This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
A big problem with USAID is it funds population groups that are not capable of sustaining advanced civilization on their own while having high reproductive rates. If you fund sub-Saharan Africa with USAID you get more Sub-Saharan Africans. Which means in 30x you need to send even more money to prevent deaths. They are humans that can sustain on their own hunger and gatherer communities at low population density.
By actually funding USAID you increase population density and in the future more Africans die because you saved lives today. No matter what you do people die.
This seems a slightly uncharitable phrasing.
For what it's worth, I think most of the populations which are growing very fast are depending on agriculture.
Also, the objection that giving food to the poor will cause them to multiply so you will need to give them more food in the future lest they starve is not exactly new. Any EA intervention will think about unintentional side effects, and I expect that USAID is little difference.
Fortunately, there are a lot more interventions than just changing how much grain we ship to Africa.
More options
Context Copy link
Is this true? Typically lower mortality and higher quality of life are associated with lower birth rates. There are also various programs to lower birth rates more directly, like providing access to contraception and educating women, which could plausibly outweigh any increase in births due to saving lives.
A quick search finds a study saying "USAID was one of the largest providers of family planning services worldwide with almost $600 million for contraceptive services in poor countries." and a New York Times article claiming that $8.1 million in contraception was ruined after being stranded in Belgium due to the cuts. I do not know how much of these programs ultimately ended up being cut vs. being moved around.
This Givewell analysis estimates that each year of contraception prevents 0.3 unwanted pregnancies, of which 45% result in birth. This comment from someone at MSI Reproductive Choices says their average global cost per year of protection is $4.88, though increased marginal access could in some cases be $20 or more. So preventing a birth apparently costs around $36 for a private charity. Obviously USAID contraception could be less efficient than EA-adjacent charities, or more efficient due to increased economies of scale, but just multiplying it out implies USAID directly prevented the birth of around 16 million third-worlders per year, and that the one stranded Belgium shipment meant for Africa resulted in an additional 200,000 africans being born (or more because $8.1 million was the cost of the physical contraception, while $4.88 includes last-mile delivery). Realistically some of those averted pregnancies will probably be delayed rather than prevented entirely, since people might get access to contraception and use it based on how many children they already have, but it gives a rough idea. The Lancet study claims cuts would result in additional 14 million deaths but that's over 5 years, over the same period USAID contraception programs are (by these rough estimates) preventing 80 million from being born. Of course the Lancet's death estimates are based on assuming cuts to programs like PEPFAR that were actually moved to a different department, and I can't easily find whether the same happened with the contraception programs, so I don't know how it actually balances out.
I think this demonstrates the nature of low-hanging fruit/"neglectedness" in international aid and the importance of even very rough numbers over going by vibes. Because places like Africa are very poor, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit. Because more people are interested in saving lives than preventing births, there is even more low-hanging fruit in the latter. It's $3,000 to $8,000 to buy enough anti-malarial bednets to save a single african life, but only ~$36 to improve the average well-being of humanity by preventing someone from being born in Africa to begin with. Even though contraception was only 1.3% of USAID's $47 billion pre-cut budget, it seemingly had more of an impact on third-world population numbers than the rest combined. Spending fairly trivial amounts of money on increased contraception funding for the third-world could have a much bigger impact, save money long-term, and be much less controversial than the USAID cuts. Of course left-wingers are not immune to this sort of innumeracy either - consider how estimates of net lifetime costs to the taxpayer for Somalian migrants is over a million dollars per migrant, because doing things in the first world is expensive. Instead of improving the life of a single poor african by importing him to the first world you could save the lives of hundreds of africans by spending the money on insecticidal nets. And then because birth-control is even more neglected, for the cost of saving a single life from malaria you could potentially prevent over a hundred from being born.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link