Tradeoffs
Economists love to think about tradeoffs (or opportunity costs, as they call them). Any money we spend can't be spent on something else, so if I use $2.50 to buy a strawberry milkshake it means I'm not using that $2.50 to get the chocolate one or the mint chocolate chip one.
That's pretty easy to think about. But it also means I'm not getting a bus fare, a light bulb, or anything else with that $2.50. And if I buy that strawberry milkshake, according to standard economics it means there's nothing else in the world I would rather buy with that money.
I don't think we're usually that rational.
For one thing, it's unpleasant to think about negatives. We like to think about what our money does get us, rather than the infinite variety of things it doesn't get. Also, there are so many alternatives that we can't really consider them all every time we spend money.
I once saw a flippant proposal that we draw people's attention to this in a gruesome way by labeling all prices in Dead Child Currency. If it costs $800 to save a child's life, each $800 spent on anything else . . . you get the idea.
I used to make myself think that way. Before I parted with any money, I'd ask myself what it could do for a woman in Africa. (It doesn't have to be her, but that's who I always imagined.) Did I value my new jeans more than her month's groceries? More than her children's vaccinations or school fees? Could I make that tradeoff?
Sometimes I made it and felt awful afterwards. After spending $2 on a caramel apple in the fall of 2008, I had one such episode of weepy regret that was the last straw for Jeff. He decided that part of his income would go to a spending allowance for us both which could not be given to charity. For several years now this is where our mandolin strings, birthday presents, clothes, vacations, and milkshakes have come from. It's also the source of non-optimal donations we make to public radio, etc. It's not a large budget by American standards, but it's made for a lot less angst.
I recently met a young man who was seriously thinking these things over. “But isn't it right to think about the tradeoffs?” he asked. I think it's good to go through a period of thinking that way. Just like when you live in another country for a while you start being able to understand prices without converting back to your own currency, when you start thinking about all your spending in Vaccination Currency or Mosquito Net Currency it becomes habitual. Your spending habits can't help but be affected.
I also think there's only so much grief we can carry. I cannot go the next 70 years counting dead children on every receipt. I would break.
So my advice is to spend a while really noticing that tradeoff. Notice whether you really do value the milkshake more than a child's vaccination. And then, after a time, make yourself a budget that reflects those values. Set aside money for unnecessary things that make you happy. Do what you think will nurture you to age 100 as a generous and strategic giver. Because that, in the end, is what will help the most people.
Interested?
To find out more or show your support, please sign up for our monthly updates:
Subscribe by RSS
Comments
I'm really glad you wrote this because I've been thinking this way recently and it's driving my family (and me) up a wall. It's easy to go from conscious to paranoid, as the facts are, well, facts, but I guess it ties into that whole keep-everyone-thinking-that-you-are-rational-so-they-will-support-your-efforts-instead-of-running-from-them idea.
"If it costs $800 to save a child's life, each $800 spent on anything else . . . you get the idea."
You are not responsible for the children of strangers.
Their parents are.
Fostering a culture that pretends otherwise just encourages negligence, including the decision to have children when you can't really afford them.
And when you "save a life", that doesn't mean they will then live forever.
It doesn't even mean their average experiences are pleasant, or even voluntary.
'You are not responsible for the children of strangers. Their parents are.' - This makes the assumption that the death of the child is due to negligence of parents, whereas the fact of the matter is that they will die because they starve or catch an easily treatable but ultimately deadly disease, despite the best efforts of the parents to look after them.
'Fostering a culture that pretends otherwise just encourages negligence, including the decision to have children when you can't really afford them.' - For many people this is simply not a choice. For one, they may not have access to contraception, their culture may have taboos against contraception, eduction is poor, or they simply need children to support the family. The evidence suggests that increasing affluence results in declining birth rates. That is to say, charity of this type will help to avoid the problem of people having too many children; not promote it.
'And when you "save a life", that doesn't mean they will then live forever.' - No, it doesn't, but for children in Africa, childhood is the time when they are most likely to die. Allowing that child to grow up into in an adult allows them to be a productive member of that society, and to perhaps live a reasonably happy life, not to mention avoid the agony for the relatives of the child.
'It doesn't even mean their average experiences are pleasant, or even voluntary.' - I think it would be completely wrong to say that the average life of someone living in Africa, even in poverty, is worse than agonising death as a child. Perhaps we should begin euthanising all those who will have a poor life, hmm?
Daniel:
With the single exception of forcible rape, reproduction is *always* a choice.
And even in this case it it the choice of the rapist and those who enable him.
"That is to say, charity of this type will help to avoid the problem of people having too many children; not promote it."
The problem is not people having too many children.
The problem is people having children they can't afford to keep safe from involuntary suffering until a minimum ability for autonomy is developed.
"I think it would be completely wrong to say that the average life of someone living in Africa, even in poverty, is worse than agonising death as a child."
This is the wrong dichotomy.
The right dichotomy is agonising death as a child vs. not being born.
"Perhaps we should begin euthanising all those who will have a poor life, hmm?"
Affordable painless euthanasia options should be available (i.e. not banned) for any individual who wants them.
Not only for the poor.
Of course, small children can't make this decision yet.
For this reason, there should be higher standards against their suffering.
GWWCers are probably too polite to do this, but I'd suggest ignoring the sociopathic troll. You are never going to convince them, and replying to every comment will drain your enthusiasm and time.
The Silent Minority:
You're wrong on two counts: I'm neither sociopathic nor a troll.
As a sociopath, I would care zero about the suffering and rights of these children.
As a troll, I wouldn't try to respond precisely to counter-arguments.
You are upset because my views run counter to your currently held ideology.
There is a sense of political correctness in the view that reproduction should be laissez-faire, there should be no conditions, and individuals are not responsible for the harm their reproductive choices cause to others, especially their own children.
I find this view absurd.
The second absurd view here is that, as a consequence of assigning proper responsibility for the wellbeing of children where it belongs, it now becomes the responsibility of strangers who are akin to school shooters if they dare buy milk shakes instead of sending all their money to other continents.
This, too, I find absurd.
Don't get me wrong; it's a free world, people are born into unequal circumstances, and you can send as much money as you want to poor people, which is certainly noble.
But this is not your obligation, and it does not subtract from their own responsibility for the harm they cause to children.
Margin,
I'd suggest you read up on the demographic transition. As development increases (which includes things like lower child mortality, women's education, better agricultural methods, etc.), birthrate goes down.
Stepping in to provide, say, life-saving mosquito nets for families who can't afford them probably does not create some kind of Malthusian horror. It probably results in a lower birthrate because people have more trust that their existing children will survive. Lower birthrate, lower death rate? Sounds like a win to me.
Julia:
I am aware of the demographic transition concept and why naive Malthusian concepts (in the near term) do not apply to humans.
However, I am not at all against a high birthrate!
For people who can afford their children, there should be no restrictions on how many they have.
If a person wants five children instead of a big appartment, a swimming pool and a big car, that is completely fine and unobjectionable.
I do not want other people to meddle with that, to fight "overpopulation".
My points specifically:
(Small) children do not consent to anything and their safety and (relatively certain) freedom from (severe) suffering should be guaranteed by their parents.
If a potential parent can't guarantee this (e.g. because they are poor or live in a civil war zone), they have the responsibility to omit reproduction.
Older children and adults should have the liberty to decide for themselves; if they want to live in a slum rather than never live, or if they want to work in sweat shops etc., paternalists should not step in.
I also think everybody should have euthanasia rights and coercive governments make everything worse for everyone, even if they use the language of "helping people".
And you own your own money and can give it away, or keep it, as you see fit.
Am I understanding right that you feel saving the lives of young children rewards the irresponsible behavior of their parents?
Julia:
The core failure is that the responsibility is not acknowledged and attributed to the parents in the first place.
I have witnessed interviews with poor people barely able to feed their children, and never once has the question come up:
"In a situation where you couldn't guarantee even such basic things as food, why did you have more children?"
Reproduction is treated as laissez-faire, as if there were no connection between a poor individual's decision to reproduce and the child suffering it causes.
I observe a trend to discuss child suffering from poverty as if it were the fault of wealthy strangers, rather than the people who choose to have children while they are desperately poor.
This is a misattribution of responsibility.
Reproduction is a choice, and its consequences on the suffering of children need to be attributed to that choice culturally and legally, as in any other choice.
Unfortunately, the discussion also pattern-matches with forced sterilization crimes and environmentalist Malthusian alarmism.
So when I point out that reproduction - and its consequences for children - are the individual parents' responsibility, people make these extra assumptions.
If I can't afford dog food, I wouldn't buy or breed a dog, and if I do so anyway, and the dog suffers, I should be held responsible to that.
In Peter Singer's analogy, I see a world where parents push their own children into shallow ponds, and everybody pretends that this is a basic right, or some kind of natural accident, rather than a choice.
You can give your money away, but as long as this responsibility is not attributed correctly, my only altruistic action will be to point this out.
Margin:
What would a solution look like? How would you like to see parents held responsible?
Margin,
Your point is certainly a fair one (and not one heard quite often, so thanks for bringing it up).
I am curious- in your framework, could you possibly see giving a donation to a GWWC recommended charity as providing a woman in X country with an increased opportunity to bear a healthy child and help it grow, which is (arguably) one the most rewarding aspects of the human experience? This seems like an opportunity that most individuals in wealthier nations seem to take for granted.
Julia:
The two classic ways to assign responsibilty to individuals are law enforcement and social customs that communicate expectations.
In a world with perfect law enforcement, there could be a minimum standard for wealth and safety that individuals need to provide in order to have the right to bring children into their situation.
This could be as simple as a minimum net worth, below which reproduction is a crime, maybe equivalent to drug possession.
Of course, poor countries may have a high level of corruption and dysfunctional bureocracies, so it may be hard to implement in a helpful way.
Changing social expectation may be easier and necessary for any change in customs: The causal connection between reproductive choices and the suffering they cause to children should be communicated and the nonconsensual nature of coming into existence should be made clear, even though this is now politically incorrect.
Nick Ryder:
I agree - you can give many opportunities to people simply by giving them money.
But money never comes for free, and I specifically object to the alleged equivalence of omitting donations to making children suffer and die: The omission of monetary generosity is not logically equivalent to aggression.
And parents in wealthier nations shouldn't take it for granted that strangers in that nation will pay for their children either.
It's not completely inefficient to have more citizens, but if people like Octomom inherit the future, responsibility for those costs will have to be handed back to them, without making children suffer.
Margin,
Thanks for pointing that out- I think I understand your model a bit better now. I especially agree that " the omission of monetary generosity is not logically equivalent to aggression".
I'm also curious to hear more about your last point- what would you propose as something that you yourself can do right now to pursue the end goal of "making the world a better place" (which in itself is not given, but let's assume it for the sake of argument). Would you donate to family planning organizations in developing countries? Would you start such an organization yourself if none exists?
Margin,
Thanks for pointing that out- I think I understand your model a bit better now. I especially agree that " the omission of monetary generosity is not logically equivalent to aggression".
I'm also curious to hear more about your last point- what would you propose as something that you yourself can do right now to pursue the end goal of "making the world a better place" (which in itself is not given, but let's assume it for the sake of argument). Would you donate to family planning organizations in developing countries? Would you start such an organization yourself if none exists?
Nick:
I'm not a utilitarian and I don't act strategically to optimize the world (or my own life, really).
If I did, I would first define what an optimal state of the world would look like and if most other people can sufficiently be trusted to support this or not.
If a critical mass does, I would invest in movement building, value coordination and goal-bound long-term capital investments to optimize the future according to these values.
It is unlikely that providing birth control is an optimal strategy to utilitarians; givewell.org correctly points out that it needs to be accepted instead of just provided.
If it's really just about a bit of missing logistics, to physically get affordable birth control to people, governments and charity billionaires could easily accomplish this.
Maybe you could start a charitiy to change minds about parental responsibility, but I don't like organized propaganda and I'm not sure it would be accepted.
One hope is that technology gets cheaper over time: If mobile internet could become as cheap as bednets, maybe the poor could actually participate in the discussions?
In the meanwhile, providing bednets is clearly better than nothing; I'm not contesting that.
Children bear no responsibility for their parents' poor prior decisions. So there is no basis for favouring the children of parents who made good decisions over the parents of those who made poor decisions. And the question of our responsibility for deprived children seems to me to be entirely independent of any debate over the right to reproduction.
"And the question of our responsibility for deprived children seems to me to be entirely independent of any debate over the right to reproduction."
I respectfully disagree.
The right to reproduce implies the responsibility for the consequences of reproductive choices.
To assert that complete strangers share this responsibility independent of any debate over this right is logically absurd.
"The right to reproduce implies the responsibility for the consequences of reproductive choices."
What does this have to do with the rights of children who are well and truly below reproductive age? It may have something to do with how those rights are to be ensured and whose responsibility that is - e.g. means testing of child benefit payments - but surely it has nothing to do with the rights _per se_.
Danny Yee:
"It may have something to do with how those rights are to be ensured and whose responsibility that is"
Yes, that is the whole point.
Parent who have children whose early childhood needs they cannot afford to guarantee without external transfers need to be punished for the decision to create those children.
Any external transfer from others should be accompanied by insistence on such punishment.
Of course, you can just give your money to strangers as you see fit, without conditions - but this is mere generosity, not an obligation.
Punishment as a sop to our atavistic instincts seems a bit backward in this day and age. And as a deterrent for changing behaviour it seems likely to be relatively ineffective. The drive to have children is pretty fundamental (for many people) and - looking at China as a case study - would be relatively inelastic in the face of quite serious coercion. Also, attempting to deny people that right seems to be putting fairly minor practical concerns before a fairly fundamental end.
In any event, children have rights independently of their parents, so punishing families hurts innocent bystanders. I think we'd have to have to be looking at a large and non-controversial benefit to justify this. (Or perhaps we could deter bankers and politicians from misbehaving by confiscating the property of all their immediate family members in the event of malfeasance?)
Thanks for your blog post. I've been struggling with the same problem.
Add new comment