Brian , I’ll start by positing that without concentration of capital , modern life would be seriously hampered, if you want computers or the latest piece of hi tech medical equipment, capital needs to be allowed to concentrate, any efforts to diffuse capital to such an extent that savings are impossible because of the marginal infant per your example would lead back to a form of dark age. If the logical conclusion is not desirable surely the premise is wrong?
Otherwise you are suggesting that there is some state solution whereby everyone in the west can be taxed to the point that they can only purchase “worthy” goods and services and after that a brilliant civil service will allocate the surpluses in an efficient manner so that the maximum amount of lives can be saved with no material unintended consequences? Again it is a logical nonsense. Water the premise down again and we are back to the ad hoc wasteful approach where one arm of gov. is funding an aid budget while the commerce dept’s are rigging their markets.

Infant mortality is the result of too many babies being born into an unsustainable environment. The question should be, why do we tolerate millions of babies being born to die in squalor. Less babies means more resources for those that already exist. This notion gets practised in the first world , why is it such a difficult concept in the third world. Your answer is that the west should underwrite the existance of as many babies as the third world chooses to produce. What is asked of the third world. I would suggest the large scale distribution of contraception.
You say that my right to hold onto my wealth is trumped by an infants right to live. Well I say that I limit the number of children I have so that my scarce resources can go further. But to take your argument to its conclusion would be to say that an africans right to a 10th child trumps my right to have a second. My resources must go to that 10th child. I think that is nuts. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

Brian, its not a sacrifice. The market if left to its own devices is the main reason why innovation occurs. Imagine if everyone had listened to your viewpoint in the 15th century, we wouldnt have had any of the developments that led to the Industrial Revolution. The whole planet would have an equally dismal life expectancy. One didnt cause the other!
Naturally I’m not going to defend the status quo, policies and actions by Western governments do effect the poor around the world but the answer is to root out the elements that lead to the self interest and dispense with the “economic hitmen”

I must clarify something before I respond to specific comments. My main aim isn’t to advocate for any specific policy. It’s more to question our underlying collective values and value systems. I’d like to assume that the policies enacted by democratic governments bear some resemblance to the values of voters in those democracies. I’m trying, in this instance, to get some clarification on the prevailing values.

Margaret – No, I don’t think the right of someone very far away to have their 10th child trumps your to have your second. But honestly, I think the child born far away, through no volition of its own, has a right to life that trumps mine to a lot that I have and don’t necessarily need. I’m not saying you and I should give up all we have that’s not essential to life, but something inside of me suspects that we should be intolerant of the factors that are within our sphere of influence that make it more likely that we will have access to all sorts of treats while others lack basics.

Brian – Fair question. I like to think that I’m working at getting to a position that allows me to affect the lot of people in places like Zim for good and that at the moment, I am more able to do that from where I am. Hopefully, there is more substance that deluded self-justification in that thought.

Liam – Fair enough. I don’t think our positions are very different. We want the same things. only where you see some people as the problem, I’m sceptical of the the ability of the market to deliver just outcomes.

Michael – You’re right. My French teacher used to say I’d make a horrible lawyer since I got emotionally involved in the positions I would argue for (it was an interesting class!). Maybe my judgement here is clouded by emotion. But if your child happened to live in some horrible part of the world far away and you couldn’t repatriate her or affect governance there, wouldn’t you still try to ensure that she had adequate resources to survive? If doing that meant giving to the whole community or even country, wouldn’t the waste, corruption, or whatever other issues that would go along with that donation be worth the benefit derived from saving your child’s life? If the answer is yes, maybe this discussion boils down to the question of what we owe other people.

“According to a Department of Foreign Affairs press release, blah blah blah…”

“That’s great news…”

Ah, Lord save us, Bryan. That’s not news, good or otherwise. It’s business as usual, government whitewash. Part of the FF election manifesto for the bewilderable.

Who reads it? Never mind taking it seriously?

Your questions are relevant however, in spite of the cynical exploitation of hard issues by party hacks Most days, I would agree with your final statement. But that depends on our definitions of necessity, desirability, and superfluity. Qui bono?

To a soft-centered liberal, every life is precious. To a hard social Darwinist, or a committed, unrestrained, free-marketer, some—many–lives are indeed superfluous. Recall Swift’s Modest Proposal. But in spite of the Swifts of the world, the wheel grinds on.

In the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, a vast human population; fragmentation even down to the most local levels; the weapons of mass distraction and disinformation in the hands of big money, who can hope that an informed, mobilised populace will “rise up” and reclaim the earth?

And before someone yells that the internet is revolutionary, I point out that many posing as bloggers or posters on blogs are actually agents of governments or of right-wing “think tanks.” I long ago gave up reading the Guardian.com because its blogs were dominated by hatred and prepared scripts.

As for what doing the right thing might cost… The bill for the Iraq war will not be less than $1 trillion, and when the life-time medical and psychological consequences of that war are reckoned, the costs may be up to $3 trillion. Money tossed onto a neocon roulette table. Because it might benefit big oil and Israel, two birds with one turn of the wheel.

Perhaps there is no political answer to worldwide poverty, not in these times. China tried a one-child policy. I don’t think it worked. So individual efforts may be the only way forward for now. (Doctors Without Borders, for example.)

God protect us from religious do-gooders, but thank God for the really good people of religion. (I heard that an Irish priest may be the subject of a film—for his efforts to interest Kenyans in running, since they had to run to and from school anyway. And look where that took them!) A good story, but a drop in the bucket. Who can fill the bucket? Who can make it an election issue? None that I see in Ireland or America.

“May I suggest that most things, stood beside an infant’s life, are superfluous, regardless of their monetary value?”

Bryan, I would agree with you completely. When you save one life, you save the whole world. But… deciding what your value system is, is in some ways the easy part. The hard part is to create a plan to enforce your values in the physical world. How are you going to save that life or those lives? Liam is correct when he says that freedom is needed for innovation, and solutions don’t often come from centralization. Margaret is correct to ask why we tolerate millions of babies being born to die in squalor. To discuss your own relative wealth measured against some else’s relative squalor: If you have two shirts, give one to your brother. If you have a billion shirtless brothers, and you have three shirts, how do you clothe your billion brothers? How do you perform the 5 loaves and 2 fish miracle? The state perhaps has the right to perform humanitarian duties, but how exactly is it to do that? Africa doesn’t need charity. It doesn’t need cash handouts. Africans need to be educated, en masse.

To switch from parable to our example here, I don’t think you solve child mortality and the associated issues in the 3d world by a simple redistributing of wealth. I acknowledge that you’re not actually suggesting that. The 3d world tends to suffer from unsustainable overpopulation, particularly in Africa. If you want to solve that, you need to educate those people. A solid secular education. Especially for the women. Educated women are less likely to have large families. An educated female population would also short-circuit the cycle of macho backwardness in some of those societies, where each new generation consists of women who are practically house-ridden, and uneducated young guys waving Kalashnikovs. That would slash the birthrate and help them take advantage of the resources that Africa has, and also make them less likely to fall victim to one dictator after another. I’m speaking optimistically about the results of my idea, but I stand by it as a suggestion.

Liam – It pains me to say this, but I agree with that particular idea from Hayek. But I don’t think the ‘control of society’ is what I’m striving for. The concept of entropy suggests that nature tends towards disorder. The reason we eat is so that we have the energy to fight nature and though ultimately futile, to sustain some sort of order, pushing against nature’s tendency to decay. I don’t see how attempting to put sufficient order to our social world to maintain some basic values is any more ambitious than trying to harvest energy from windmills or building houses to protect ourselves from the elements.

But as I’ve already said, I don’t think we necessarily disagree on that point but on how far we can go in that process. Similarly, I’m sure most climate change activists aren’t opposed to industrialisation per se, but to certain degrees of industrial activity.

DesJay – I’m normally toug on the government. In this instance, I chose to interpret that piece of news as generously as possible. But you’re probably right about it being no more than business as usual.

As for more substantive matters, I’m starting to think people don’t rise up against injustice because only very few things are seen by ost as being unjust, not because of disinformation. I’m starting to fear that disinformation only really works if you want it to – if you don’t want to see what’s really there. The idea that most people aren’t bright enough to see beyond lame propaganda just isn’t convincing anymore.

Steve – …deciding what your value system is, is in some ways the easy part.
I couldn’t disagree more. Look at what people are capable of when they put their mind to it. Were there the solid conviction amongst most people anywhere that starvation anywhere is unconscionable, that it’s a greater threat than terrorism, climate change, and the implosion of the financial system, there are plenty of very smart people who could easily work something out. The issue of global poverty is still stuck at the most basic moral, ethical and philosophical levels. We all assume that we think every life is precious because that assertion seems to go without saying. But do we really? I value the life of my immediate family more than those I only know in passing. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that I couldn’t care less about the plight of some child who’s name or horrid story I’ll never have to learn? I don’t think I could sleep at night if I cared. But does my ability to not care absolve me of responsibility towards that person?

So yes, the Meyers argument has some merit. It’s not ideal to have a bunch of AK47 swinging hooligans procreating like rabbits (even if I think that characterisation is about as valid as the idea that the starvation of ‘a few drunken Paddies’ ultimately served some sort of greater good). Be that as it may, the death of an infant, a five year old, or even a teenager who can’t keep their hormones in check doesn’t become anymore tragic and indicative of a series of injustices just because they might serve some ‘greater good’ defined by people living in the most prosperous parts of the world.

Paraic – Nothing. I’m sorry, I missed the bit where I said or even implied that Ireland owes me anything.

Brian “I don’t see how attempting to put sufficient order to our social world to maintain some basic values is any more ambitious than trying to harvest energy from windmills or building houses to protect ourselves from the elements.”

I’ve seen the entropy example of comparing say a natural lake ecosystem contrasted with a fish farm to explain our high energy consumption society and the risks thereof. The risk as I see it in terms of society, is that by regementing society from the top down you undermine the information system that is required to deal with the entropy we deal with every day. If life is about meaningful action in a world of uncertainty then how can third party agencies possibly know our needs and preferences if not based on free exchange?