While researching a blog post topic for this upcoming week, I seemed to be struggling until I came upon a rather interesting and informative website. This website was dedicated to the myths about aid.
Here is the website: http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/why-give/myths-about-aid
I found this site of particular interest as it addressed eight myths regarding foreign aid, domestic aid, and the idea of aid in general. Seeing that I am enrolled in a philanthropy course, I was shocked to see that I also upheld many of these false views. I believed myself to be well-educated on the topic of giving, but this website helped prove me otherwise.
After browsing through the seemingly short article, one myth particularly stood out to me: myth three, 'the problem is so large, my giving can make no real difference.' It then provided an example, "if the average US citizen gave 10% of his or her income to the Against Malaria Foundation, then each year it could distribute 700 mosquito nets, preventing 190 cases of malaria and 2.2 deaths." This idea made me think of an idea introduced by Peter Singer, the idea of the proximity of the issue. We, as citizens feel almost obligated to help the drowning kid in a nearby lake however oftentimes ignore the starving child 12,000 miles away. But Singer says this is wrong. Both lives are equally as valuable and thus we should not use the proximity as a grounds for justifying whether or not to help the child in need. Relating this back to the myth, Americans may feel that saving two lives (if financially permitting) is an obligation that they must uphold, just like saving the drowning child, so then why don't we do it? Distance. Distance seems to create a dissociation between the philanthropic endeavor and the outcome of the donation. Because we don't see the direct impact, it may not be as rewarding to the donor. And isn't that what many of us want? A pat on the back, telling us we've done well whether it is through witnessing the direct impact of giving or whether it is societal recognition.
What I am trying to get at is that as philanthropists, we should not allow distance to hinder our desires to give abroad. In my opinion, we should give just as much as we do globally as we do within our communities, and neighborhoods. As philanthropists we should show no favoritism, and in the aforementioned case, place no superior value on a child's life because of their proximity. As Singer would say, a human life is a human life. Point. Blank. Period. Overall, this brief read really aided me in putting Peter Singer's book into perspective.
When I read the third myth, I thought of a different idea Peter Singer also pointed out: the diffusion of responsibility. People will often ignore the issues in foreign places thinking that other people will donate or the government will step in. If everyone thought that way though, then there would never be any progress in solving the world's problems. This is similar to people's views on voting. They think their one vote won't matter, yet one vote adds up. In last year's election, only 58% of eligible voters voted. Almost half of the country felt that their say did not matter when in fact it could have changed the outcome. This is the same type of mentality people have for many other things including philanthropy. Like the article said if everyone donated a little, much could be accomplished.
ReplyDeleteAs for your discussion on distance, I completely agree. What makes one life more valuable than another? Many of us in our class agreed that basic human needs are so important in terms of our values. If that is true, then theoretically we should be giving more to places like Africa that are struggling more than America. As humans though, it is hard for us to think so reasonably. Often we have some personal connection that drives us to give domestically rather than to an international cause. That is fine, but I think it is also important to donate internationally if one of your values is about meeting basic human needs.
This is a great article, not just because I love Bill Nye and John Green, but because it points out a lot of the myths about foreign aid and clearly explains why they are wrong.
ReplyDeleteI resonated the most with the Bill Nye video when he said that 83% of the deaths of children under 5 years of age were curable, communicable diseases. That's ridiculous. It relates a lot to Ryan's blog post this week where he talks about medical philanthropy. It is amazing how many lives can be saved with simple vaccines. Millions of people are blind from a disease that takes about $20 to cure. We pay more $20 on two movie tickets when we could have cured someone's blindness.
I agree with Heawon with the argument on distance. We give locally to organizations that provide after-school programs rather than to organizations that actually save lives and cure diseases. I'm not saying that after-school programs aren't important, but compared to being alive, they would be less of a priority. The problem that people face with this distance is really the disconnect. If there is a child drowning right in front of your eyes, you know it's real and it is heartbreaking to watch which leads you to take action and donate your time (and money when your clothes are ruined) to saving the drowning child. However, if a child was drowning in a different country, and all you had to do to save them was to go on the computer and pay $50 with your credit card, you are much less inclined to do so because of the disconnect and the uncertainty of success of your efforts. People don't get that same "satisfaction" of helping someone internationally because of the disconnect.
International organizations have already acknowledged this dilemma of distance, however. This is clear when we see heartbreaking UNICEF commercials about poverty in Africa. Organizations understand the disconnect which is why they make these hard to watch commercials. They bring the pain and suffering right to your couch. They want people to feel the same way they would if this kind of extreme poverty was happening right in front of them. The organizations know that in order for people to donate money internationally, they have to feel a certain level of connection with the individual whom they are helping.
I think the main problem with the distance is the disconnect, which is why people have all these myths about foreign aid. I think all the "I'm too far away" or "My money doesn't really make a difference" 's are really just saying "I'm too disconnected from the issue to have an emotional impulse needed for me to donate". How do we solve this problem? I think more of a emotional connection to the issue. How do we do that? I have no idea, but it is something that needs to be addressed more in order to save more lives.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great website. I'm glad that you brought it up. I definitely relate to you, Heawon, with falling for some of these myths. Many times while doing or thinking of philanthropic acts I wondered if I was making any difference. Often times people see how they can impacted one person but get discouraged when looking at the whole population that is in need. It is good to see we are capable of making a real difference. I agree that proximity of the issue affects the amount of giving but I have to agree more with Lauren. I think people are more likely to give when they know they will make a difference.
ReplyDeleteI also thought of Peter Singers book. He discussed how Americans thought we were giving a lot to foreign aid and then would give him a percentage that they thought we should give. Most of the percentages were higher than what we actually give. I feel if more people knew this they would realize that we can give more. I also think of his water bottle argument that he started the book with. If we stop buying water bottles and just fill one up at the sink or a fountain that would save a lot of money (not to mention the environment). That money could be donated. Not only can we make a difference it won’t cost us much grief or loss to do it.
I think that it is important for people to know that they can in fact make a difference. Lauren's comment reminded me of a story I once heard. It was a kids book about a mouse playing in the snow (bear with me I swear this has a point). The mouse commented on how one snowflake weighs almost nothing, it is little and almost insignificant. But snow has the ability to case tree branches to break from the tree and fall to the ground. At some point one single snowflake is the difference that causes the branch to fall. This also relates to my tweet this week. I tweeted a quote from Edmund Burke that said, "Nobody made a greater mistake then he who did nothing because he could only do little." Sometimes a little is all it takes. 10 percent of your income is not a crazy amount to give and is very doable. That little amount can prevent 190 cases of malaria and 2.2 deaths. More people should be educated on the difference that they can make. Like Heawon said people like to get a back on the back and know that they made a difference. If it is brought to more people’s attention that they in fact can make a difference than maybe more people will give.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who still struggles with the local vs. international philanthropy debate, I found this article extremely thought provoking. I consider myself to be a fixer. If I see a problem in my life, no matter how small, I want to address it as soon as possible. I think this is why I am drawn to local philanthropy. If I walked by the same hungry child on my way to school every day, I can definitely say that I would help this child over a child whose face I see in a TV commercial or advertisement. Like Heawon said, Americans want to see the direct impact of their philanthropy and I certainly count myself among them. I do not believe that this is a bad thing, but I do worry that my attitudes towards giving, as well as those of like-minded others, are clouding my judgment when making philanthropic choices. I fear that my choices are not effective uses of my time and money.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I struggled with the idea, “We can achieve more by donating abroad than to causes in developed countries.” While I agree with the numbers that giving to a foreign country would positively impact many more people than when giving to a developed nation, I am afraid that too strong of a focus on international philanthropy would cause an ignorance of domestic issues. In my values paper, I did not list meeting basic human needs as one of my values because even though I believe that it is an important value to hold, it does not really shape my personal philanthropy. However, after reading this article, I am encouraged to take another look at my values and see how meeting basic needs fits in.
I am not completely sure that I made any real arguments in this comment. Perhaps this is because I am still confused about my feelings towards giving. Each week, I hear new ideas about the “best” forms of philanthropy, but I have not yet identified the best way for me to give back.
Wow! This is such an interesting point, because this is one of the big questions that we've had throughout the class, and it seems like this website just gave us an answer. What I like most about this website is that it gives us numbers, statistics, and facts regarding giving domestically vs. foreign-based. And this idea of proximity is such a developed world feeling. Because the United States is such a power and has a higher quality of life than most of the world, we aren't affected by many countries around the world.
ReplyDeleteIn my contemporary capitalism class, we were discussing Fordism (the idea that manufacturers pay their workers enough to buy the product) and Apple. And one of my peers asked if Apple used Fordism since mostly everyone in the US had an iPhone, and my professor replied, "absolutely not!" It slipped everyone's mind that Apple's manufacturing factories were all outsourced and in China, and most of Apple's workers could never afford Apple products. And I think the connection I'm trying to make here is that, in the US, we often forget the problems of the third world, and even have the nerve to compare poverty here to poverty over there.
On the website, Myth #4 'charity begins at home: we should solve our own problems first' directly relates to this discussion. it shows us the cost of helping one blind person in the US and compares in to helping 2,000 blind people in the developing world for the same price. I really like this website and I think it helps bring everything back to a global perspective, because it can be very easy to be stuck in a ethnocentric mindset.
-Chelsea Desruisseaux