yourself. If you're honest and say that you simply do not care about these children, fine, but stop searching for cheap excuses.
A short time ago I thought I was starting to study Philosophy. I was wrong. I have spent a life time of study,watching people and events,forming my own unwritten Philosophy. Do I have THE answer? NO. I do see in Philosophy the truth is spoken of often. Truth is not the same as Fact. Has my Philosophy changed no. Deeper thoughts now go through my mind. I do still see today's problems as the same as all of the past. Life was not,is not and was never meant to be fair. The work you are doing is insightful.
Flint, MI hasn't had clean water in almost three years. Every major city has a sizeable homeless population. *_Why can't we clean up our own yard, if we are so great?_* If I find a job, then I'll donate. That, or I will join them.
The homeless population is a lot harder to help than the african population. Many of them have mental health problems and interectly chose that life. It's not like you can snap you fingers and they get a job and an appartement. That being said, we _can_ and _should_ help both. Starting with the less expensive ones.
This is a really interesting topic that I've thought intensely about since I was a small kid. I can choose to donate time and money, and I do--I have volunteered over 100 hours in my 21 years, started charity events, and given my own money ever since I started a local business at 12 years old. However, this is WAY less than required to ensure a happy and healthy life for every child and family in poverty. It weighed on my conscience once I earned $1,000 and knew I needed to save it if I wanted to go to college to become a genetics counselor. This video helped me flesh out some rationale so I won't lose my mind about not giving away every cent I own: 1) Saving the money for college allows me to pursue a career that would help more families and possibly prevent children's suffering in the long run. 2) After experiencing life-altering health issues that cause my suffering, I need to save everything I have to help prevent my own agony while I convalesce. 3) Giving more than I already have would leave me in poverty, too, as I have very little to donate now. Additionally, I could not ensure the person I donated to would have a good quality of life while sacrificing my own. 4) If I eventually had enough to live comfortably, I could seek to accumulate enough wealth so one or a few more lives could also be comfortable. However, I would not be able to help an entire population, and must live with the fact that I could only help a few. I'm not sure if these are all solid arguments, but at the very least it can help me stop obsessing over the thought that I haven't done enough.
The true difference between helping someone I can see and someone half world away is the question: "What grantee do I have that the problem will be solved". When I hep someone near me I can personally assess situation and take moral risk of trusting the action I took. Giving this choice to third party (especially in the complex world where each individual is trying to get better off) doesn't give me any certainty that my resources are not about to be miss-used. I also don't know if I'm giving a "fish" or a "fishing rod".
ok let's go with the boat analogy: water is life threatening poverty, boats are nations, captains are the government a lot of boats have resources and could help the people in the water to get on their original boat, eg France boat helps a Somali citizen on its boat, yet on the Somali boat they can not get all the resources because the Somali captain is sharing them unevenly. So the Somali citizen has enough resources out of the France boat to maybe live out his live in peace or he get's thrown back in the water. Nothing really changes. You are fighting the symptoms but not the disease. So why not help overpower the Somali captain? No one wants to start a war on another government "just" because they don't fight their countries poverty. Maybe support a civil war then? Help the people help themselves? But that doesn't work either (cough Syria cough), because there are to many groups in a nation to pick the §right" group and who should be the next captain? In a corrupt system there will most likely not be a free vote. So then occupy the country until there is peace and a democratic leadership (Afghanistan?) ? That doesn't work either because through the occupation from another country many will see the new government as a corrupt foreign power and not accept it. In conclusion: For me the best solution would be to fight the symptoms through charity (money and resources directly to the population) and fight the governments who commit human rights violations with embargoes: A less aggressive form of foreign intervention which weakens the powerful and rich people in the country so the majority of poor people might have a chance to overpower them.
tina at least someone who is right. I think they should be let alone. Is up to them to implement democracy, stop fighthing each other amd make new borders wich suit their ethnic populations.
But would embargoes really help any1? The rich, corrupt captains won't really be hit THAT hard by the action; it seems like the poor people (or at least small businesses) would be hit hardest from the lack of ability to do business (Crash Course Economics explained how free trade is the single most influential factor in reducing poverty). Thus, embargoes would be counter-productive.
If you haven't already, check out CGP Grey's video "Rules for Rulers" and then read the book that inspired it "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Good Politics". It is mind-numbingly difficult to make a liberal democracy from nothing. No matter how widespread the support for the coup, in almost every case, the result is another dictatorship. See: The English Revolution 1642, the French Revolution 1789, the Haitian Revolution 1791, the Columbian Revolution 1808, the Mexican Revolution 1810, the Russian Revolution 1917, the German Revolution 1918, the Syrian Revolution 1926, the Chinese Civil War 1927, The Iraqi Revolution 1958, the October Revolution of Sudan 1964, the Congolese Revolution 1968, the Cambodian Revolution 1975, the Iranian Revolution 1979, the Somali Rebellion 1989, the Anti-Soviet Russian Revolution of 1991, and the Arab Spring of 2010-2012, to name the notable ones. All these were liberal revolutions against a tyrannical government that, once the dust settled, established a different tyrannical government. Hell, the French had 5 revolutions between 1989 and 1813, and each of them just wound up subjecting the country to a different tyrant. This is not to say that it's not possible, the French got it right in 1848, the Americans did in 1776, the Germans did in 1949, Iran did it in 1905, etc. But there's more to a successful democratic revolution than angry people and a good idea.
wojtekimbier Sometimes the aid was not to take advantage of them. For example banana republics to mention just one. Now is too late, now people could help by not being fat greedy consumers and let those nations fix themselves, no more intervention. The damage is done.
wojtekimbier This argument is known as the Malthusian fallacy, after Malthus. Because as societies develop, the birth rate eventually falls below the replacement rate.
Ah but giving food and money for nothing to bring about prosperity but more dependence and continued poverty. Education and free markets is what drives prosperity.
I wonder if it would at all be possible to have the United States Government to collect literally an extra 5 dollars in income tax from every tax paying worker in the country, and used that money to invest in a country that had a lot f abject poverty. Either that or it could fund the production and shipment of resources to those who need it. Everyone is different, but I would argue that this is quite plausible, especially if the almost negligible amount of extra taxes to help better the world was based off of our current tax gradient. I think that this would not harm America but help the entire world. Imagine what would happen if every wealthy nation in the world did this. In a single life time, many of the ailments plaguing the developing world, will be nothing but a hellish memory from a distant past. I sincerely believe we can all do this.
Like when we make shipments of our overstock corn to South America, which drops the price of corn down so low that South American farmers end up losing everything and ending up in abject poverty? It's a big part of the problem, is our charity helping or making things worse? Besides, there is absolutely nothing that the U.S. government does better than the private sector, especially charity and is it ethical to force others to do something simply because you feel it should be?
I just want to take this oppertunity to say a huge THANK YOU ! Hank and John for making these insights and resources universally accessible. You are doing such a great thing and I have used your videos both on vlogbrothers and crashcourse sooo many times. You guys are awesome !!!! Sincerly Hannah ( 16yrs, Devon, UK) Thank You !!!
+inquiett And the illuminati and lizard people are behind the New World Order movement.
Isn't that what every one does?
+
+inquiett explain how there being brainwashed
I'll happily be brainwashed against the Social Darwinism that's all too common in America.
Another flaw with the lifeboat analogy is that in practice, better living conditions lead to less children, not more.
(+NotaWalrus) Yep. Less birth rates, and less death rates, with a lower net lives. We learned about that in SP HuG this unit (Unit II). 😃
Birth rates fall in developed countries, Japan being the epitome of this. Births are so high in sub Saharan Africa because the parents KNOW they're going to lose some children to malaria.
This is seen frequently in nature where species that are vulnerable to predation, such as rabbits, produce more offspring to compensate. Read about r and K selection.
Also it ignores the fact that 10 additional bodies and minds are a more valuable resource then the space they would occupy. In this way the lifeboat analogy is debunked by the pond analogy, since both moral decisions hinge on how much you value life over non-life.
Whats SP HuG
Not necessarily. U want lower birth rate: educate women and give them more power.
In my opinion a major problem is that people don't feel responsible to donate money because there are many people who are much richer than them, so they expect those people to donate. In the example with the pond that would mean that if someone in a bathing suit was standing next to you, you'd expect him to save the girl.
This is such an important video. i just spent six months living and teaching in Zambia, Africa, and i saw extreme extreme poverty. I dont understand how when we have all the resources to end extreme poverty globally we just dont. My lifeboat answer is, have everyone who is able to take shifts treading water while others stay in the boat, because you cant tell the future and what if another boat is coming? what if somebody is sailing around the corner.? I bought food for kids in africa knowing it would fill their bellies once but in the grand scheme of things be pointless, yet i still did it, because maybe tommorow someone else will buy them food, or their father will find a job, or they will be sponsored, but that cant happen if they die today because we refused to help them the first time. I enrolled kid in school and paid their fees knowing they wouldnt have enough money to buy uniforms when they grew out of them or books when they ran out, but isnt beggining beter than giving up. The people living in poverty, i found, never think of it as "prolonged agony" they think of every blessing God has given them, they have joy and fulfillment, and yes they have times of despair just like us, but our help is so so so so so important. every life matters.
Right now I'm a poor college student surviving on ramen noodles and oatmeal. But I plan to use my wealth in the future to help those in need
move along please
DCO 7 this comment made me laugh out loud
DCO 7 i like your attitude
As one who used to be a poor college student and eventually (over a decade later) got a very well-paying job, I can attest that it's much easier to donate to charities once you're making more than enough to meet your basic needs. Also it feels good when you can add that to your itemized deductions at tax time. ;)
Me too!
The problem of poverty, as Hank pointed out, is not a problem of resources but of governmental and economic systems. It is not the duty of individuals to help those in extreme poverty, but rather the duty of the collective to band together to create new systems where extreme poverty doesn't exist. So while yes I would save the child and forgo my shoes, after that myself and others also have the duty to prevent future children from falling in the lake and drowning. Collective preventative action leads to less suffering overall.
Shadow Disorder i agree but until we have a society like that it is the responsibilty of everyone to do what we can to help.
“The central normative implication of conceiving the duties as duties of justice, rather than as duties of beneficence, is that it is not appropriate to frame the duties in terms of how much of our resources we should give. Rather, insofar as we are under duties of justice towards those suffering severe poverty, those resources are not rightfully ours in the first place.” - Elizabeth Ashford
i consider myself a philanthropist, and i truly identify with Singer's reasoning of saving a child even if you cant see them.
due to the spread of information over the internet know a days, it is impossible to not see the suffering others go through. i believe we have a moral obligation to help others even if its difficult
Thank you for providing links for donating to trustworthy groups aiding those in poverty.
Are bananas still chom-choms?
Tyrannosaurus Wrexx what are these ba-na-nas you speak of?
"ba-na-na" is a proto-indo-european word for Chom-Choms.
Still and always.
It's an ancient word for chom choms.
All day, every day.
The other issue with Garrett Hardin's analogy vis-a-vis overpopulation and thinking about one's own citizens/resources first is that:
A) Overpopulation generally occurs in poorer nations and tends to go away once wealth gaps close and education - especially sex ed - comes about, so you can easily help avoid overpopulation without allowing a bunch of people to die (not to mention population issues nowadays has more to do with people living longer than too many people being born).
B) Investing in aid and development of another country help's one's own country too. There is less likely to be immigration or refugee-ism from developed countries which solves the issue of refugee crises occurring, and it helps foster good diplomatic, social and trade relations between nations. Good will goes a long way.
After having seen CPG Grey's Keys to Power video and Crash Course Ecenomics' Tragedy of the Commons video I always find it a bit silly when I hear that we could "easily" end world poverty.
well the UN estimates it would take $30 billion annually to end world hunger, we could easily do that.
Thats pretty close to the cost of the wall the U.S wants to build
*Half the US and one cheeto wants to build. I don't want to be lumped with those morons.
Neo-Mad Dog I think some more fencing and a bit of tech like motion sensors and ground penetrating radar trucks would go much further towards protecting our southern border than just building a great wall of Mexico. It's expensive and will only be marginally effective. Plus the environmental impacts of animals not being able to migrate and roam or rain waters being blocked up and flooding.
CGP Grey's Rules for Rulers is one of the most insightful and depressing videos I have seen. This is the way the world truly works and why fixing things is so damn hard. We can talk about the moral case for doing right but what do we do if it is in practice (due to the keys) an impossible task?
When CC: Philsophy only has two episodes left and you're wondering what to do with your life when it's over.
*"I'm on a boat"*
- T. Pain, 2009
3:05 The difference is that although my cents could change a life, these unjustices are systematic and we need a systematic solution. The problem isnt that westerners arent philanthropic enough, the problem is that we are not investing enough in these underdeveloped regions. We are not solving inequality by saving childrens lives, rather we are keeping our conciens clean while ignoring the underlying problems.
This is like how we handle global warming. Should the individuals make choices that reduces emission? Or is it the responsibility of the society? Should I be held accountable for all the emission I do, or is society responsible? The individual may or may not judge global warming as a serious threat, but if we are not all in this together, the problem simply wont get solved. So relying on the individual entirely is a non solution. We need society to set the rules.
This is a beautiful but horrifying at the same time. Altruism and self interest have always been in a great dance. As with everything else, it is a personal struggle that almost always results in the conclusion that a nuanced balance is required.
that doesnt mean self-intrest is a virtue to hold on to
Must be one of those religious nuts.
Well nothing is worth holding on to if giving it up would lead to something better, so it being our "nature" is no argument. In addition, i think you cant simply just loose your self-intrest, but you can be totally aware of it and act against it.
I see your point there. But based on the assumption that i think utilitarianism is the best way of approaching things, every action i do with that philosophy is whitout self-intrest. In addition, it wouldnt be altruism, because i wouldnt sacrifice myself for just one other human beeing, because that wouldnt be utilitarian
Caleb Fletcher Why should we hold up self-interest as a virtue if it's something that happens regardless of anything else we may think. It's like praising our hearts for pumping blood and our lungs for breathing, yes they do that but they do that regardless of what we think of them. It may be good to look after your own self interest but it's better to help others while your doing so.
Which brings up the question of whether virtue is defined as something you "should" do or something you "need" to do.
wish this series could go on forever. its actually the highlight of my week. every week
although, this entire episode completely ignores the reality that the extremely uneven distribution of resources wasn't the result of randomness. it is the result of abuses and exploitations by powerful groups who stole from others. and the fact is, that while we are not the same people who did the taking, the people of today are the people who are still directly benefitting from that theft or the people being kept away from having the opportunity to benefit from the resources stolen from their ancestors. the wealthy and powerful have an obligation to share resources and end poverty because the money and resources they have were given to them by people who stole it from the ancestors of the poor and impoverished.
nobody should be responsible for the actions of their ancestors. If we were then everyone would have unpayable debts to everyone else
that's not what I am saying at all.
You really dont know why poverty exists do you? Places like Africa aren't still poor because of colonialism in fact when my parents were growing up in Nigeria right after decolonizations there were opportunities to get an education and get an honest career to support yourself and your family. Now many of those systems have been pilfered by corrupt politicians within thier own country and social progress has slowed to basically a standstill. The reason Africa is poor is because of corruption at all levels of government prevents the money that people pay in taxes from going into good use in building infrastructure that will allow them to succeed like in developed countries.
you are the one mistaken about why african countries are still poor. I'm saying that corrupt government officials aren't hogging all the resources that are left. of course they are! but let's take a closer look at the situation.
the resources in Africa are much scarcer than they would have been without European invasion. I'm talking ENORMOUS amounts of stolen resources. there's still enough there to maybe keep everyone in Africa out of poverty. but the problem that remains is that African countries are headed by dictators and by presidents who refuse to relinquish power when they lose or complete their final term of office. why is that? it's ALSO because of the impact of colonialism.
we live in a post-colonial world. EVERYTHING that is currently, is that way because European empires held colonies around the globe. you can't just pretend that everything was restarted when colonialism ended. you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Im guessing that you have never been or have not talked to anyone who actually lives in Africa. The resources are still there in abundance but there is no infrastructure to harness and mine them because of piss-poor governance. Africa is still the most resource rich place on earth but it is extremely difficult to make a profit off those resources if there are few well paved roads and the policemen take a cut of your cargo as a bribe for you to use said roads. Thinking that the colonizers just came in and made off with ALL THE RESOURCES in the relatively short time that they had to do so is ludicrous and overly simplistic.
I'm a philosophy PhD student and instructor and I approve of this video. It's really quite great, and I strive to provide my students with lectures with this level of clarity, not to mention that it was very engaging. Sadly, I found this video because one of my students plagiarized this video.
It is heartbreaking that the series are going to end soon. I love CrashCourse Philosophy so much.
This one fills me with cognitive dissonance that I can't resolve, and an unshakable sense of anxiety. That makes it one of the best so far, in my opinion. And it's truly unbiased; a great improvement over some of the recent episodes.
The natural reluctance to helping starving and dying people across the globe, and the difficulty of rallying everyone to help these people, I think boils down to the fact that inside most people think that they're already trying their best. They have their own worries. Everyone is trying to be the best person that they think they can be. So when you come up to that person and say "how dare you not help these dying people?" most people reactions is going to be, subconsciously or not, "Excuse me?!/how dare you?!". People don't like to be told what to do.
Same problem applies to global warming. Rallying people to change their ways and save the planet cannot be done by arguing and debating. It's going to be very hard to convince people to change their ways for a situation that they can't even observe. The only effective way of doing so that I can see is to inspire and educate people on the matter, and allow them to come to the conclusion of what they can do about it by themselves.
Please do not stop this wonderful philosophy course. Please, please,
please!
The problem is a logistical one. I may be morally obligated to help, and I may even want to, but I don't know how. As far as I can tell, there is no structure in place to guarentee that my money will actually help those in need, and not just pay some administrator in DC's salary. I don't want to help administrators, I want to help the impoverished. I feel like the failing is in developing a trustworthy framework to help that functions without friction.
A lot of the organisms that give money to populations are a heck of a lot less effective than the organisms with a good structure of organisation.
Organization's
I just wanted to say thank you. For me, crash course has gone from a helpful study review to one of the tools that I rely on to better understand my world
This series has been fantastic! Philosophy should be taught to every child in schools. Your previous video on animals actually made me quit dairy.
NEXT TO LAST?!? This has been my favourite series on UA-cam for a while now. I'm just not ready for it to end.
Good video! I really like Peter Singer; he's my favorite modern philosopher.
Noooo you can't really be ending this amazing series.
Next to last?? No!! I've grown so accustomed to this series! Aw I'll miss it when it's gone :(
Each time he brings Peter Singer everything makes much more sense! I really like the way he argues and his philosophy. Pretty interesting: it makes you think!!!
Next to last lesson?! How can this series stop? It's so awesome, the best of Crash Courses (and I like many of the others, of course)
Crash course has inspired me in so many ways. Every video I eagerly anticipated, it'll be a great sadness to have the series end. I feel I have grown so very much because of your video.
There's only two more episodes?! I don't want this series to be over!
this just gave new meaning to the whole " we are in the same boat" saying
thanks for discussing this, it's been a while since this question has been stuck on my mind and thanks to that I have a distrust in humanity as a whole, myself included
I am going to be so sad when CC Philosophy is over. Thank you Hank and everyone else working on this awesome channel!
I feel like this ignores the fact that a lot of donated money (not all, obviously) just goes to propping up corrupt governments.
That doesn't negate the concepts in this video, but it's an important point that we don't always have control over the way our aid is used.
I think I'm going to keep re watching this course for years
I would make the argument that giving physical aid to poor places may actually make conditions there worse. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. And procreates, and so on. Demonstrably, aid organizations that give shoes destabilize emerging shoe industries in those countries, making them dependent on aid.
The real thing that needs to be done is providing education and tools to the people in poor nations. Giving them the tools they need to build their own economy and help themselves. Teach a man to fish. This is arguably harder and more costly initially, but in the long run saves more time, effort, and money.
Vagrant123 Japan did perfectly fine with all the money given to them, actions seem to yield more results than a philosophical overhaul
@_sid Correct, but they had systems in place before we started giving them money. Their society was only damaged briefly by war, and it wasn't civil war.
@sia y It is good to give the absolute necessities to keep people alive, if, and only if, they do not become dependent on them. As one of the philosophers in the video said, sometimes there is overpopulation. Feeding the excess population without the necessary farms and farmers to support that population creates dependency and allows for even worse overpopulation.
We're talking about eradicating worms and malaria. Not f.ing shoes.
Vagrant123 tractors not grain
@Cycling in Edmonton -- Basic necessities (food, water, shelter) should be provided, obviously, otherwise education, training, and tools aren't useful. That should be a given.
@Hotel July Did you even read into what I said or did you just rely on gut reaction? Education and training are pointless if the basic necessities aren't met, but otherwise we shouldn't interfere in their economies. Doing so will hurt them in the long run. It's about doing what you can now, but setting up systems for them to take care of themselves later. My point was that aid alone may not actually be a good thing, and can cause harm if done improperly.
@sia y Carrying capacity and overpopulation are relative, as you pointed out. The carrying capacity of humans in the past was much lower because of lack of agricultural technologies. Similarly, if a wealthy country suddenly lost their means to produce food, they would become overpopulated overnight. The thing is, though, these wealthy nations would quickly recreate the means of production (if they could), because a population is 3 square meals away from a revolution.
Thank you so much Hank! This has been my favourite show on UA-cam. I'm really sad it's coming to an end
It's like when you see someone hurt in a large city, you think "there are so many people around, they will help them; besides, what's in it for me?" But the problem is that everyone else is thinking the same thing and that is why no one helps.
Its nice to be able to make either decision (to help or not help) from the comfort of the boat (knowing either way you don't lose/die).
“If you don’t, you have no reason to feel bad about it”
My childhood begs to differ.
please make more of these, they're great
After watching this video I start a monthly donation of $10 to unicef. I am a student living on government allowance, so it's not very much right now, but I hope this can help. Thank you Hank, I have learnt a lot from you. (21 yrs, Australia)
Only 46 videos????? I think this series deserves at least 50. (This is my favorite crash course series yet.)
I see you comment in every video of this series
Please make another season of CC Philosophy, I'll miss it so much T_T
I love this show. Because i never have to comment because you cover both positions so well. I subscribe to Hardins life boat analogy.
the refugee crisis is just like that lifeboat analogy
65m refugees floating in the water and we are debating pulling out a fraction of a percent of them. the amount of money the world spends on refugees could help exponentially more people if it was spent helping people where they live.
for every refugee they bring there are literally thousands left behind. the wealthy and educated end up being the lucky ones to get refugee status, when theyre the ones who could help the most
Thank you for the links. I think 'any little bit helps' & when genuinely done....we can spread hope in showing our love & care for all.
Hank, you guys are normally pretty impressive and overall very helpful. Every now and then you reveal incredible biases and a reluctance to challenge those biases. This piece was a good example. You have reduced the very complex problem of world poverty to the uneven distribution of wealth and the problem's solution to folks being less greedy with their wallets. It is obviously not that simple.I am one of those people who believe it is a moral obligation of affluent people to help those in abject poverty, but being more charitable with our stuff doesn't change anything. The life boat analogy is actually a pretty good one, but it wasn't explained very well. We cannot fit them all in our boat or help by tossing food/money/etc. overboard to them. Neither is the problem addressed by reducing the populations in need of care (ahem, genocide).They need a life boat of their own, that means a functioning government, democracy, property rights, and economic stability. We would love to send these things over in a care package if that was possible, but it isn't. It is really not helpful to trivialize problems like these in order to make people feel guilty for having wealth. What helps are honest and fair discussions that don't retreat from the complexity of the situation, like those you usually deliver. Thanks.
I dont want CC Philosophy to end, it's been a great way to learn about a lot of things!
Thank you so much for what you do. You are one of the reasons that the internet is still great!
I'm so sad this series is going to end. It is so good!
I love Crash Course Philosophy. I just wanted to throw that out there.
Thanks for these videos. Really gets the mental gears turning!
Who threw them in the water? It is the great colonial empires who have feasted on their blood and sweat and have become rich. Our shoes has the labour of an african slave embodied in it and that is why we should help.
@@lumen8341 This is just basic history about colonialism and hegemonies. Nothing 'conspiracy' about, you sound like one of those fake news morons.
@@TheDya99 I think she was referring to the above reply blaming "the Jews", or at least I hope so!
cringe
Africa was already extremely underdeveloped before european colonialism, you moron.
Never before in human history has there been complete economic equality around the world. Why would today be any different?
This video restored my faith in humanity.
"We're all in this (life) together."
This will be the first series i complete watch, from beginning to end. It has begin such a ride and i have learn so much. chom-choms
charity doesn't work because you'd have to pay for the people's living expenses for the rest of your life in order to get them permanently out of poverty. For example, on my way to class there's a guy that stands in front of the 7/11 everyday for 2 years. I've seen people give him money and change but he's still there every day. Charity is a band aid that's made to make you feel better about yourself. It's better to find the cause of poverty and eliminate it.
crash course - thank you for steering your dialogue towards sociological current dilemmas.
we've got to correct our ways.
life can still be enjoyable, but should only be for those that can agree w not misusing our existence on this precious planet.
"People who doesn't agree with me, should not be able to enjoy life."
ThomasKasper
there are an infinite of ways to live in harmony w nature and still embrace technology, the arts and have fun.
I'm not saying follow me in particular- just, protect this planet by being conscientious of our daily and collective practices. our imprint of killing everything off will be our legacy if we don't halt our destruction. we're suppose to be self aware! we're suppose to be smart and want to better ourselves with values and character.
augh i wish I knew how to not sound like ranting cause this message needs to proliferate ~
NEXT TO LAST!? Q_Q B-but... but what will I do?
The psychology series can probably help.
NOOOOO THIS CAN’T BE ENDING!!!!
I know you can only put so much into a course, but this is my favorite one. You do this /so/ well!!
Oh no!! Is it really almost over?! Say it ain't so!
Thank you crash course. Thank you for lots of things you've tought me so far.
Didn't cover the traceability of money when giving money to those in need abroad. Corruption is a concern for alot of people
Many difficult questions, without simple answers
Nooo, you have to keep making more psych videos!! I can't understand the electrical engineering ones, so you're all I have left on Crash Course!! I'm sure you can find more philosophy to talk about
I agree with Singer more, we all have a natrual duty to help others in need, no matter the circumstances. It is a fundemental of the Life.
The problem with this is that it removes uncertainty. Uncertainty means my "help" might be doing more harm than good, by putting local craftsmen out of business or putting money into the hands of warlords. It doesn't make sense to donate any substantial amount of money unless we can prove efficacy and that it's one of the best alternatives available. This is a major problem with donation: people don't generally donate in order to fix the problem, they do it to alleviate guilt. It's why the forces of capitalism consistently fail us when it comes to nonprofits.
Imagine that you're trying to help feed the people of North Korea. If you airdropped food, it could be intercepted by the government and fed to their soldiers to further oppress the people. Even if it got to the people, that could contribute to the further stability of the regime and thus the peoples' own destruction. These things can have a real butterfly effect and dumping money into something you don't understand won't necessarily accomplish the goals you seek to accomplish.
I think this is an argument for researching the effectiveness of charity before donating, rather than an argument against donation. Surely all donations are not like this? How could distributing (e.g.) anti-malarial bednets be harmful?
NOOOOO THIS CAN’T BE ENDING!!!!
I know you can only put so much into a crash course episode, but this is my favorite one 3: you do this /so/ well!!
PLEASE DON'T END CRASH COURSE PHILOSOPHY!!!!!
This is one of the very few shows witch intro and outro I do not skip.
Overpopulation is only a problem during the development of countries. Before countries develop, people just die a lot, children often don't make it to adulthood. That's reality. It was the same in Europe and the USA. During that period, people have a lot of kids. Otherwise, the population wouldn't have sustained itself. But now, suddenly, the country starts to develop, food isn't so rare anymore and medicine improves. As a result, people die less and less. But that doesn't stop them from having the same amount of children. Children that suddenly survive and become adults, and thus more and more people are alive at the same time. What we now have to do is help and wait. People will stop having so many childred and fall back to an amount that again makes the population self-sustaining. It's been this way for every region on earth: Europe, USA(-region), more recently China and currently India and Africa.
I know this is two years too late, but you are spreading misinformation. Truth be told, as a country becomes more developed the birth rate decreases. In America, at least it was last time a checked, the birth rate is 1.9 children per mother. That means, while slowly, the population will start to decrease over time. No society ending plague needed, because as the standard of living goes up so does the cost of raising a child. The cost is enough to deter most people to have to many children.
@@phelanglick794 He exactly described that in his post: "People will stop having so many childred and fall back to an amount that again makes the population self-sustaining."
peter singer changed my life
Is this not all related to the bystander effect?
Peter singer is the man.
I'm with Singer on this. If helping others would risk ourselves, then yeah, there's no benefit to helping others; but we can help others and still be just fine, which gives us the moral obligation to do so. And the idea that one person's life is more valuable than another's just because you are related to them, know them personally, or can see them, is just ridiculous. So if you met them the day before, suddenly they are worth saving, but because you personally didn't know them yet, they may as well die? That's highly selfish, as if the world's value revolves around your own personal experience. And don't even get me started on the whole "if we don't help them, their population will decrease and they'll be better off" concept--that's eugenics, and it's wrong because the "decrease in population" is *preventable death of human beings*.
The way people so often restrict their own empathy scares me sometimes...
I Agree 99%
IceMetalPunk i am morally obligated to help no one. There are people in their government who get paid to to that. I'm not obligated to do what their government fails to do
+Jordan Javier-Burns And why, perchance, does getting paid to do something have anything to do with the morality of the thing? If I pay you to kill someone, it doesn't mean you're morally obligated to murder. And if I don't pay you to pull the drowning child out of the lake, it doesn't mean you're not morally obligated to do so. Thinking that you shouldn't do something because someone else should is known in psychology as the Bystander Effect, and it's dangerous because it leads to inaction where help could be provided.
If I have to choose between saving my brother or stranger from danger (and there is no plot twist I can save them both), I will choose to save my brother. The reason is pretty obvious I think.
There is a danger to it on a large nation to nation scale. Overpopulation. The world is going to be massively overpopulated soon, and the planet cannot sustain that many people. If by help, you mean help with pregnancy planning, birth control, and sex education, then we should help. That would have a benefit greater than the cost. Those children would not be dying because they would not be born, and the planet could sustain itself.
fantastic video, thank you
We are all tribal by nature q:
Of course someone with enough empathy will save the drawing girl but would still save their sister over a stranger. Just as they would worry about the safety of their own state or country when an exterior threat arises because it's where they themselves live. It's near instinct. Over compassion can get you killed.. just as much, being over tribal will cause war. blah blah balance, as with everything else in life blah blah lol
Yeah... except that states and countries are made up things. We already have governments for this exact reason, because every family for themselves gets really stabby really fast... So I'm still not sure why it makes any logical sense for a government to use my tax money to feed a needy dude i will never meet 500 miles away (No, I'm not complaining about that at all), but to NOT feed a starving dude I will never meed 2500 miles away. Other than the fact that like, a lot of selfish people would whine if they did?
@@reidwallace4258 Because you need to understand it in a way of how the government's work. A government has a responsibility to it's own people first, sort of like a a family where you would save your family over a stranger. A government needs to save it's own people first before it saves some random person. Think of it this way: two natural disasters have happened at the same time, one in your country and one in some far off place. What makes sense for your country to do; a) help out the people in your country the best they can or, b) send all their resources to help the people in another country and leave your own people to fend for themselves?
Love this. Thank you guys.
Always feel like helping everyone and then realize i am broke😅..
Yeah sure, you don't even have 50cents to spend to save someones life...stop lying to yourself.
If you're honest and say that you simply do not care about these children, fine, but stop searching for cheap excuses.
A short time ago I thought I was starting to study Philosophy. I was wrong. I have spent a life time of study,watching people and events,forming my own unwritten Philosophy. Do I have THE answer? NO. I do see in Philosophy the truth is spoken of often. Truth is not the same as Fact. Has my Philosophy changed no. Deeper thoughts now go through my mind. I do still see today's problems as the same as all of the past. Life was not,is not and was never meant to be fair. The work you are doing is insightful.
Flint, MI hasn't had clean water in almost three years. Every major city has a sizeable homeless population. *_Why can't we clean up our own yard, if we are so great?_* If I find a job, then I'll donate. That, or I will join them.
We could. We just don't.
The homeless population is a lot harder to help than the african population. Many of them have mental health problems and interectly chose that life.
It's not like you can snap you fingers and they get a job and an appartement.
That being said, we _can_ and _should_ help both. Starting with the less expensive ones.
please don't stop keep it going.
"Charity saves one's life"
-King Solomon
one of the most interesting in the series! Sad there's only two videos left
WHY IS THIS SHOW ENDING I JUST STARTED MY PHILOSOPHY COURSE
It's good to help others....when they help you back
This is a really interesting topic that I've thought intensely about since I was a small kid. I can choose to donate time and money, and I do--I have volunteered over 100 hours in my 21 years, started charity events, and given my own money ever since I started a local business at 12 years old. However, this is WAY less than required to ensure a happy and healthy life for every child and family in poverty. It weighed on my conscience once I earned $1,000 and knew I needed to save it if I wanted to go to college to become a genetics counselor. This video helped me flesh out some rationale so I won't lose my mind about not giving away every cent I own:
1) Saving the money for college allows me to pursue a career that would help more families and possibly prevent children's suffering in the long run.
2) After experiencing life-altering health issues that cause my suffering, I need to save everything I have to help prevent my own agony while I convalesce.
3) Giving more than I already have would leave me in poverty, too, as I have very little to donate now. Additionally, I could not ensure the person I donated to would have a good quality of life while sacrificing my own.
4) If I eventually had enough to live comfortably, I could seek to accumulate enough wealth so one or a few more lives could also be comfortable. However, I would not be able to help an entire population, and must live with the fact that I could only help a few.
I'm not sure if these are all solid arguments, but at the very least it can help me stop obsessing over the thought that I haven't done enough.
The true difference between helping someone I can see and someone half world away is the question: "What grantee do I have that the problem will be solved".
When I hep someone near me I can personally assess situation and take moral risk of trusting the action I took. Giving this choice to third party (especially in the complex world where each individual is trying to get better off) doesn't give me any certainty that my resources are not about to be miss-used. I also don't know if I'm giving a "fish" or a "fishing rod".
ok let's go with the boat analogy:
water is life threatening poverty, boats are nations, captains are the government
a lot of boats have resources and could help the people in the water to get on their original boat, eg France boat helps a Somali citizen on its boat, yet on the Somali boat they can not get all the resources because the Somali captain is sharing them unevenly. So the Somali citizen has enough resources out of the France boat to maybe live out his live in peace or he get's thrown back in the water. Nothing really changes. You are fighting the symptoms but not the disease.
So why not help overpower the Somali captain? No one wants to start a war on another government "just" because they don't fight their countries poverty.
Maybe support a civil war then? Help the people help themselves? But that doesn't work either (cough Syria cough), because there are to many groups in a nation to pick the §right" group and who should be the next captain? In a corrupt system there will most likely not be a free vote.
So then occupy the country until there is peace and a democratic leadership (Afghanistan?) ? That doesn't work either because through the occupation from another country many will see the new government as a corrupt foreign power and not accept it.
In conclusion: For me the best solution would be to fight the symptoms through charity (money and resources directly to the population) and fight the governments who commit human rights violations with embargoes: A less aggressive form of foreign intervention which weakens the powerful and rich people in the country so the majority of poor people might have a chance to overpower them.
America loves to think it is the world police.
tina at least someone who is right. I think they should be let alone. Is up to them to implement democracy, stop fighthing each other amd make new borders wich suit their ethnic populations.
But would embargoes really help any1? The rich, corrupt captains won't really be hit THAT hard by the action; it seems like the poor people (or at least small businesses) would be hit hardest from the lack of ability to do business (Crash Course Economics explained how free trade is the single most influential factor in reducing poverty). Thus, embargoes would be counter-productive.
If you haven't already, check out CGP Grey's video "Rules for Rulers" and then read the book that inspired it "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Good Politics". It is mind-numbingly difficult to make a liberal democracy from nothing. No matter how widespread the support for the coup, in almost every case, the result is another dictatorship. See:
The English Revolution 1642, the French Revolution 1789, the Haitian Revolution 1791, the Columbian Revolution 1808, the Mexican Revolution 1810, the Russian Revolution 1917, the German Revolution 1918, the Syrian Revolution 1926, the Chinese Civil War 1927, The Iraqi Revolution 1958, the October Revolution of Sudan 1964, the Congolese Revolution 1968, the Cambodian Revolution 1975, the Iranian Revolution 1979, the Somali Rebellion 1989, the Anti-Soviet Russian Revolution of 1991, and the Arab Spring of 2010-2012, to name the notable ones.
All these were liberal revolutions against a tyrannical government that, once the dust settled, established a different tyrannical government. Hell, the French had 5 revolutions between 1989 and 1813, and each of them just wound up subjecting the country to a different tyrant.
This is not to say that it's not possible, the French got it right in 1848, the Americans did in 1776, the Germans did in 1949, Iran did it in 1905, etc. But there's more to a successful democratic revolution than angry people and a good idea.
2 words: Unconditional Love
1. We now have enough resources for everyone, but the moment you "aid" poor nations their populations will explode and cause even worse poverty.
Wrong and incorrect. Prosperity decreases birthrates.
wojtekimbier Sometimes the aid was not to take advantage of them. For example banana republics to mention just one. Now is too late, now people could help by not being fat greedy consumers and let those nations fix themselves, no more intervention. The damage is done.
wojtekimbier This argument is known as the Malthusian fallacy, after Malthus. Because as societies develop, the birth rate eventually falls below the replacement rate.
depend on what 'aid' you give... education aid won't cause a population explosion.
Ah but giving food and money for nothing to bring about prosperity but more dependence and continued poverty.
Education and free markets is what drives prosperity.
i love watching crash course high
I wonder if it would at all be possible to have the United States Government to collect literally an extra 5 dollars in income tax from every tax paying worker in the country, and used that money to invest in a country that had a lot f abject poverty. Either that or it could fund the production and shipment of resources to those who need it. Everyone is different, but I would argue that this is quite plausible, especially if the almost negligible amount of extra taxes to help better the world was based off of our current tax gradient. I think that this would not harm America but help the entire world. Imagine what would happen if every wealthy nation in the world did this. In a single life time, many of the ailments plaguing the developing world, will be nothing but a hellish memory from a distant past. I sincerely believe we can all do this.
Like when we make shipments of our overstock corn to South America, which drops the price of corn down so low that South American farmers end up losing everything and ending up in abject poverty? It's a big part of the problem, is our charity helping or making things worse? Besides, there is absolutely nothing that the U.S. government does better than the private sector, especially charity and is it ethical to force others to do something simply because you feel it should be?
How about taking 500.000 $ from every billionaire?
Scott very interesting view
You mean stealing 5 more dollars
It would be "possible", but for some reason, people only seem okay with tax increases when they go to fund the military, or some damned border wall.
Very apt for current times. Thank you!
Can someone be an altruist and give me a hand? I'm dying of first.
Thank you.