Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"(blog.minming.net)
blog.minming.net
Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"
http://blog.minming.net/post/35762604294/melinda-gates-at-stanford
14 comments
Giving money to charitable organizations that have 30~% waste ratio isn't the way to go.
What you want are driven, motivated and open-minded individuals that can create disruptive innovation; entrepreneurs.
Edit: typos.
What you want are driven, motivated and open-minded individuals that can create disruptive innovation; entrepreneurs.
Edit: typos.
[deleted]
>What you want are driven, motivated and open-minded individuals that can created disruptive innovation; entrepreneurs.
As if the problems of the third world are not already in large part created by greedy enterprises operating there?
As if the problems of the third world are not already in large part created by greedy enterprises operating there?
I hate the Gates foundation.
You know what would help those kids a lot more than your medicine? Copies of all existing textbooks in an electronic format and access to all of our patents.
When the polio vaccine was created the inventor refused to get a patent for it, saying no one has the right to own it just like no one has the right to own the sun.
I just find it very hard to support the Gates foundation when I believe that it is playing by the rules to make the founders look and feel good instead of actually challenging laws and cultural assumptions, which it truly should.
You know what would help those kids a lot more than your medicine? Copies of all existing textbooks in an electronic format and access to all of our patents.
When the polio vaccine was created the inventor refused to get a patent for it, saying no one has the right to own it just like no one has the right to own the sun.
I just find it very hard to support the Gates foundation when I believe that it is playing by the rules to make the founders look and feel good instead of actually challenging laws and cultural assumptions, which it truly should.
Why would you hate the Gates foundation for the state of affairs concerning intellectual property? There's a democratic process to change those laws, that change doesn't have to come from their foundation. I don't believe that dumping a load of textbooks and lifting some patents would do much in itself, that's just one of the barriers that's keeping the poor poor.
> You know what would help those kids a lot more than your medicine? Copies of all existing textbooks in an electronic format and access to all of our patents.
Dead kids can't read.
Dead kids can't read.
I agree with the sentiment about all lives being equal.
That is why I enjoyed challenging myself to think about it purely from an economic perspective one day. We were on the plane, and the guy next to us was studying "humanitarian economics". It is somewhat related to the issues that the gates foundation has to think about when distributing their funds.
There was some curious dilemmas you need to face, and most of them seem to be faced by removing yourself somewhat from the moral aspect, and thinking purely about assigning a monetary value to them. The bit that I remember was thinking about the financial value of a human life, as determined by its remaining potential. What this means is [0]:
- Small babies: haven't invested much time and effort into developing them, so they are not worth as much.
- Teenagers: Have spent considerable amount of time getting them ready to contribute to society.
- Older people: Although there has been a lot of effort invested in them, and they have contributed a lot to society, there is only so much more "potential" left.
Another interesting thing about this approach, is that in a funny way, it mimics the sentiment of Belinda's statement of all lives being equal. This is because (equally aged) people from Africa and Australia have the same monetary value according to this.
[0] - Please don't hate me! I' actually quite a nice person, I just found this interesting :) It's not how I normally think about people.
That is why I enjoyed challenging myself to think about it purely from an economic perspective one day. We were on the plane, and the guy next to us was studying "humanitarian economics". It is somewhat related to the issues that the gates foundation has to think about when distributing their funds.
There was some curious dilemmas you need to face, and most of them seem to be faced by removing yourself somewhat from the moral aspect, and thinking purely about assigning a monetary value to them. The bit that I remember was thinking about the financial value of a human life, as determined by its remaining potential. What this means is [0]:
- Small babies: haven't invested much time and effort into developing them, so they are not worth as much.
- Teenagers: Have spent considerable amount of time getting them ready to contribute to society.
- Older people: Although there has been a lot of effort invested in them, and they have contributed a lot to society, there is only so much more "potential" left.
Another interesting thing about this approach, is that in a funny way, it mimics the sentiment of Belinda's statement of all lives being equal. This is because (equally aged) people from Africa and Australia have the same monetary value according to this.
[0] - Please don't hate me! I' actually quite a nice person, I just found this interesting :) It's not how I normally think about people.
Actuaries need to do the same things all the time e.g. - probabilistic value of remaining life for life insurance settlement/pricing.
Yes it feels weird to discuss these things - but it doesn't make you an evil person or anything - life insurance must be priced, taxes distributed and money donated.
The problem with "hands up in the air - everything is precious!" thinking is that you can't make any decisions. If you assume that - all your money should be flooding Africa.
You'll notice that this isn't the case.
You'll also notice that people only pay lip service to their morals - but they never back it up with cash - and that's where actuaries and economists come in.
Yes it feels weird to discuss these things - but it doesn't make you an evil person or anything - life insurance must be priced, taxes distributed and money donated.
The problem with "hands up in the air - everything is precious!" thinking is that you can't make any decisions. If you assume that - all your money should be flooding Africa.
You'll notice that this isn't the case.
You'll also notice that people only pay lip service to their morals - but they never back it up with cash - and that's where actuaries and economists come in.
I think the idea that all lives have equal values, while it sounds good, is paradoxical.
If a life has a potential to save plenty of other lives (for example : healthcare worker, great scientist on the verge of discovering a new cure, engineer working on a more efficient way to get drinking water), doesn't that mean that their lives are worth more ?
On the other hand I can't help myself thinking that a surgeon isn't worth more than an unemployed guy who does nothing except watching TV (for example), moral isn't always about logic.
All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means).
This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich American - by definition of earning capacity, consuming capacity, life expectancy and investment in their quality of life.
Please note: This does not mean the American is better than the African - it's merely an accident of birth.
Now here's the point I'm going to make.
Keeping people alive has exponential value - irrelevant of current value (e.g. African vs. American). What is the cost of keeping a poor African alive? I'm going to say for ~90% of the population it'll be around $1-4K a year. Now this is relatively expensive - however you must remember, this African will go on to consume and work all their lives, have kids who themselves will have kids and so forth - a combinatorial explosion of development and production making us all the richer.
Think of it like this: We are all descendant from a group of ~2000 people from Central Africa ~250,000 years ago. They produced ~7 billion people over the course of a few hundred thousand years - that's some seriously insane value generation right there. Imagine if we did the same with the ~7 billion we have now - we could be the ~2000 of the next millennium.
Each life you save today means hundreds or even thousands in the future - it's like an exponential investment. This is why we should protect poor people - apart from fuzzy moralistic reasons. It is a financially sound investment.
Each poor person will be an eventual consumer and producer - we must maximise their ability to do so - and that is why we must fundamentally help them. It also feels good.
This is what I find so toxic about the entire Republican/private health care in America debate. You invest millions over the course of people's lives to keep them alive (schools/roads/bridges/cheap loans/national security/etc.) and all of a sudden, if they get sick, you're happy that they metaphorically shoot themselves in the head because of their sickness (bankruptcy/can't afford/die etc.). Hence, you must also be happy when this kills the ability of their families to consume, produce and reproduce by an order of magnitude for the foreseeable future. We must keep people alive not merely because it's a good investment in aggregate, and not merely because it is the correct thing to do, but also because it's financially nonsensical to do otherwise - especially in a first world country. People are expensive, they take huge amounts of resources to bring up, and they have a high ROI - we should protect these investments for the sake of protecting our collective future.
Secondly, pushing birth control doesn't do jack to population growth. The vast majority of variance in development/population rates between countries is explained by GDP per capita. Or as Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India once stated:
> Development is the best contraceptive.
-- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox
Disclaimer:
Just to reiterate - I am not saying that one human is better than another in any sense of fundamental long-term value. I merely state that current value of any one human is grossly unequal due to path-dependent birth (born in America vs. Afghanistan) - however I mean to strongly imprint upon you that that the current value of a human doesn't matter in the long term - because humans in aggregate are worth the same over many generations because:
> In the long run we are all dead.
-- John Maynard Keynes
What matters is how we ensure the survival of a vibrant next generation, regardless of race, creed or birth.
This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich American - by definition of earning capacity, consuming capacity, life expectancy and investment in their quality of life.
Please note: This does not mean the American is better than the African - it's merely an accident of birth.
Now here's the point I'm going to make.
Keeping people alive has exponential value - irrelevant of current value (e.g. African vs. American). What is the cost of keeping a poor African alive? I'm going to say for ~90% of the population it'll be around $1-4K a year. Now this is relatively expensive - however you must remember, this African will go on to consume and work all their lives, have kids who themselves will have kids and so forth - a combinatorial explosion of development and production making us all the richer.
Think of it like this: We are all descendant from a group of ~2000 people from Central Africa ~250,000 years ago. They produced ~7 billion people over the course of a few hundred thousand years - that's some seriously insane value generation right there. Imagine if we did the same with the ~7 billion we have now - we could be the ~2000 of the next millennium.
Each life you save today means hundreds or even thousands in the future - it's like an exponential investment. This is why we should protect poor people - apart from fuzzy moralistic reasons. It is a financially sound investment.
Each poor person will be an eventual consumer and producer - we must maximise their ability to do so - and that is why we must fundamentally help them. It also feels good.
This is what I find so toxic about the entire Republican/private health care in America debate. You invest millions over the course of people's lives to keep them alive (schools/roads/bridges/cheap loans/national security/etc.) and all of a sudden, if they get sick, you're happy that they metaphorically shoot themselves in the head because of their sickness (bankruptcy/can't afford/die etc.). Hence, you must also be happy when this kills the ability of their families to consume, produce and reproduce by an order of magnitude for the foreseeable future. We must keep people alive not merely because it's a good investment in aggregate, and not merely because it is the correct thing to do, but also because it's financially nonsensical to do otherwise - especially in a first world country. People are expensive, they take huge amounts of resources to bring up, and they have a high ROI - we should protect these investments for the sake of protecting our collective future.
Secondly, pushing birth control doesn't do jack to population growth. The vast majority of variance in development/population rates between countries is explained by GDP per capita. Or as Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India once stated:
> Development is the best contraceptive.
-- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox
Disclaimer:
Just to reiterate - I am not saying that one human is better than another in any sense of fundamental long-term value. I merely state that current value of any one human is grossly unequal due to path-dependent birth (born in America vs. Afghanistan) - however I mean to strongly imprint upon you that that the current value of a human doesn't matter in the long term - because humans in aggregate are worth the same over many generations because:
> In the long run we are all dead.
-- John Maynard Keynes
What matters is how we ensure the survival of a vibrant next generation, regardless of race, creed or birth.
Melinda Gates wasn't talking about economic value. I find it difficult to believe that most HN'rs take her statement to mean economic value since, as most people have been pointing out, all lives don't have equivalent financial worth.
The rest of your point, I think, is a very interesting way to look at the value of human life, but it is a crude way of evaluating the worth of humanity purely in the context of financial value.
At the risk of getting touch-feely amongst an audience that is very rational and analytical, there is something sacred and indescribable of all life (not just human) simply because it's not something that we can create from artificial means. This fact, I think, is what makes it hard to say one life is more valuable than another (again, just to be clear, I'm using 'value' as in financial value).
The rest of your point, I think, is a very interesting way to look at the value of human life, but it is a crude way of evaluating the worth of humanity purely in the context of financial value.
At the risk of getting touch-feely amongst an audience that is very rational and analytical, there is something sacred and indescribable of all life (not just human) simply because it's not something that we can create from artificial means. This fact, I think, is what makes it hard to say one life is more valuable than another (again, just to be clear, I'm using 'value' as in financial value).
(justification to read my post here: at the end I argue richer people have higher moral value!)
Many of us think its 'brave' and 'correct' to say "all lives are equal value" in the moral sense. Its a 'sexy' thought to have as it seems liberal and its simple, but it is ultimately wrong.
Our actions are what define us, so a person who performs good/selfless actions that benefit others should be defined as higher value than a selfish murderer/rapist.
If lives were equal value then taking the life of a child would be equally as bad as taking the life of an 80 year old - but most people do not think that way.
Your value (in the moral sense) should simply be a function how much good you provide to the world. This leads to the difficult issue where because we can in fact buy "good" (by buying anti-malaria nets for children for £5 a pop) you find that those born into wealth have a higher capacity to perform "good" and therefore, on average, have a higher moral value by this definition.
Many of us think its 'brave' and 'correct' to say "all lives are equal value" in the moral sense. Its a 'sexy' thought to have as it seems liberal and its simple, but it is ultimately wrong.
Our actions are what define us, so a person who performs good/selfless actions that benefit others should be defined as higher value than a selfish murderer/rapist.
If lives were equal value then taking the life of a child would be equally as bad as taking the life of an 80 year old - but most people do not think that way.
Your value (in the moral sense) should simply be a function how much good you provide to the world. This leads to the difficult issue where because we can in fact buy "good" (by buying anti-malaria nets for children for £5 a pop) you find that those born into wealth have a higher capacity to perform "good" and therefore, on average, have a higher moral value by this definition.
> If lives were equal value then taking the life of a child would be equally as bad as taking the life of an 80 year old - but most people do not think that way.
?
So is murder of an 80-year old worse, or murder of a child? I'm confused, because I don't really think that way.
I'm also not buying into this self-obsessed view of "value". Americans and Europeans do more damage to the world per capita than anyone else in terms of of energy consumption, pollution, and creating economic inequality. Their charitability does not really make up for it.
For me the only distinction is that I value people I know more than people I don't know. However, everyone is someone I could get to know.
?
So is murder of an 80-year old worse, or murder of a child? I'm confused, because I don't really think that way.
I'm also not buying into this self-obsessed view of "value". Americans and Europeans do more damage to the world per capita than anyone else in terms of of energy consumption, pollution, and creating economic inequality. Their charitability does not really make up for it.
For me the only distinction is that I value people I know more than people I don't know. However, everyone is someone I could get to know.
Your reasoning is pretty ridiculous. There are many things that cannot quantified. How would you quantify the contribution of a person who's done a lot of bad, say murdered some people, but whose actions inspire policy makers to change their policies for the better? Or how would you quantify the life of an african baby, dead at the age of 6 months, that inspires rich Americans to buy anti-malaria drugs? Or a horrendous event that results in a work of literature of such beauty that it lasts for centuries? Or some random, unknown person, dead for millennia, whose skeletal remains teaches us about human evolution? Some things require a completely different way of thinking from a data-driven, "rational" perspective, but to put it in your terms, "life" is such a complex, intractable, system, that quite often defies any kind of "left-brain" analysis.
The reason nobody can agree on the 'value of life' is because the value changes per context. Life has no intrinsic value of its own except to the person who currently owns it. When anyone says 'all life has value' they are talking spiritually, or religiously, and that is something that is just feel good hippy speak to make themselves look and feel better.
To truly speak of lifes value you have to break it down into contexts and agree that these contexts are necessary to be used in the comparisons: Economic, political, civic, leadership, educational, breeding value, looks, etc.
Once a set of contexts are agreed upon you have to weigh them based on a common base, like say Economic, take that as a 1.0. Someone might say that 'looks' is a 0.6 based on economic value, where as leadership or engineering may be 1.2.
Once these weights are set, apply values to the contexts, weigh them together to get an total value of the person's life. Then you can accurately judge their life value vs another. You could improve upon this by having negatives (murderous villains) that could affect total value, etc.
To truly speak of lifes value you have to break it down into contexts and agree that these contexts are necessary to be used in the comparisons: Economic, political, civic, leadership, educational, breeding value, looks, etc.
Once a set of contexts are agreed upon you have to weigh them based on a common base, like say Economic, take that as a 1.0. Someone might say that 'looks' is a 0.6 based on economic value, where as leadership or engineering may be 1.2.
Once these weights are set, apply values to the contexts, weigh them together to get an total value of the person's life. Then you can accurately judge their life value vs another. You could improve upon this by having negatives (murderous villains) that could affect total value, etc.
More than that, if all lives are worth something, some people are worth more than others, even if purely because some people can improve others' lives MORE.
have to disagree:
- life of youths is more valuable: ancient tribes will say the opposite: they routinely sacrificed their children to gods, not so their elders, who were considered valuable for their wisdom.
- Money is a means to buy services and goods regardless of their moral value. You can buy hookers, drugs, murderers, malware and other life-wasters. I think you couldn't be more wrong about this.
- "Good" has not been defined yet. Also, there is no rule that good people earn the most money; not even close
- life of youths is more valuable: ancient tribes will say the opposite: they routinely sacrificed their children to gods, not so their elders, who were considered valuable for their wisdom.
- Money is a means to buy services and goods regardless of their moral value. You can buy hookers, drugs, murderers, malware and other life-wasters. I think you couldn't be more wrong about this.
- "Good" has not been defined yet. Also, there is no rule that good people earn the most money; not even close
... there is something sacred and indescribable of all life (not just human) simply because it's not something that we can create from artificial means...
In the future, people may find ways to create life from artificial means, and that does not make life any less sacred. So please don't try too hard to find a reason behind holding life sacred.
In the future, people may find ways to create life from artificial means, and that does not make life any less sacred. So please don't try too hard to find a reason behind holding life sacred.
This fact, I think, is what makes it hard to say one life is more valuable than another
Just last night I said "those Brussels sprouts are worth less than me" by eating them. I don't find it hard at all.
Just last night I said "those Brussels sprouts are worth less than me" by eating them. I don't find it hard at all.
What is the value of life? Clearly we find the idea of financial value just a tad too cynical.
Do we have any other measures? Something we can use to establish that all lives are in fact equally valuable?
Also, as soon as we start claiming all life to be equally valuable we get into the moral issue of comparing somebody like Mother Theresa to someone like Ted Bundy and saying they were both equal in terms of value. I doubt many people would agree.
Do we have any other measures? Something we can use to establish that all lives are in fact equally valuable?
Also, as soon as we start claiming all life to be equally valuable we get into the moral issue of comparing somebody like Mother Theresa to someone like Ted Bundy and saying they were both equal in terms of value. I doubt many people would agree.
Why would you need to establish that at all? It is not a matter of fact, but a statement that serves as the basis of a moral standpoint. You can either choose to believe it, or not.
As for Ted Bundy vs. Mother Theresa - ignoring the extremely complex philosophical question of the value of life - do you seriously think that's what Ms. Gates was implying? A philanthropist working to save lives in the third world says "all lives are equal", and your response is, "why are you comparing Ted Bundy to Mother Theresa"? Don't take everything so literally. This isn't math class.
As for Ted Bundy vs. Mother Theresa - ignoring the extremely complex philosophical question of the value of life - do you seriously think that's what Ms. Gates was implying? A philanthropist working to save lives in the third world says "all lives are equal", and your response is, "why are you comparing Ted Bundy to Mother Theresa"? Don't take everything so literally. This isn't math class.
> Why would you need to establish that at all?
Because otherwise the phrase has no meaning? So I'm going to decide I both believe it and think it's completely wrong. Now what?
Moral standpoints with no meaning are really weird, I might as well say "Potato" and claim it's something deep and philosophical that everyone should rally behind to liberate Africa from whatever is ailing it.
For instance, by donating potatoes.
The thing is, what does a graph with unlabeled axes tell you? Nothing, right? It's the same with undefined moral standpoints.
Because otherwise the phrase has no meaning? So I'm going to decide I both believe it and think it's completely wrong. Now what?
Moral standpoints with no meaning are really weird, I might as well say "Potato" and claim it's something deep and philosophical that everyone should rally behind to liberate Africa from whatever is ailing it.
For instance, by donating potatoes.
The thing is, what does a graph with unlabeled axes tell you? Nothing, right? It's the same with undefined moral standpoints.
> This is why we should protect poor people
This is paternalistic, and worse yet, it doesn't work, i.e. rich people "protecting" poor people. What indeed does work is a free market (and that includes a free jobs' market), meaning free access of all (rich and poor) to the benefits of exchanging goods and improving one's life.
What the European Union (and to a lesser extent the USA) does now when it comes to Africa is border-line criminal, what if with Europe's protectionist policies when it comes to its agriculture and its immigrant policy. Imagine if those 2 million kids that get saved by the Gates Foundation instead of being forced to remain in conflict-prone Northern Nigeria or Kenya or Uganda were given the chance to come and work , legally, in Europe. Or what if they'd really have a chance to sell their agricultural goods on the same European market without having to fight countless protectionist measures designed to protect the raising of cows in the French Alps.
(if it matters, I live on the fringes of said European Union, and in my youth I used to live with under $1USD per day for at least a couple of years)
This is paternalistic, and worse yet, it doesn't work, i.e. rich people "protecting" poor people. What indeed does work is a free market (and that includes a free jobs' market), meaning free access of all (rich and poor) to the benefits of exchanging goods and improving one's life.
What the European Union (and to a lesser extent the USA) does now when it comes to Africa is border-line criminal, what if with Europe's protectionist policies when it comes to its agriculture and its immigrant policy. Imagine if those 2 million kids that get saved by the Gates Foundation instead of being forced to remain in conflict-prone Northern Nigeria or Kenya or Uganda were given the chance to come and work , legally, in Europe. Or what if they'd really have a chance to sell their agricultural goods on the same European market without having to fight countless protectionist measures designed to protect the raising of cows in the French Alps.
(if it matters, I live on the fringes of said European Union, and in my youth I used to live with under $1USD per day for at least a couple of years)
> Imagine if those 2 million kids that get saved by the Gates Foundation instead of being forced to remain in conflict-prone Northern Nigeria or Kenya or Uganda were given the chance to come and work , legally, in Europe.
And I suppose the EU taxpayer will be footing the bill for all this imported poverty, and at the same he will be forced to endure a marked increase in social friction (ultimately ending in complete social chaos a la the no-go areas in the banlieues of France, Britain and Sweden).
And I suppose the EU taxpayer will be footing the bill for all this imported poverty, and at the same he will be forced to endure a marked increase in social friction (ultimately ending in complete social chaos a la the no-go areas in the banlieues of France, Britain and Sweden).
Ok, I think it's implicit that her definition of value here has more to do with moral worth than anything measurable like earning capacity, consumption, etc. Therefore, this statement also implies that the reading of the word 'value', when used in the context of human lives, should default to moral worth.
Gates isn't talking about the value of human lives in terms of money, cost, ROI, investment, consumption, production, or any of the other terms you've used. She's referring to their intrinsic worth and dignity as human beings. That you've constructed such a long comment based on such a misunderstanding is rather worrying.
I fully understand what she means (I'm not an idiot) - and I think the way people describe "morals" is very vague to the point of being useless, as correct human actions can be easily enforced using other means (for example we have laws not to kill each other - Why? Well you could say it's the moral thing to do - and of course people say that. But it's also such a waste - everyone would live in fear and nothing would get done if this wasn't enforced - Murder is just economically bad, as is fraud, rape, abuse, battery, censorship and many other things - morals need not come into it - not enforcing these protections is more expensive - for more treatment in thinking like this see "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins).
See the problem with the terms "intrinsic worth" and "dignity" is that they are almost meaningless and very fuzzy. What do you mean exactly?
> “All lives have equal value”
Melinda Gates repeatedly emphasized the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s deep belief that all lives have equal value and everyone should be given the same chance.
I've come to the exact same conclusion that she has with harder terms. We need to give people the same chance because if done so - we are all better off.
See the problem with the terms "intrinsic worth" and "dignity" is that they are almost meaningless and very fuzzy. What do you mean exactly?
> “All lives have equal value”
Melinda Gates repeatedly emphasized the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s deep belief that all lives have equal value and everyone should be given the same chance.
I've come to the exact same conclusion that she has with harder terms. We need to give people the same chance because if done so - we are all better off.
You seem to be following an utilitarian moral theory, others may propose a consequentialist or hedonistic or religious assessments of human value. The one thing to remember about ethics is there are no absolute moral rules.
The one thing to remember about ethics is there are no absolute moral rules.
Is that an absolute? ;)
Is that an absolute? ;)
Unless you are a fundamentalist or some other sort of "-ist", yes.
Agreed. Didn't know there was a name to it :D.
But I'm always careful with utilitarian theory - it's so easy to get wrong - if any one of your assumptions are wrong. That's why I try to make sure that the final result complies with other theories (empathy etc.).
Playing with value theories is like playing with fire.
But I'm always careful with utilitarian theory - it's so easy to get wrong - if any one of your assumptions are wrong. That's why I try to make sure that the final result complies with other theories (empathy etc.).
Playing with value theories is like playing with fire.
You haven't come to the "exact same conclusion" that she has. You've come to a different conclusion that just appears to you to be the same because it has the potential for the same outcome.
(Edit: added "potential for the same outcome")
(Edit: added "potential for the same outcome")
How is it different? Both actions amount to the same thing don't they - protect and help the poor to make us all better off. The reasons may be different - but the outcome is the same, isn't it? If both theories produce equivalent actions, then the theories are equivalent, no?
Making judgments about theories or actions only by comparing the outcomes is called Consequentialism [1]. I'm not saying it is always wrong, but it is just one of a range of frameworks that can be applied.
Applying consequentialism to ethical judgments about people is often problematic. There are various criticisms listed in [1], but they are kind of theoretical. Let me give a practical example instead. If we allow (as you say) that "protect and help the poor to make us all better off" is the best way to form a judgement about this issue because it turns out that it actually does make us all better off, then what do you do if it emerges that protecting some sub-group of the poor (say, poor people in South America) actually makes us worse off? Are they out of luck, or do you revise your judgement even though, in your terms, it was correct?
Basically, this limited world-view can instrumentalise people and is vulnerable to dangerous unforeseen consequences that lead to real human suffering.
And I'm done. Unit tests to write.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
Applying consequentialism to ethical judgments about people is often problematic. There are various criticisms listed in [1], but they are kind of theoretical. Let me give a practical example instead. If we allow (as you say) that "protect and help the poor to make us all better off" is the best way to form a judgement about this issue because it turns out that it actually does make us all better off, then what do you do if it emerges that protecting some sub-group of the poor (say, poor people in South America) actually makes us worse off? Are they out of luck, or do you revise your judgement even though, in your terms, it was correct?
Basically, this limited world-view can instrumentalise people and is vulnerable to dangerous unforeseen consequences that lead to real human suffering.
And I'm done. Unit tests to write.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
I believe your position is derived from one with an almost heinous lack of empathy.
Human beings are all equal. Each life is worth just as much as another. This is a fundamental fact of life. Not a single one of us was created in any way different than any other - human procreation itself is the grand equalizer. Where once was a man and/or womans pleasure, is now another man and/or woman. From that source, we are all derived, and thus: all equal from birth.
The 'value' that "Africa" has, is completely and utterly arbitrary. The arbitrary nature is derived entirely from cultural ideas and ideology, which worth is also completely arbitrary, depending on its proponents ability to carry the idea forward. The idea that Africa is 'poor', that Africans are 'uneducated/uneducatable' and so on .. these are just ideas, not based on any real fact.
The fact is, any kid in African Village #21239 has just as much human potential as any other kid in the world.
Life itself, is the rarest substance in the universe. What Life, itself, decides to do about that, is derived from a near-infinite ability for Life, itself, to decide. Once "African Village Kid, Age 9" starts learning to code on the Linux Kernel, for example, the ability to decide, equally as a species, can be observed.
And it is this fact on which 'equality' and 'worth' depend - nothing else.
Human beings are all equal. Each life is worth just as much as another. This is a fundamental fact of life. Not a single one of us was created in any way different than any other - human procreation itself is the grand equalizer. Where once was a man and/or womans pleasure, is now another man and/or woman. From that source, we are all derived, and thus: all equal from birth.
The 'value' that "Africa" has, is completely and utterly arbitrary. The arbitrary nature is derived entirely from cultural ideas and ideology, which worth is also completely arbitrary, depending on its proponents ability to carry the idea forward. The idea that Africa is 'poor', that Africans are 'uneducated/uneducatable' and so on .. these are just ideas, not based on any real fact.
The fact is, any kid in African Village #21239 has just as much human potential as any other kid in the world.
Life itself, is the rarest substance in the universe. What Life, itself, decides to do about that, is derived from a near-infinite ability for Life, itself, to decide. Once "African Village Kid, Age 9" starts learning to code on the Linux Kernel, for example, the ability to decide, equally as a species, can be observed.
And it is this fact on which 'equality' and 'worth' depend - nothing else.
That's some disturbing shit you've written there.
You're disclaimer makes it even worse.
I don't know what would be a constructive thing to say, except maybe that being a decent human being is based on believe and conviction, not logic. You either decide that every human being has infinite value (if you're inclined to attach a value to a human being), or you try to find reasons to diminish someone's value by slicing them into a narrow set of more or less cherry-picked dimensions. At that point we're talking about abstractions, not human beings anymore. At that point we lose a big part of our own humanity.
I feel bad for sounding so aggressive, but your kind of reasoning makes me feel like throwing up, because it opens the gate to all kinds of atrocious behaviors.
You're disclaimer makes it even worse.
I don't know what would be a constructive thing to say, except maybe that being a decent human being is based on believe and conviction, not logic. You either decide that every human being has infinite value (if you're inclined to attach a value to a human being), or you try to find reasons to diminish someone's value by slicing them into a narrow set of more or less cherry-picked dimensions. At that point we're talking about abstractions, not human beings anymore. At that point we lose a big part of our own humanity.
I feel bad for sounding so aggressive, but your kind of reasoning makes me feel like throwing up, because it opens the gate to all kinds of atrocious behaviors.
Oh I'm sorry - logic is clearly subordinate to fuzzy terms such as "belief" and "conviction" - I mean it's not like many bad things have come at the hands of belief or conviction - not at all. Logic has nothing to do with bringing the world out of poverty - people's gut reaction should instead be relied upon to make life or death decisions - Numbers? What's that?
I mean there were the crusades - but really that was the exception. Religion? Exception right? There was the Holocaust there I suppose. And a bunch of other genocides. A couple of global wars and unsubstantiated racism. Oh but please - let's continue in just believing things without evidence - because that's worked so well - relying on intrinsic gut reactions.
Belief and conviction - a boon to humanity - in all its forms!
/sarcasm
How the hell is what I've written disturbing? I'm slightly perturbed at your reliance on unsupported thought models getting us all killed just because you believe in something. I'd rather not rely on people's beliefs - they are notoriously flexible.
I've indicated that a) poor people should be protected, b) that humans are long-term equal and c) we should work towards helping everyone - because it's good for all of us in the long run.
What's so surprising about that?
Does this not align with your views?
I mean there were the crusades - but really that was the exception. Religion? Exception right? There was the Holocaust there I suppose. And a bunch of other genocides. A couple of global wars and unsubstantiated racism. Oh but please - let's continue in just believing things without evidence - because that's worked so well - relying on intrinsic gut reactions.
Belief and conviction - a boon to humanity - in all its forms!
/sarcasm
How the hell is what I've written disturbing? I'm slightly perturbed at your reliance on unsupported thought models getting us all killed just because you believe in something. I'd rather not rely on people's beliefs - they are notoriously flexible.
I've indicated that a) poor people should be protected, b) that humans are long-term equal and c) we should work towards helping everyone - because it's good for all of us in the long run.
What's so surprising about that?
Does this not align with your views?
No, logic is not subordinate to anything. That's you putting numbers on stuff again.
I think you try to draw the term "fuzzy" into a negative light here because you have trouble dealing with ambivalence. Then you go absurd and use things like Crusades! and Holocaust! which I clearly wasn't talking about (because blind faith has as little to do with reason as applying quantitative analysis to every question in the universe, and I was following up those terms with what my actual, concrete conviction is made up of) in order to discredit my whole point without trying to understand where I'm coming from.
You're wondering why I find the things you've written disturbing. It's because you put a price on human beings in reply to an article that's about altruism. I'm convinced (WATCH OUT, FUZZINESS AHEAD!!!) by my feelings of compassion that helping people in need does not need a reason beyond It's The Right Thing To Do. I trust my instincts on that one, and I think any attempt to make an altruistic act appear logical is ugly and coarse. And take note that I don't equate “logical” with “reasonable”. Especially not in a case like this.
Again, your trying to put the practices of fear mongering institutions like the various churches and the Nazis in the same category as basic altruism based on the fact that all of these somehow involve belief and conviction (which can be logical, depending on the quality of abstraction you apply) is lazy and disingenuous.
My replies to you probably convey a more hostile tone than I feel comfortable with, and it's kind of random that I'm writing all of this to you, who I only have a vague idea about, in effect addressing many of those I put in the same category as you right now. I would rather discuss something like that in person to take the edge off of it. But I can't shake the feeling (and my impression might very well be wrong) that you've developed some kind of arrogance because you've detected at an early age that you're very intelligent, and how pleasing it is to figure out an axiomatic system and use this enlightenment to your advantage.
That has its place. But that place is not when dealing with the welfare of humanity. I do not object your conclusions. I object the path that led you to them.
I think you try to draw the term "fuzzy" into a negative light here because you have trouble dealing with ambivalence. Then you go absurd and use things like Crusades! and Holocaust! which I clearly wasn't talking about (because blind faith has as little to do with reason as applying quantitative analysis to every question in the universe, and I was following up those terms with what my actual, concrete conviction is made up of) in order to discredit my whole point without trying to understand where I'm coming from.
You're wondering why I find the things you've written disturbing. It's because you put a price on human beings in reply to an article that's about altruism. I'm convinced (WATCH OUT, FUZZINESS AHEAD!!!) by my feelings of compassion that helping people in need does not need a reason beyond It's The Right Thing To Do. I trust my instincts on that one, and I think any attempt to make an altruistic act appear logical is ugly and coarse. And take note that I don't equate “logical” with “reasonable”. Especially not in a case like this.
Again, your trying to put the practices of fear mongering institutions like the various churches and the Nazis in the same category as basic altruism based on the fact that all of these somehow involve belief and conviction (which can be logical, depending on the quality of abstraction you apply) is lazy and disingenuous.
My replies to you probably convey a more hostile tone than I feel comfortable with, and it's kind of random that I'm writing all of this to you, who I only have a vague idea about, in effect addressing many of those I put in the same category as you right now. I would rather discuss something like that in person to take the edge off of it. But I can't shake the feeling (and my impression might very well be wrong) that you've developed some kind of arrogance because you've detected at an early age that you're very intelligent, and how pleasing it is to figure out an axiomatic system and use this enlightenment to your advantage.
That has its place. But that place is not when dealing with the welfare of humanity. I do not object your conclusions. I object the path that led you to them.
> I mean it's not like many bad things have come at the hands of belief or conviction - not at all.
Similarly logic and rationalism can be condemned for excesses such as the French revolution. Of course you can retort "but those people were nuts," but overzealous rationalism is clearly just as dangerous as overzealous theology.
Similarly logic and rationalism can be condemned for excesses such as the French revolution. Of course you can retort "but those people were nuts," but overzealous rationalism is clearly just as dangerous as overzealous theology.
Your position is disturbing because it allows for one human being to degrade another quite freely without guilt. That is morally heinous.
What! They don't do this already! Mind blown!
Have you seen human history?
Have you seen human history?
So are you going to change that about yourself, or are you going to prolong it in your particular corner of the universe?
Humans are equally borne into the world weak and helpless, with but a day of survival unless they gain help from others, immediately, for a few years. This equalizes everyone, in terms of need. We all need at least a decade of help, if not more, before we can help others and help ourselves.
So, how does it help, in any way, to consider that babies born in 'lesser conditions' are economically worth less than babies born 'in luck, elsewhere'? It doesn't, at all, help one bit .. but your position does, instead, prolong the righteous justification for continued hatred of ones fellow man on the basis of their inferiority, economic, mental, culturally or otherwise.
Humans are equally borne into the world weak and helpless, with but a day of survival unless they gain help from others, immediately, for a few years. This equalizes everyone, in terms of need. We all need at least a decade of help, if not more, before we can help others and help ourselves.
So, how does it help, in any way, to consider that babies born in 'lesser conditions' are economically worth less than babies born 'in luck, elsewhere'? It doesn't, at all, help one bit .. but your position does, instead, prolong the righteous justification for continued hatred of ones fellow man on the basis of their inferiority, economic, mental, culturally or otherwise.
Wtf. Can you read? I said the exact opposite.
Assuming that people will keep reproducing the traditional way, live short lives and free market capitalism will maintain its intellectual dominance in future generations.
This works without reproduction or short lives.
If you assume human's can live forever then a similar production/consumption cycle will occur.
Free market capitalism need not be the system. This would work equally as well under market socialism (Euro), or just plain socialism (far future).
If you assume human's can live forever then a similar production/consumption cycle will occur.
Free market capitalism need not be the system. This would work equally as well under market socialism (Euro), or just plain socialism (far future).
Wow, and a crazy trolling biblical comment on it already, saying that people in the third world must deserve what they get because their idle ... amazing.
At first I thought this would be a case for veganism.
http://hardtruthsfromsoftcats.tumblr.com/post/35274152116 (Same amount of justification as Melinda gave. To the point of traveling to open one's eyes, I have a friend who gave up on the African continent entirely after learning more about its countries.)
There is no such thing as intrinsic value, whether economic value or moral value, whether of goods or of people. Value is subjectively assigned by people, according to the push and pull of their own internal motivations.
So it is meaningless to talk about value without asking: valued by who?
Some people (say, my family) are hugely more "valuable" to me than others.
So it is meaningless to talk about value without asking: valued by who?
Some people (say, my family) are hugely more "valuable" to me than others.
I'd rather say:
Life l1, l2; # initialises by default to unique value
l1 > l2; # false
l1 < l2; # false
l1 == l2; # false
Agreed. Saying everyone is equal is a nice elementary school thought, meant to inspire people. But it simply isn't factually true.
We're so far disconnected from the tribal traditions of our distant ancestors, we forget that different values can be very easily bestowed upon an individuals life, for very legitimate reasons in some cases (when its life or death... and survival of the fittest, in an ancient society). I guess I can sort of see some truth in "we all have equal potential" but even thats shaky concept at best, just meant to inspire people.
Thats all this speech appears to be though, an inspirational talk. Not something thats going to stand to the logical rigor most HN readers are going to want to apply to it.
We're so far disconnected from the tribal traditions of our distant ancestors, we forget that different values can be very easily bestowed upon an individuals life, for very legitimate reasons in some cases (when its life or death... and survival of the fittest, in an ancient society). I guess I can sort of see some truth in "we all have equal potential" but even thats shaky concept at best, just meant to inspire people.
Thats all this speech appears to be though, an inspirational talk. Not something thats going to stand to the logical rigor most HN readers are going to want to apply to it.
All lives should have equal value, maybe.
No lives have different values. Bin Laden != Paul Graham
Except that she's in favor of population control...
You are misquoting her. She is in favour of contraception. That gives a woman control over whether her body will become pregnant.
I think you should elaborate. Your view is not very clear.
I think you should elaborate. Your view is not very clear.
Not really. Birth control reduces the number of people born.
I'm not saying anything about motives or whether it's the right thing to do or not, rather simply pointing it out.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/11/ric...
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/Search.aspx?meta=MDCont...
I'm not saying anything about motives or whether it's the right thing to do or not, rather simply pointing it out.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/11/ric...
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/Search.aspx?meta=MDCont...
I am sure you recognize a better reflection of what she favors is in the life-changing work that Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is doing.
They definitely do good work in many areas.
However, on one hand they work to reduce deaths from diseases[0] while on the other, people are just a drain on natural resources.[1] It's not consistent.
[0] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/malaria/Pages/home.aspx etc.
[1] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/infographics/Pages/family-pla...
However, on one hand they work to reduce deaths from diseases[0] while on the other, people are just a drain on natural resources.[1] It's not consistent.
[0] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/malaria/Pages/home.aspx etc.
[1] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/infographics/Pages/family-pla...
The document you cite as [1] does not, in fact, say anything even slightly like "people are just a drain on natural resources". Here are the first few things it says: (1) "Family planning saves the lives of mothers and infants." (2) It "can significantly improve the health of women and their families." (3) "It can save millions of lives per year."
The page claims -- I don't know whether it's correct, but actually that isn't relevant for this purpose -- that universal access to contraception could prevent about 90k maternal deaths, 640k infant deaths, and 14M unsafe abortions, per year.
The only thing on that page that at all resembles "people are just a drain on natural resources" is this: at the end of the page there are five "Additional benefits for society": reduced HIV transmission, reduced pressure on natural resources, improved education and employment opportunities for women, improved economic growth, improved status for women.
So. They give many reasons for supporting family planning. They say it saves lives and improves health and helps the economy and improves the status of women. Tucked in towards the end is the remark that, by the way, it also reduces "pressure on natural resources".
Do you, really, think it is fair to summarize this by saying they think that "people are just a drain on natural resources"?
Personally, I think it's grotesquely dishonest.
The page claims -- I don't know whether it's correct, but actually that isn't relevant for this purpose -- that universal access to contraception could prevent about 90k maternal deaths, 640k infant deaths, and 14M unsafe abortions, per year.
The only thing on that page that at all resembles "people are just a drain on natural resources" is this: at the end of the page there are five "Additional benefits for society": reduced HIV transmission, reduced pressure on natural resources, improved education and employment opportunities for women, improved economic growth, improved status for women.
So. They give many reasons for supporting family planning. They say it saves lives and improves health and helps the economy and improves the status of women. Tucked in towards the end is the remark that, by the way, it also reduces "pressure on natural resources".
Do you, really, think it is fair to summarize this by saying they think that "people are just a drain on natural resources"?
Personally, I think it's grotesquely dishonest.
I wasn't trying to summarize anything - I just pointed out something that struck me as dissonant while looking at that info graphic.
Personally, I think you're sounding defensive.
Personally, I think you're sounding defensive.
But the infographic neither says nor implies what you say they think. Where, please, is the dissonance between supporting contraception and thinking that people are valuable?
I don't know what you think I'm trying to defend, other than people being accused of inconsistencies that aren't really there. For the avoidance of doubt, though: I have no connection of any sort with the Gates Foundation.
I don't know what you think I'm trying to defend, other than people being accused of inconsistencies that aren't really there. For the avoidance of doubt, though: I have no connection of any sort with the Gates Foundation.
However, the cost of travelling often could be put directly towards donations. There are so many opportunities to serve close to home in our own communities that often get overlooked because that kind of volunteering doesn't sound as glamorous as building schools in Africa.