Check out these images of a weeks worth of groceries for families in various countries. Fascinating. I assume that when the image shows a family of four, the groceries are for four people. And when the image shows a family of eight, the groceries are for eight people. Not sure if that's the case or not, but interesting to see anyway. Pay attention to the food available for the African countries. Easy to guess who is living below the global poverty line.
-Selfish Blogger
Showing posts with label developing world. Show all posts
Showing posts with label developing world. Show all posts
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
The true cost of travel
I am in the midst of a career change, and that means I've sought the advice of many people in the last year. My most trusted mentor recommended I spend some time abroad volunteering for aid organizations. Clearly this is where my passion lies. By spending time on the ground, I could learn about how aid works in poor countries, and what type of aid is truly effective. I could advocate from a place of experience, even expertise. It sounds like an important and worthwhile use of my time.
And then I think about the cost.
Plane tickets, appropriate clothing, medicines and inoculations, ground transport, food, housing - thousands of dollars for my travel and basic needs. Then there are my lost wages. A meaningful trip would last at least 30 days, probably longer. Thousands of dollars.
And then I think about the true cost. The opportunity cost.
The opportunity cost of my travel - the thousands spent and the thousands given up in lost wages - the opportunity cost is lives saved. I know enough to know that poor countries do not need free, unskilled labor. I would be there for my own knowledge, nothing more. There is little work I could do on the ground to save and improve lives. What they need is money. And rather than spend my money to gain first-hand knowledge of the problem, I could spend my money to solve the problem. I could trust the published research of experts in the field and direct my resources to those groups doing the best possible work.
Leila de Bruyne, founder of Flying Kites, blogged about "Voluntourism" in the Huffington Post. She reflects on her summer as a volunteer in a Kenyan orphanage:
"I spent a lot of time that year wondering if I had unintentionally exploited the children I'd traveled so far to meet. Did I help the little ones learn the days of the week and the older kids practice their written composition? Yes. Had my trip contributed in any significant way to a more just, safe life for them? No. I was a 19-year-old, providing unskilled labor, to deeply traumatized children, for a very short of amount of time. The price of my plane ticket would have been better spent on the salary of Kenyan teacher, a source of continuity for children who deserve it the most."
I recommend reading her blog in it's entirety. Flying Kites offers a different kind of volunteer experience for people interested in helping orphaned children in Kenya - and it involves a lot of fundraising.
-Selfish Blogger
And then I think about the cost.
Plane tickets, appropriate clothing, medicines and inoculations, ground transport, food, housing - thousands of dollars for my travel and basic needs. Then there are my lost wages. A meaningful trip would last at least 30 days, probably longer. Thousands of dollars.
And then I think about the true cost. The opportunity cost.
The opportunity cost of my travel - the thousands spent and the thousands given up in lost wages - the opportunity cost is lives saved. I know enough to know that poor countries do not need free, unskilled labor. I would be there for my own knowledge, nothing more. There is little work I could do on the ground to save and improve lives. What they need is money. And rather than spend my money to gain first-hand knowledge of the problem, I could spend my money to solve the problem. I could trust the published research of experts in the field and direct my resources to those groups doing the best possible work.
Leila de Bruyne, founder of Flying Kites, blogged about "Voluntourism" in the Huffington Post. She reflects on her summer as a volunteer in a Kenyan orphanage:
"I spent a lot of time that year wondering if I had unintentionally exploited the children I'd traveled so far to meet. Did I help the little ones learn the days of the week and the older kids practice their written composition? Yes. Had my trip contributed in any significant way to a more just, safe life for them? No. I was a 19-year-old, providing unskilled labor, to deeply traumatized children, for a very short of amount of time. The price of my plane ticket would have been better spent on the salary of Kenyan teacher, a source of continuity for children who deserve it the most."
I recommend reading her blog in it's entirety. Flying Kites offers a different kind of volunteer experience for people interested in helping orphaned children in Kenya - and it involves a lot of fundraising.
-Selfish Blogger
Friday, January 4, 2013
Accident of birth
We have no control over where we are born, but it makes all the difference to our chances in life. Explore what it means to be born poor in the USA, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia in Welcome to the World by Why Poverty?. This one hour video, and others by Why Poverty? are available free on their website and on PBS.
-Selfish Blogger
-Selfish Blogger
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Why you should talk about giving
I just listened to a BBC radio interview with Toby Ord, philosopher and founder of Giving What We Can - a charity that encourages people to give away 10% of their income or more. Toby has pledged to give away a little over 50% of his.
Toby, and others from Giving What We Can, talked about the moral argument for donating much of their income. He earns close to £40,000 per annum but lives on only £18,000, including saving for retirement and his mortgage.
Most of those who called in to BBC radio during the interview were quite hostile. Callers said Giving What We Can does nothing but make people feel guilty, and that giving should only be done privately. Some accused Toby and his colleagues of coming on the radio to brag, and insisted they were lying about what they give or how much money they actually have. No one can live on £18,000 a year, one caller insisted.
I'd like to reframe this conversation.
First, the issue of guilt. Your money belongs to you. You can choose to spend your money in whatever way you see fit. Everyday, you are influenced about how to spend your money: from advertisers (buy this new flavor of coffee), from associating with peers (ooo, I like Carrie's new sweater...), and from cultural expectations (it's important to own a three bedroom house in a safe neighborhood). You can spend money according to those influences. You can also spend your money to improve the lives of others. Giving What We Can, like this blog, is hoping to influence you to do just that. Giving What We Can is just one more suggestion in a sea of suggestions about what to do with your money.
So why the hostility? Toby isn't just suggesting a way for you to spend your money. He's asking you to help solve a problem. He is asking you to save lives. If you ignore a commercial advertiser's spending suggestions, you forgo a new item. If you ignore Toby's, someone dies. Someone your money could have saved.
If that makes you feel guilty, congratulations! You have a conscience. You are not a sociopath. And if you want that guilty feeling to go away: donate a little bit of money to a highly effective charity. You'll even feel good about yourself. But don't shoot the messenger. Extreme poverty exists, whether you choose to admit it or not, and you can alleviate suffering by giving to charity, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Next, the issue of bragging. Why go on the radio to publicly state you are giving money away, if not to impress others and toot your own horn? Why, to influence peers and change cultural expectations around giving, of course! Most people do what their friends and family do, and they adopt the traditions of their community. It's why most of us wear clothes similar to our friends. It's why most engagement rings are (still) diamond. It's why most Americans (still) delight over the corpse of a bird on Thanksgiving. We are a social species. We follow the rules of our tribe. And if everyone in your peer group was talking about extreme poverty and giving money to Deworm the World, wouldn't you look into doing the same? If every leader in your community was publicly supporting Mama Hope, do you think others would follow?
There is a growing movement of compassionate people who believe giving money is only the first step to a solution: we have to encourage others to give too. And the best way to do that is to engage in conversation. Simply share information about your own giving, and how you came to the decision to support the charities you support.
I hope to join Giving What We Can by pledging 10% of my income to highly effective charities. Until then, I'm happy to be part of The Life You Can Save where I have publicly pledged 1% of my income. Take a look at all the others who have pledged. I'm in good company.
-Selfish Blogger
Toby, and others from Giving What We Can, talked about the moral argument for donating much of their income. He earns close to £40,000 per annum but lives on only £18,000, including saving for retirement and his mortgage.
Most of those who called in to BBC radio during the interview were quite hostile. Callers said Giving What We Can does nothing but make people feel guilty, and that giving should only be done privately. Some accused Toby and his colleagues of coming on the radio to brag, and insisted they were lying about what they give or how much money they actually have. No one can live on £18,000 a year, one caller insisted.
I'd like to reframe this conversation.
First, the issue of guilt. Your money belongs to you. You can choose to spend your money in whatever way you see fit. Everyday, you are influenced about how to spend your money: from advertisers (buy this new flavor of coffee), from associating with peers (ooo, I like Carrie's new sweater...), and from cultural expectations (it's important to own a three bedroom house in a safe neighborhood). You can spend money according to those influences. You can also spend your money to improve the lives of others. Giving What We Can, like this blog, is hoping to influence you to do just that. Giving What We Can is just one more suggestion in a sea of suggestions about what to do with your money.
So why the hostility? Toby isn't just suggesting a way for you to spend your money. He's asking you to help solve a problem. He is asking you to save lives. If you ignore a commercial advertiser's spending suggestions, you forgo a new item. If you ignore Toby's, someone dies. Someone your money could have saved.
If that makes you feel guilty, congratulations! You have a conscience. You are not a sociopath. And if you want that guilty feeling to go away: donate a little bit of money to a highly effective charity. You'll even feel good about yourself. But don't shoot the messenger. Extreme poverty exists, whether you choose to admit it or not, and you can alleviate suffering by giving to charity, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Next, the issue of bragging. Why go on the radio to publicly state you are giving money away, if not to impress others and toot your own horn? Why, to influence peers and change cultural expectations around giving, of course! Most people do what their friends and family do, and they adopt the traditions of their community. It's why most of us wear clothes similar to our friends. It's why most engagement rings are (still) diamond. It's why most Americans (still) delight over the corpse of a bird on Thanksgiving. We are a social species. We follow the rules of our tribe. And if everyone in your peer group was talking about extreme poverty and giving money to Deworm the World, wouldn't you look into doing the same? If every leader in your community was publicly supporting Mama Hope, do you think others would follow?
There is a growing movement of compassionate people who believe giving money is only the first step to a solution: we have to encourage others to give too. And the best way to do that is to engage in conversation. Simply share information about your own giving, and how you came to the decision to support the charities you support.
I hope to join Giving What We Can by pledging 10% of my income to highly effective charities. Until then, I'm happy to be part of The Life You Can Save where I have publicly pledged 1% of my income. Take a look at all the others who have pledged. I'm in good company.
-Selfish Blogger
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
SNAP Challenge
Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, N.J., has taken on the SNAP Challenge. SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), commonly known as food stamps, now reaches over 40 million Americans - about 15% of the country.
Dan Goldberg of the Star-Ledger reports: The average monthly food stamp benefit was $133.26 per person in New Jersey in fiscal year 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's a little over $33 per week, or $4 per day.
Mayor Booker will be feeding himself for the next week on only $4 per day, and he'll be tweeting about his experience the whole time. Follow his story at #SNAPChallenge or #CoryBooker.
I believe these types of headline-grabbing-challenges are hugely important. Not only do they raise awareness around issues of hunger and poverty, but for the individuals participating, they instill a deep sense of compassion and empathy.
We are fortunate to live in a country with a safety-net that, at the very least, prevents starvation. Thanks to programs like SNAP, poor Americans deal with a very different kind of hunger than the poor in the developing world, where death from starvation or malnutrition are very real threats.
Mayor Booker will be living below a comparatively comfortable poverty line. Even more difficult is to live below the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (and yes, that $1.25 per day = the purchasing power of $1.25 in the US).
If you'd like to take on the SNAP Challenge yourself, there's a handy-dandy toolkit to get you up and running. You can also find a lengthy history of food stamps in the USA here.
If you'd like to take on a tougher challenge - 5 days on $1.25 per day - head over to Live Below the Line to pre-register for the 2013 challenge.
-Selfish Blogger
Dan Goldberg of the Star-Ledger reports: The average monthly food stamp benefit was $133.26 per person in New Jersey in fiscal year 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's a little over $33 per week, or $4 per day.
Mayor Booker will be feeding himself for the next week on only $4 per day, and he'll be tweeting about his experience the whole time. Follow his story at #SNAPChallenge or #CoryBooker.
I believe these types of headline-grabbing-challenges are hugely important. Not only do they raise awareness around issues of hunger and poverty, but for the individuals participating, they instill a deep sense of compassion and empathy.
We are fortunate to live in a country with a safety-net that, at the very least, prevents starvation. Thanks to programs like SNAP, poor Americans deal with a very different kind of hunger than the poor in the developing world, where death from starvation or malnutrition are very real threats.
Mayor Booker will be living below a comparatively comfortable poverty line. Even more difficult is to live below the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (and yes, that $1.25 per day = the purchasing power of $1.25 in the US).
If you'd like to take on the SNAP Challenge yourself, there's a handy-dandy toolkit to get you up and running. You can also find a lengthy history of food stamps in the USA here.
If you'd like to take on a tougher challenge - 5 days on $1.25 per day - head over to Live Below the Line to pre-register for the 2013 challenge.
-Selfish Blogger
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Your chance at fame has arrived
A photo of a New York police officer giving boots to a homeless man has gone viral. The New York Times reports that while on duty, Officer Lawrence Deprimo spotted a man in the cold without shoes. Deprimo talked with the man, found out his shoe size, and left to purchase a $100 pair of boots in a nearby store. He returned and helped the man put on his new boots. Now that's a good police officer! A tourist snapped the now famous photo of the scene. It reminded her of her father, a police officer who she witnessed giving food to a homeless man when she was a child.
This touching story immediately reminded me of someone too: my compassionate friend Leanne. She keeps her car stocked with bottled water and granola bars, so any time she drives past someone on the side of the road holding a sign that says "hungry" she is in a position to help. Any day now, someone will snap a picture of Leanne's good deeds and she will be just as famous as Officer Deprimo!
I think the kind-hearted acts of police officers like Lawrence Deprimo and that tourist's dad and people like Leanne are so moving to me because they seem rare. I hope that acts like these become so common that their note-worthiness falls somewhere between folding laundry and serving cake at a birthday party.
But until that time comes, YOU have an unprecedented opportunity to achieve viral internet fame!! Your next act of compassion could be the next Gangnam Style. Or "Call Me Maybe" might be a better analogy. Anyway, what I'm saying is, compassion is hot right now, so take advantage of the moment and up your charity game. Keep an eye out for lost animals, be alert to signs of domestic violence and human trafficking, and pay attention the next time you see someone living on the street who needs help. Follow through on every do-gooder moment that presents itself, even if the only help you can give is very small. Officer Deprimo is famous for buying a pair of boots. Whatever, you can top that no sweat. Better get to it. Can't let this chance at fame pass me by.
-Selfish Blogger
This touching story immediately reminded me of someone too: my compassionate friend Leanne. She keeps her car stocked with bottled water and granola bars, so any time she drives past someone on the side of the road holding a sign that says "hungry" she is in a position to help. Any day now, someone will snap a picture of Leanne's good deeds and she will be just as famous as Officer Deprimo!
I think the kind-hearted acts of police officers like Lawrence Deprimo and that tourist's dad and people like Leanne are so moving to me because they seem rare. I hope that acts like these become so common that their note-worthiness falls somewhere between folding laundry and serving cake at a birthday party.
But until that time comes, YOU have an unprecedented opportunity to achieve viral internet fame!! Your next act of compassion could be the next Gangnam Style. Or "Call Me Maybe" might be a better analogy. Anyway, what I'm saying is, compassion is hot right now, so take advantage of the moment and up your charity game. Keep an eye out for lost animals, be alert to signs of domestic violence and human trafficking, and pay attention the next time you see someone living on the street who needs help. Follow through on every do-gooder moment that presents itself, even if the only help you can give is very small. Officer Deprimo is famous for buying a pair of boots. Whatever, you can top that no sweat. Better get to it. Can't let this chance at fame pass me by.
-Selfish Blogger
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
New Charity Endorsed by Givewell
Givewell, a charity evaluation and ranking organization, has recommended a new charity: GiveDirectly.
GiveDirectly transfers money directly from you, the donor, to poor people in Kenya to spend as they choose.
I'm excited to see Givewell add a third charity to their recommended list - one of my big objections to Givewell is that they are too small to evaluate a suitable number of charities. I find it fascinating that they have endorsed a very young charity. GiveDirectly is less than two years old. After listening to one of their conference calls, I've learned that Givewell believes direct cash transfer requires a lower burden of proof for effectiveness than other interventions (like vaccines, or clean water programs).
Still, endorsing a charity with less than two years of data feels like a big departure from Givewell's work in the past. Essentially, the leadership at Givewell believes in the theory of change behind GiveDirectly and is impressed by the GiveDirectly leadership. This is the same way that most donors and foundations decide on their giving. On a certain level, I don't object to Givewell doing the same. But Givewell has purposely set themselves apart from the wider philanthropic world by claiming a superior evaluation model and process that almost assures their recommended charities do more good with your money than other charities.
It will be interested to follow the response to Givewell's endorsement of GiveDirectly, and I am eager to learn more about the impact of direct money transfers.
-Selfish Blogger
GiveDirectly transfers money directly from you, the donor, to poor people in Kenya to spend as they choose.
I'm excited to see Givewell add a third charity to their recommended list - one of my big objections to Givewell is that they are too small to evaluate a suitable number of charities. I find it fascinating that they have endorsed a very young charity. GiveDirectly is less than two years old. After listening to one of their conference calls, I've learned that Givewell believes direct cash transfer requires a lower burden of proof for effectiveness than other interventions (like vaccines, or clean water programs).
Still, endorsing a charity with less than two years of data feels like a big departure from Givewell's work in the past. Essentially, the leadership at Givewell believes in the theory of change behind GiveDirectly and is impressed by the GiveDirectly leadership. This is the same way that most donors and foundations decide on their giving. On a certain level, I don't object to Givewell doing the same. But Givewell has purposely set themselves apart from the wider philanthropic world by claiming a superior evaluation model and process that almost assures their recommended charities do more good with your money than other charities.
It will be interested to follow the response to Givewell's endorsement of GiveDirectly, and I am eager to learn more about the impact of direct money transfers.
-Selfish Blogger
Monday, April 11, 2011
Fighting My Selfish Drive
Last week I had two bummer moments: my TV died and someone hit my car.
I don't watch much TV and what little I do watch, I can get online. When I lived without a TV in the past, my house was cleaner, I got more sleep, and I read more books. If I'm honest with myself, I don't really want to replace my TV. But when I think about how other people will react, I change my mind. Professional 20-somethings are supposed to have a nice size flat screen in their home.
The damage to my car is minimal and entirely cosmetic. But no doubt it will eat up my $500 deductible to repair. It bugs me a little - seeing this "black eye" every time I get in the car. But it bugs me more to think about what other people think. Do other drivers look at me and wonder why I haven't gotten this fixed? Do they wonder if I'm poor? Do they think I'm a bad driver?
I have money in my checking account to replace my TV and fix my car. I could take care of both of these problems with no strain on my budget. But if I have that much money just sitting around - not in a retirement account, not set aside for emergencies - why on earth haven't I given it to people who really need it?
If I feel so much shame over a broken TV and a dinged up car, but I can only imagine the emotions felt by a women living with a fistula. A fistula is a hole between the vagina and the bladder, often caused by early childbearing or violent rape, and 2,000,000 women in the developing world have them. A fistula means a lifetime of urine constantly dribbling from the vagina, where you can never get clean, where you always smell foul. A woman with an untreated fistula will never be married or will be left by her husband: she will have no financial stability. Each of these 2,000,000 women in the developing world live a life of incredible suffering and shame due to untreated fistulas, forced into lifelong poverty because they were forced into sex or forced into pregnancy before their bodies had fully developed. The reason we don't hear about fistulas in developed countries is that they are easily treatable through surgery.
The surgery costs $450.
I am sick to my stomach that I know about this problem, I know how to help, and I'm still thinking about fixing a cosmetic problem on a car. Is there one good reason, one sound argument, why I should choose to repair a car instead of repairing a human life? And if there is, does it make it right? Does it make it moral? Does it help me be the person I think I should be?
I'm disgusted at my own selfishness - that I've been thinking about this choice for a week, and haven't acted in the way that I know to be right. I can't help but think that this would be easier if I lived in a culture that valued action over appearance, that valued lives over things.
I think I just need some encouragement. Tell me to give!!!
If you want to learn more, NOVA did an incredible documentary called "A Walk to Beautiful" on this issue.
If you want to help, consider giving to The Fistula Foundation, a highly ranked, transparent, and effective nonprofit funding doctors and hospitals that repair fistulas. That's where I know I need to give, if I can just find the moral courage to do it.
-Selfish Blogger
I don't watch much TV and what little I do watch, I can get online. When I lived without a TV in the past, my house was cleaner, I got more sleep, and I read more books. If I'm honest with myself, I don't really want to replace my TV. But when I think about how other people will react, I change my mind. Professional 20-somethings are supposed to have a nice size flat screen in their home.
The damage to my car is minimal and entirely cosmetic. But no doubt it will eat up my $500 deductible to repair. It bugs me a little - seeing this "black eye" every time I get in the car. But it bugs me more to think about what other people think. Do other drivers look at me and wonder why I haven't gotten this fixed? Do they wonder if I'm poor? Do they think I'm a bad driver?
I have money in my checking account to replace my TV and fix my car. I could take care of both of these problems with no strain on my budget. But if I have that much money just sitting around - not in a retirement account, not set aside for emergencies - why on earth haven't I given it to people who really need it?
If I feel so much shame over a broken TV and a dinged up car, but I can only imagine the emotions felt by a women living with a fistula. A fistula is a hole between the vagina and the bladder, often caused by early childbearing or violent rape, and 2,000,000 women in the developing world have them. A fistula means a lifetime of urine constantly dribbling from the vagina, where you can never get clean, where you always smell foul. A woman with an untreated fistula will never be married or will be left by her husband: she will have no financial stability. Each of these 2,000,000 women in the developing world live a life of incredible suffering and shame due to untreated fistulas, forced into lifelong poverty because they were forced into sex or forced into pregnancy before their bodies had fully developed. The reason we don't hear about fistulas in developed countries is that they are easily treatable through surgery.
The surgery costs $450.
I am sick to my stomach that I know about this problem, I know how to help, and I'm still thinking about fixing a cosmetic problem on a car. Is there one good reason, one sound argument, why I should choose to repair a car instead of repairing a human life? And if there is, does it make it right? Does it make it moral? Does it help me be the person I think I should be?
I'm disgusted at my own selfishness - that I've been thinking about this choice for a week, and haven't acted in the way that I know to be right. I can't help but think that this would be easier if I lived in a culture that valued action over appearance, that valued lives over things.
I think I just need some encouragement. Tell me to give!!!
If you want to learn more, NOVA did an incredible documentary called "A Walk to Beautiful" on this issue.
If you want to help, consider giving to The Fistula Foundation, a highly ranked, transparent, and effective nonprofit funding doctors and hospitals that repair fistulas. That's where I know I need to give, if I can just find the moral courage to do it.
-Selfish Blogger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)