Hacker News Reader

Comment by falsestprophet | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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."

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com