Hacker News Reader

Comment by falsestprophet | Hacker News Reader

It is useful to put projects like this in context. People are dying for want of $1000 - $5000 worth of medical treatment in poor countries.

"Donors have given over $170,000 for water bills for over 900 families in Detroit." 170 children's lives could have been saved for the same amount.

If you asked the beneficiaries of this project whether they would prefer a life was saved over their water bill being paid, I think most would say save a life.

Though these people are desperately poor (and probably rationally hopeless), they are citizens of a wealthy and powerful nation that will not let them suffer too much like over a billion other people with real problems do.

Watsi.org is a good place to start if you are serious about helping people.

I'm astounded that the practical and serious people at YC are participating in a goofball project like this that is competing for resources with serious efforts to do good.

View on HN

Founder of Detroit Water Project here. Despite what you’ve said, this is a serious effort to do good. You mention saving a life versus contributing to a water bill. Why are those so dissimilar? Our assistance application data shows that over 350 children are in houses affected by this crisis.

Not having running water at your house is a real problem. It’s a public health and sanitation issue. People have not been able to flush their toilets, clean, cook, or exist in a state of dignity.

On top of that, without running water in a house in Detroit, a house can be ruled unfit for habitation. That can translate to children being removed from the home because they're in a dwelling unfit for habitation. Preventing families from being broken up isn't goofing around.

It’s a false dichotomy to say that you either save a life by helping a child in a poor country OR give to a water bill in the United States. You can do both in proportion to your ability.

Yes, these people are citizens of a wealthy and powerful nation, but we’ve already seen that it’s allowed them to suffer greatly. The City of Detroit itself—especially before we forced them to react—turned people off with very little regard to someone’s ability to pay.

You should volunteer to help us return phone calls to people that need help. If you do, I’m sure you’ll find that this is as serious a project as any!

Edit: On losing children, etc.

I suggest offering the option to both your donors and recipients to divert the funds to save as many lives as possible (call the Watsi crew).

"It’s a false dichotomy to say that you either save a life by helping a child in a poor country OR give to a water bill in the United States. You can do both in proportion to your ability."

For whatever proportion of someone's resources they are willing to give, they can choose to save lives for US$1-5k each.

Instead of providing one $1k life saving surgery and $1k water bill, two $1k surgeries could save two lives.

Sadly there is not a shortage of dying men, women and children who can be saved cheaply.

Perhaps one day there will be... if we stop goofing around.

I'm not against people getting medical treatments if they need them, but why call what we're doing "goofy"?

The single mother of three we helped who was contemplating forgoing her heart medication to make sure her children had water (and lost it anyway because she needed her heart medication) wouldn't call this "goofing around."

I'm genuinely interested in why you insist on framing this that way.

Edit: Nothing that we're doing suggests we value some lives over others. Watsi helps a specific demographic, we help another. Everyone wins here.

We should value all lives equally. Yours, mine, that mother, her children, and the children in far away places who will die today for want of heart surgery.

This will probably sound harsh, and I regret that, but I think it's the way things actually are, as against how we might otherwise want them to be.

When you say "We should value all lives equally," what pops into my head is the question "Of value to whom?"

In fact, if I had to choose between saving the life of a stranger, and choosing to save the life of someone I loved, I'd save the latter. This is because the person I love is a greater value to me than is the stranger.

There's a yawning gap between the language you're throwing around -- "goofy" -- and the kernel of legitimate criticism that you have on your side. I might agree that the choice to donate money to help Detroit residents pay their water bills is questionable because it reflects a conscious decision to do less good with your resources than you might have done. But I don't think you've earned the right to call the serious philanthropic efforts of others -- which do real good in the world -- "goofing around."

Instead of providing one $1k life saving surgery and $1k water bill, two $1k surgeries could save two lives. Sadly there is not a shortage of dying men, women and children who can be saved cheaply. Perhaps one day there will be... if we stop goofing around.

You're making a fallacious, reductionist argument. Looks like a misreading of Peter Singer.

I imagine you'd also criticize someone for showing a homeless family to the nearest shelter because in that time the person could have signed up for Watsi!*

* ... and this is coming from someone who donates to Watsi every month.

I'm assuming you're spending every cent of your income on charity for the neediest people on the planet seeing as you are so concerned about how other people choose to spend their money.

This is something I often ponder, and there are even more obvious targets for the sort of argument you're making. I typically think of the ASPCA -- I think the ASPCA is wonderful, and I love animals, but should anyone be donating money to ease the lives of animals when there are countless people, as you say, "dying of want"?

More realistically, though, I think we should understand that different people have different philanthropic interests. Maybe by offering a new cause we expand the total amount of money that people give, instead of taking money from the causes you deem to be more worthy? And isn't there an issue of autonomy here? I suspect we agree that nobody has to give money to anyone at all (except through taxes), so why not allow them the freedom to give in the way they find most meaningful, even if it does not have the greatest 'objective' impact?

"I think we should understand that different people have different philanthropic interests."

Yes, but they're wrong. Imagine seeing a hungry dog on the street. Going over to feed it is a virtuous thing to be sure. But, to step over and ignore someone choking to death on your way to the dog is not.

"give in the way they find most meaningful, even if it does not have the greatest 'objective' impact?"

It's easy to be fooled in our first world fantasy lives, but we are really living a world of men, women and children dying for want of sometimes as few as US$1000. Good is hardly good enough.

Something will surely fill every economic niche. If there are people who want to "donate" to the opera or dogs or cats or toys for tots, then some organization will find a way to serve that niche.

But, I think it is useful to oppose these goofball "charities" and educate people about lives they can save.

The stakes are very high. It is a matter of life and death.

You appear to have a strong opinion of which charities are more 'meaningful' for a donation. Out of curiosity, which specifically make your list?

Did you hold your most recent meal to this same standard?

This is a good point of view because it frames these donations as personal consumption, which I think is accurate and distinct from the duty we owe our fellow man.

So yes, I view donating to this or the opera similarly to eating a meal.

My point was more about the propriety of bloviating forth over what others do with their money (regardless of how you choose to classify those choices).

A meal is a handy rubric because it is quite easy to be either cost conscious or extravagant, thoughtful or oblivious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com