Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.

When you are paid, you are being rewarded for you contribution to society. If you weren't compensated for your efforts, then there would be no incentive to be productive. People can only tend to others once there own house is in order. For the contrived example I feel that I am being fairly rewarded with a $1000. for me to give 20, I am still feeling fairly compensated but also trying to improve the world around me. If I gave up $1000, there would be no incentive for me to make that $1000 again. Giving up the $1000 to save the child is bad for the world around me. Its not that people value $1000 more then another persons life (though some do). Its the fact we respect that you are basically giving up your life to earn that $1000.

BTW David, I am pretty sure donating your time and money to a charity instead of teaching us how to bilk idiots out of their money in poker would save a lot more lives. But I hope you never stop, even if you think of yourself as hitler.

[txag007]

"To actually keep someone in Africa from dying costs maybe $20 a month. Pure guess. But almost certainly reasonably accurate. That translates to perhaps a one time donation of $1000. Certainly everyone on this forum is pretty sure it is between $300 and $3000. Let's all agree on that."

I don't intend to hijack your thread or take away from the intent of your post, but I think this is a relevant issue:

Is the problem in Africa really so simple that it can be solved by throwing money at it? How do I know that $1000 is actually going to save a life?

[hmkpoker]

I have friends for whom I'd gladly spend thousands, and for whom I'd be willing to devote many hours of my time helping.

However, I see little to be gained from spending a fraction of that much saving the lives of African children.

I don't view lives as having an absolute, measurable EV. Were that the case, if it takes $100 to save the life of a friend, and $1 to save the life of a starving African child, my friend's life will be sacrificed for one hundred African children.

I personally believe that spending money on people you'll never meet or gain some sort of attachment to is a means of alleviating guilt. It seems very detached and mechanical, and I don't see how it satisfies the deep human desire to heal and connect...and in the end, isn't that the whole point of life?

It's very hard to measure this in dollars.

[Peter666]

"When you are paid, you are being rewarded for you contribution to society. If you weren't compensated for your efforts, then there would be no incentive to be productive."

This cannot be true as many people are wealthy not thru their "productive" effort but through inheritance, theft, or just lucky circumstances. Besides that, what we call money is just a convention that has been artificially devised and manipulated for several centuries thru usury.

"People can only tend to others once there own house is in order."

Again, not true. European civilization was built around the monastery where men and women took vows of poverty and worked for others around them with no material compensation. They even had to beg for food.

"Its the fact we respect that you are basically giving up your life to earn that $1000."

People have the free choice to give their life up to whatever they wish. There is no justified respect for that time spent accumulating the $1000, as it could have been done doing different things.

"I am pretty sure donating your time and money to a charity instead of teaching us how to bilk idiots out of their money in poker would save a lot more lives."

I doubt that because applied logic or intelligence is much scarcer and more valuable a commodity than grunt work on the front lines. Many more people will be effected by thoughts which lead to action than someone merely taking action without thought.

[hmkpoker]

Well said, on many points.

On the matter of "helping only when one's own house is in order," I think this really boils down to the person. I think that gaining an emotional high from charitable works is something that most people can only do after they've taken care of some of their own personal matters. This is psychological. While some truly good-hearted people are able to take a vow of poverty and servitude, most of us have to tend to our more "selfish" needs...security, belongingness, love, ego...before we are ready to reap the rewards of charity.

Thus, for most people, I think donating to charity is kind of an empty act.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT EXTRA THOUSAND DOLLARS THAN THAT THE AFRICAN CHILD LIVES. Period. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

The African child or any African, or any other American for that matter are not my responsibility.

If that $1,000 could be used to make my childs life more secure, then that is where it should go.

If everybody took care of their own the world would be a better place.

[ QUOTE ]

This cannot be true as many people are wealthy not thru their "productive" effort but through inheritance, theft, or just lucky circumstances. Besides that, what we call money is just a convention that has been artificially devised and manipulated for several centuries thru usury.


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you can generate wealth in a multitude of ways. But generally, speaking when you are paid for a job. You are being paid for time which you spend contributing to society.

[ QUOTE ]

Again, not true. European civilization was built around the monastery where men and women took vows of poverty and worked for others around them with no material compensation. They even had to beg for food.


[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, a society couldn't afford such developments until it was rich enough to have extra food. You can't support a priest if you are a subsistence farmer. Who do you think gives the most foreign aid in the world. Who do you think has the highest charity rates. It sure as hell ain't the poor third world countries. Its obvious the more money you have the more you can afford to donate (whether to charity or through income taxes).

Regarding time. A doctor takes a long time to get his degree. He is contributing to society at a very high level. Should we not respect his choices and his dedication? Should we consider him on par with the vagrant who chooses to be a crack addict?

[ QUOTE ]

I doubt that because applied logic or intelligence is much scarcer and more valuable a commodity than grunt work on the front lines. Many more people will be effected by thoughts which lead to action than someone merely taking action without thought.


[/ QUOTE ]
Perfect. There are all kinds of values for commodities. Perhaps giving money to people who provide services for you is better then giving it to charity. Its crazy to judge everything based on how many lives in Africa we can save.

Peter, my point was that from society's point of view 2% vs %100 of your salary is very different. And that when people choose not to give %100 of their income for saving lives it is both a rational and ethical choice. Its not selfish and its not hypocritical. Maybe that didn't come through.

[Peter666]

You are right, we all have the right to private property, and it is ethical and rational to sustain it.

Because we are societal creatures, we are also obligated to help those who are weaker or less well off, as we ourselves cannot survive without the help of others. I was pointing out that some of the reasoning (if taken solely from the context of "money" which you have rightfully changed) did not justify your ulitmately correct conclusion.

It is also interesting to see that there seem to be very few people except 2+2ers who are actually discussing the topic intelligenctly and hence doing something about it. If only the rest of the world wanted to play intelligent poker....

[flair1239]

To expand further.

Sending money to starving people in foriegn countries is merely treating a symptom and not the disease. The reason the people are starving and don't have good medical care has more to do with the system of the government under which they live.

Saving one person is a useless gesture, as the system that created the starving person, will undoubtedly create more.

[Michael Emery]

Judging from your posts about this subject, David, I'm assuming that you give all of your money to african charity aids?

Mike Emery