I have a single objection to articles like this and it comes from having lived and worked in third world countries over a number of years: despite the best intentions of people like Peter Singer, the sad reality is that many countries are un-savable (I realise that's not a real word) because of cultural and political norms in those countries.

One of the third world countries I spent about a year living and working in had a AIDS rate of about 30% in the capital city (and higher in more remote areas) because, amongst other reasons, when Carnival time kicked off, people threw caution to the wind and would have sex with the closest person at the drop of a hat (and that's not an exaggeration). The thought of using protection wouldn't have crossed the minds of most locals because that's not their culture during that time. Sex education is generally well done, but culturally Carnival takes preference and so AIDS will be prevalent in that country for a long time.

Equally, politically, the country is un-savable in the short and medium term because addressing other basic education (this country had an illiteracy rate of around 50%), basic infrastructure and services wasn't a political imperative.

The money that Singer hopes to raise for these people is based on a good intention, however the reality is that until these countries decide to save themselves, throwing money at them won't help, let along solve, anything.

Turning a blind eye to the problems of the disadvantaged - unfortunately, the author of this article, and Singer, are themselves blind to the fundamental problem; and, without addressing that, the distress which disturbs us all will escalate further.

Until birth rates equal death rates there is no prospect of eventual success in elevating the relevant communities out of their sad state.
Minimising the current excess of early death has to be matched by minimization of excess births to the same degree. That is a huge task, but possible.

The new US president was quick to initiate appropriate action in funding for that task. In contrast, the new Australian Government delayed, for more than a year, even contemplation of funding. It then took a firm decision against funding. How cruel are some politicians!

“…influential Australian philosopher Peter Singer…”?

Just who does Singer influence? Although some of us on OLO often agree with him, he usually gets a fair going over by most.

As one who sometimes agrees with him, I totally disagree that we “affluent people” have an obligation to help the poor in other countries. Other countries should be helping their own poor, and if they cannot, they have to go under in accordance with survival of the fittest. There are too many people in the world, and it’s the poor who are breeding them – hence their poverty.

This author says that Singer “…offers a number of arguments to convince his readers why they ought to help poverty-stricken strangers…”, but gives only one about saving a drowning child (so why not give money to unknown millions).

Pretty silly argument really: of course anybody would do their best for somebody in immediate danger, but that simply does not translate to handing out money to people one does not know and does not see. One might help out a neighbour or friend, or even a perfect stranger; but not a horde of people who are being constantly shoved down our throats by activists with nothing better to do. Particularly those who try to decide for us what is ‘moral’ and what is not!

Singer certainly super-imposes his own values on his “evaluation” of other peoples’ objections to pouring good money after bad into poor countries, so that more poor people stay alive long enough to breed more poor people. The only people he can ‘influence’, apart from this author, are those posers and do-gooders who like to feel superior and higher principled than the hoi polloi and who hand out a few dollars to help continue the suffering and over-population of the world.

Today I am going to lose one of my teeth, at 3pm AEDT, in Sydney. I am off to have it removed, as it has deteriorated badly due to having to rely on public dental services. Public dental services refuse to give me root canal, and if I want root canal another dentist who looked said it requires a specialist practitioner plus bridge afterward, to cost between 3-4K. I refused extraction for a year, but am advised to either get specialist root canal or have it out, either being done on an urgent basis. Some churches and charities rejected my pleas for aid!! Another tooth is seriously at risk, and set to likely have a similar fate. In rich country, this should not happen. My father, MD/CEO at Active Lifting and well cocooned in Adelaide's privileged society, also baulked at paying, preferring a new seven series to my wellbeing.

Mr Singer, would you pay for my root canal please?

After this, I would need to have other treatments just to bring my mouth health, and presentation, up to whats in line with other females, of my age, and of my original social class.

I know words are cheaper, but its money that actually makes things happen.

Regarding the post where we should look at matching the birth and death rates in majority countries prior to sending money to them, I am a little confused. By funding sexual health and sex education, (which we have funding for in minority countries such as Australia) people become educated on sexual health and decrease their population. Education decreases population and education requires funding. By funding majority world countries to increase sexual education we will hopefully move closer to balancing the birth and death rate.

As a global citizen, I believe we all benefit by increasing the health and wellbeing of as many people as we can. I do believe that if, say we all had a choice on where we would live and what lifestyle we would have, BUT when choising a minority world country the only obligation we would have would be to give our excess (so the money we spend on items we don't really need) to poorer countries, most of us would openly choose to live in minority countries and give our excess without a second thought

“Regarding the post where we should look at matching the birth and death rates in majority countries prior to sending money to them, I am a little confused.”

Till - not just a little, but very confused indeed - I hope your addition of “prior” was not calculatingly deliberate.

Without receiving help in overcoming their excess fertility, there is no prospect of success in elevating the circumstances of those societies.

A number of organizations, that of Bill Ryerson prominent among them, have been working to do just that – against the tide of political intransigence in the the Vatican, the USA until this year, and past-and-continuing in Australia.

leigh, your arrogance and lack of humanity are breath taking.
30,000 CHILDREN die every day from poverty. Concentrate on the word CHILDREN. It's not just a number or a statistic; they are living breathing CHILDREN.
Explain to me how you earned the right to be in Australia. Explain to me, how you earned the right not to be one of those children.Explain to me, why you believe if you were one of those kids you would say: "oh well, I certainly wouldn't want to be a burden on more affluent people; I'll just die quietly, so as to avoid the danger of breeding more poor people".
The essence of Humanity is the ability to place yourself in someone else's shoes. The ability to empathise and sympathise.
You fail miserably.
And you are followed by someone who is worried about losing a tooth.
Most of those charitable institutions ask around $30. a month to save lives.
Do you really want those institutions to allow 100~130 kids to die, and spend that money on your bloody tooth?

Given the space available this isn't a bad article.
BN makes some useful points however the one flaw in their argument is that Singer is talking primarily about people as in individuals *not* about countries/political entities. Just because it's difficult or impossible to achieve the ultimate it doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Colinsett
There is a proven relationship between wealth/education and the need/drive to produce children e.g. when a tribesman was told that statistically only one of his five children will survive to adulthood and beyond he declare he must have more children then. His reasoning was spreading his care in his old age.

Grim
Some people invariably look for simple answers for complex questions using ideology to cover either their lack of life knowledge or self indulgent. Besides which it’s easier...comfortable to do otherwise would require effort and commitment.

Simple reason really,
Whitey is terrified of Blackie, Whitey takes from Blackie, Blackie won't go away! Don't look, turn your back, pretend they are not there and remember it's your's you took it and you're keeping it.
No need to look outside australia to find what Singer is talking about. Govt policy is a white anglo saxon christian Invader policy, and until there are major changes in our racist supremist attitude towards our own

I don't have much time for Singer, because I absolutely detest his subjective morality on issues like the value of an infant's life. Singer makes a mockery of the value of human life, and he effectively puts animals on an even pedestal with humans with his views on this subject. That's something I fundamentally reject.

However, on this subject I love his work. He makes a lot of good points, and I agree that wealthy nations and individuals simply don't do enough in the poverty issue. His comment about "We'd all help save a drowning child...." is particularly cutting. I was thinking the other day- imagine every Australian, European and North American citizen had one sponsor child each. That's wishful thinking obviously, but disregard that for a moment and consider that it's at least possible in the sense that on average, citizens of these countries COULD afford $10 a week that would cost, quite easily. And how many children would then have the chance for a basic education, food, and clean drinking water that they otherwise wouldn't have had? Several hundred million, up to a billion? It boggles the mind.

We could all easily make a difference, yet most don't. And education like this will raise awareness. That seems to be the fundamental point.

And for that, I commend Singer.

Trav,

I agree with the overall notion of richer nations giving support to those with less.

However, in practice, there are a plenty of caveats/problems.

For it to work, the richer nations have to be less dominant (in many dimensions) so as to give the less powerful countries breathing space (economic, etc) to expand into. For all sorts of reasons, the rich countries are not going to do this, and on balance they are right to do so.

When the average person on the street gives his money to charity, as soon as it's out of his sight, he has no control over it. It really boils down to pot luck as to what happens to it. If the NGOs don't take too large a slice of it for administration, or some warlord in the recipient country doesn't get his hands on the aid etc, then remotely giving aid works. But there are a lot of 'ifs' and a lot of palms to grease in many countries. Only a proportion of the aid gets to its intended target.

A truth in this debate is that aid is exactly that and no more. Fundamentally, the ones who can help disadvantaged countries the most are the people of those countries themselves. Once outside forces start imposing their will, for example, they distort the country and just make things worse for the people there. So, there is always an issue of timing and of being in sync with the natural forces in a country. Another constraint.

"We could all easily make a difference, yet most don't."

The problem with easily making a difference is that it's not making much difference at all. Putting it another way, it's only when people put some real effort in that differences start to be made. Let's face it, most of what people in the Western world do to help overseas nations is in the form of moral support. This is only picking the low-hanging fruit.

You lot seem to miss the point!
The rich live off the backs of the poor, and until that changes you can waffle on about any comment on this subject but I'm dammed sure you won't agree with a notion of equality that suits those we live off

RobP, I can understand why rich nations don't do more, as you correctly explain the reasons for this. But all I'm interested in doing is exacting change from the grassroots- amongst my friends and family and people I associate with.

I think your overall ideas are far too cynical and some of your premises for your overall idea break down at key points, such as the following:

"When the average person on the street gives his money to charity, as soon as it's out of his sight, he has no control over it. It really boils down to pot luck as to what happens to it."

Absolute rubbish. This is simply incorrect. Do research on charities- it will challenge your view on this- they are audited extensively by major audit firms to determine what percentage of their funds go to their projects. For example, the charity I support got a high rating on their audit, as 86% of the funds go to do the actual work, and just 14% is spent on administration.

"The problem with easily making a difference is that it's not making much difference at all. Putting it another way, it's only when people put some real effort in that differences start to be made .Let's face it, most of what people in the Western world do to help overseas nations is in the form of moral support. This is only picking the low-hanging fruit."

This shows complete ignorance for the example I gave which preceded the statement of mine that you quoted.

Do you really think that contributing $40 a week is not even making a real difference? Our currency goes a long way in poor nations, so by contributing a relatively small amount you CAN make a big difference. Suggesting anything else amounts to no more than a monumental cop out

neilium,

I don't miss your point at all. But have a look at what you're saying. It's complete idealism. OK, I accept that one day it will happen. But, the realist in me says how are you going to get from where we are now to a fairer and more balanced world with a minimum of bumps/disruption.

If you go too fast, the whole global system will turn into a mess and countries will be rewarded without working for it. That's as bad an outcome as any.

Anyway, think of the rich as being custodians of the assets on the planet (even if they don't see it that way). It will just be a matter of time before some of the poor start to improve their lot in life. Ask yourself how much chance the poor would have WITHOUT the rich being there at all acting as a role model. If it wasn't for the rich they would FOREVER be in poverty.

To Grim, who was commenting on my fears of losing the tooth. Throwing money overseas, they will not learn anything nor get their houses in order. Corruption. Civil disorder. They are also prodigious breeders and could learn a few things about contraception too. Perhaps also if they promoted condom use, the AIDS death toll could be reduced too, and therefor less orphans. However, as long as we have policies that say government funds not to be used for overseas family planning or condom/contraception distribution, I wonder really if people really care.

As for my tooth, you should not be wedging me against the poor in Africa. Maybe we shouldn't have given the pope's business $100M, maybe we should not give taxpayers funds to foreign automakers branches, property speculators, private schools, stockmarket speculators, tax/council rate/FBT exemptions to churches and church schools.

Would one of those big beneficiaries of government largesse which reckons its so deserving, step forward and help me out? A Church, church school, property speculator or foreign automaker? Huh, that'd be the day. Tell you what, I'd love it and have lots of gratitude to offer, but don't hold your breath people!

Trav,

“This is simply incorrect. Do research on charities- it will challenge your view on this- they are audited extensively by major audit firms to determine what percentage of their funds go to their projects. For example, the charity I support got a high rating on their audit, as 86% of the funds go to do the actual work, and just 14% is spent on administration.”

Sorry, but reading NGOs’ glossy brochures is too simplistic – I suggest you do some living in the real world. Even assuming the 14% figure is correct, how do you know that there aren’t lots of extra payoffs (out of the remaining 86%) all the way down the food chain? An NGO has no interest in chronicling the payolas even if it knew what they all were. As far as its people in the field are concerned, the inducements/bribes – both overt and hidden – they have to pay in foreign countries are just the cost of working there. Are you assuming that there’s no such thing as corruption in developing countries? I’m sure the total loss of the original donations, once they percolate through the system, is far more than 14%.

“Do you really think that contributing $40 a week is not even making a real difference? Our currency goes a long way in poor nations, so by contributing a relatively small amount you CAN make a big difference. Suggesting anything else amounts to no more than a monumental cop out.”

The sort of aid you’re advocating is small beer when looked at in the big picture. The things that developing countries need for their economic health are massive assistance by way of trade deals etc, which lead to real industries and economic opportunities. That can’t be done with $40 handouts as good and necessary as they are for the recipients. All such aid does is keep individuals alive and buy them time as well as provide them with the basics (an important short-term objective), but not help them to move forward or upward. In that sense, it hardly achieves a thing.

Neilium, I'm with you, bloke.
I'm currently the proud owner of a 'Virgin' credit card. It's currently being phased out to Westpac, but I'm assured the deal will remain the same.
For me, it is an absolutely free service. There are no fees whatsoever.
No monthly fee, no yearly fee, nothing. So long as you can pay off the full amount every month, it is an absolutely free service.
Does anyone truly believe virgin (or westpac) do this as a charitable gesture?
Have a quick guess, who subsidises the free service I enjoy.
The poorest nations on the planet, who need every penny they make just to feed their own people, actually have to pay rich countries, for loans taken out years ago -often by corrupt regimes. Regimes the lenders KNEW were corrupt.
Examinator, I apologise for being simple. The fact that the world produces more than enough calories to feed every single person on the planet, yet about half the total population suffers from malnutrition is clearly an equation far too complex for the likes of me.
Please, enlighten us on the complexities of Man's inhumanity to Man.

Bottled water has a market to those similar to the organic food market. who is to say these consumers have money to burn. What a brash comment. The other thing is we live in australia and pay our tax here, why not encourage the local development of anti poverty? I worked in somalia as an aid worker and the somali gov took most of it. Why would I encourage anyone to give to an overseas cause if it isnt going to do any good?? My advise spend locally.