8 ms·

I really felt some strong emotions while reading through this. It's amazing. The news spot just has to the the cherry on top. So happy for this kid that he ha

I really felt some strong emotions while reading through this. It's amazing. The news spot just has to the the cherry on top. So happy for this kid that he had an awesome day. It does restore some faith in humanity to see things like this. ...however... I hate myself for being the contrarian in this case but as a South African and having worked with one or two NGOs that work with sick people in general, including kids with AIDS I can't help but wonder how far the budget and effort put into this could have been stretched. Granted, there are plenty aid organizations and shit tons of money (much of it dollars) that are pushed into Africa but if you've seen what's happening here first hand it's very hard not to think about what could be done with every single cent and every ounce of human energy. I remember coming home one day after seeing some particularly gut wrenching stuff and not even being able to look at myself. The food in my plate. The clothes on my back. My kids. A room full of useless fucking toys... It's the wrong lens through which to view these things. I know that in my head but my heart is breaking all over again as I types this on several fucking thousand rands worth of smartphone.

derefr 13y ago
Here's a lens that might be helpful to view this through: seeing these kinds of personal, touching results encourages philanthropy--we're "spending money to make money," so to speak. We just need to channel that generated emotion and desire-to-help through the cold, calculating hands of organizations like GiveWell. :)
- hershel 13y ago
  Another interpretation could be: "we did out part, we helped batkid. No need to donate/volunteer/etc" There's a similar thing called in internet activism , where people who upvote/like and comment don't go and be really politically active, in a politically meaningful way.
  - derefr 13y ago
    I wonder whether seeing a story where something good happened that you didn't have a (rationalizable) part in, still triggers the effect. If it did, you'd think aid organizations would A/B-test call-ins to their telethons and realize that they should stop showing the happy kids that've already been helped.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wyclif 13y ago
I got a bit of a dust mote in my eye while reading this and had to step outside of the workroom for a short break.
tn13 13y ago
Whenever I meet someone who asks for donations in the name of sick kids I politely refuse. I am always skeptical as to where that money actually goes. But when I read this report I am willing to donate more money to this organization. The story is not just heartwarming it has served number of purposes. I got to know more about the disease, the organizations involved and most importantly it has motivated me to give money from my pocket to beat the real nemesis of that young batkid.
- dbaupp 13y ago
  > But when I read this report I am willing to donate more money to this organization. At the risk of being overly cynical, and putting words into mark_integerdsv's mouth, I believe that's almost exactly what he's arguing against. Make-a-wish spends $7.5k on each wish on average[1]. Whereas something like Schistosomiasis Control Initiative per-child cost is $5[2]. That is, the money spent "granting wishes" could perform much more good elsewhere, and so by donating to Make-a-Wish one is buying "fuzzies"[3], not being optimally philanthropic. [1]: http://wish.org/content/faq#How-much-does-granting-a-wish-cost http://wish.org/content/faq#How-much-does-granting-a-wish-co... [2]: http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistosomiasis-control-initiative http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistos... , the $5 figure comes from http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities [3]: Word adopted from http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_separately/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa... , meaning "warm fuzzy feelings of 'doing good'"
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    GiveWell estimate the cost per life saved for the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative to be around $1700-$3800, while the $7,500 that Make-a-wish spends per child, while a wonderful gesture, does not actually save their life.
  - corysama 13y ago
    True, it's not optimal. But, it's important to keep in mind that this is not a zero-sum game. The $7500 is not being diverted or even distracted from more efficient uses. It's money that in all likelihood would have never been donated to other uses. We need a lot more of both ends of this spectrum. More warm fuzzies to get people's attention -at all. And, more awareness of the wildly different efficiencies of different philanthropic strategies. Achieving both attention and efficiency is really hard. If you figure out how to do that, let me know. In the mean time, we should be happy for whatever wins we can get.
cwilson 13y ago
The money that went into this endeavor was nothing compared to the compassion and outreach completely fed by the people of this city. All of the media and news you see is a result of grass roots movements, social media, and general kindness. Not some corporate sponsor. My point is, this is hands down an act of kindness by an entire city. There isn't an evil plot behind it. This makes me very happy, and it should make you happy too.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - garg 13y ago
    Are you depressed and feeling cynical? Why judge the sincerity of the people involved? Events like these increase the intangible wealth of a society. Maybe events like these help decrease the fakeness from a society by giving them something positive to focus on instead of the drudgery that is their lives. This has even brought attention to the disease the child is suffering from probably prompting some to donate.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- timr 13y ago
  Intentions of kindness, sure. Grass roots movements, perhaps. But also more than a little wasteful. All of these things can be true at the same time. I'm happy for the kid, but I wish a fraction of the human effort directed into this one sweeping act of altruism could be put to more productive ends.
- Void_ 13y ago
  A lot of people makes a lot of money on this heart warming story. Just saying.
rwallace 13y ago
Judging an act by its consequences seems like a frightfully hard-nosed, rational thing to do; the problem with trying to put it into practice is that we tend to end up judging only by the superficially obvious consequences and ignoring the more important long-term effects. It's easy to compare the nominal cost of this event with the idea that it only helped one person, but the latter isn't actually true; it obviously brightened the lives of thousands of people, and not just with shallow entertainment but with the opportunity to lift their gazes from the mud and look at the sky, to reflect for a moment on their place in the world. I have no idea how to calculate the benefit from that, but it wouldn't surprise me if it greatly outweighed the cost. As you say, truckloads of aid money has been pouring into Africa for decades, and not only has it not produced the promised results, it has been argued by people familiar with what actually happens there that it does more harm than good: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-african-economics-expert-for-god-s-sake-please-stop-the-aid-a-363663.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-intervie... By contrast, smartphones are connecting Africa to modern civilization, and that's something that might actually make a positive difference. There is after all no intrinsic reason Africans can't provide food and water and medicine for themselves just as people do in Europe and America and large parts of what used to be the Third World. What's missing is knowhow and organization. A truckload of money dumped into projects that feel good to rich Westerners won't provide those things. Putting the knowledge of humanity at the fingertips of individual Africans just might. And yet those phones weren't paid for by charity, because the people running charities are mortal and fallible; they just can't see that far ahead. The phones were paid for primarily by rich Westerners buying them as toys. The world is more complex than any of us can know. Enjoy your toys with a clear conscience.
- mark_integerdsv 13y ago
  While I totally agree with most of the sentiments you have expressed I do need to point out one issue I have with your comment: >There is after all no intrinsic reason Africans can't provide food and water and medicine for themselves just as people do in Europe and America and large parts of what used to be the Third World. What's missing is knowhow and organization. This comment is totally ignorant of the scale of the problems faced in the third world. Ridding ourselves of corruption and getting together a solid plan still leaves us with massive problems to fix. Truly, MASSIVE problems. It is the scale that requires capital and make no mistake that the first world has no small amount of complicity in the current state of the rest of our world. I agree with you that money isn't going to solve it all. Throwing money at it is largely a case of too little too late.
protomyth 13y ago
Don't let yourself go down that road of thinking. If you judge every happiness done for others based on how many other people it could have helped, you will eventually suck all the joy out of every endeavor of yourself and others. Weighing souls will weigh down yours. On a purely money note, Make-a-wish got a lot of publicity and goodwill which will help in other fund raising efforts so they can help even more people. It was an extremely good (and common) trade for a NGO. For example, the cost of holding an art show generally pays dividends in getting money to teach more artists. The "show" pays for a lot of "nuts & bolts".

derefr 13y ago

Here's a lens that might be helpful to view this through: seeing these kinds of personal, touching results encourages philanthropy--we're "spending money to make money," so to speak. We just need to channel that generated emotion and desire-to-help through the cold, calculating hands of organizations like GiveWell. :)

hershel 13y ago
Another interpretation could be: "we did out part, we helped batkid. No need to donate/volunteer/etc" There's a similar thing called in internet activism , where people who upvote/like and comment don't go and be really politically active, in a politically meaningful way.
- derefr 13y ago
  I wonder whether seeing a story where something good happened that you didn't have a (rationalizable) part in, still triggers the effect. If it did, you'd think aid organizations would A/B-test call-ins to their telethons and realize that they should stop showing the happy kids that've already been helped.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

wyclif 13y ago

I got a bit of a dust mote in my eye while reading this and had to step outside of the workroom for a short break.

tn13 13y ago

Whenever I meet someone who asks for donations in the name of sick kids I politely refuse. I am always skeptical as to where that money actually goes. But when I read this report I am willing to donate more money to this organization. The story is not just heartwarming it has served number of purposes. I got to know more about the disease, the organizations involved and most importantly it has motivated me to give money from my pocket to beat the real nemesis of that young batkid.

dbaupp 13y ago
> But when I read this report I am willing to donate more money to this organization. At the risk of being overly cynical, and putting words into mark_integerdsv's mouth, I believe that's almost exactly what he's arguing against. Make-a-wish spends $7.5k on each wish on average[1]. Whereas something like Schistosomiasis Control Initiative per-child cost is $5[2]. That is, the money spent "granting wishes" could perform much more good elsewhere, and so by donating to Make-a-Wish one is buying "fuzzies"[3], not being optimally philanthropic. [1]: http://wish.org/content/faq#How-much-does-granting-a-wish-cost http://wish.org/content/faq#How-much-does-granting-a-wish-co... [2]: http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistosomiasis-control-initiative http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistos... , the $5 figure comes from http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities [3]: Word adopted from http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_separately/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa... , meaning "warm fuzzy feelings of 'doing good'"
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  GiveWell estimate the cost per life saved for the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative to be around $1700-$3800, while the $7,500 that Make-a-wish spends per child, while a wonderful gesture, does not actually save their life.
- corysama 13y ago
  True, it's not optimal. But, it's important to keep in mind that this is not a zero-sum game. The $7500 is not being diverted or even distracted from more efficient uses. It's money that in all likelihood would have never been donated to other uses. We need a lot more of both ends of this spectrum. More warm fuzzies to get people's attention -at all. And, more awareness of the wildly different efficiencies of different philanthropic strategies. Achieving both attention and efficiency is really hard. If you figure out how to do that, let me know. In the mean time, we should be happy for whatever wins we can get.

cwilson 13y ago

The money that went into this endeavor was nothing compared to the compassion and outreach completely fed by the people of this city. All of the media and news you see is a result of grass roots movements, social media, and general kindness. Not some corporate sponsor. My point is, this is hands down an act of kindness by an entire city. There isn't an evil plot behind it. This makes me very happy, and it should make you happy too.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- garg 13y ago
  Are you depressed and feeling cynical? Why judge the sincerity of the people involved? Events like these increase the intangible wealth of a society. Maybe events like these help decrease the fakeness from a society by giving them something positive to focus on instead of the drudgery that is their lives. This has even brought attention to the disease the child is suffering from probably prompting some to donate.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
timr 13y ago
Intentions of kindness, sure. Grass roots movements, perhaps. But also more than a little wasteful. All of these things can be true at the same time. I'm happy for the kid, but I wish a fraction of the human effort directed into this one sweeping act of altruism could be put to more productive ends.
Void_ 13y ago
A lot of people makes a lot of money on this heart warming story. Just saying.

rwallace 13y ago

Judging an act by its consequences seems like a frightfully hard-nosed, rational thing to do; the problem with trying to put it into practice is that we tend to end up judging only by the superficially obvious consequences and ignoring the more important long-term effects. It's easy to compare the nominal cost of this event with the idea that it only helped one person, but the latter isn't actually true; it obviously brightened the lives of thousands of people, and not just with shallow entertainment but with the opportunity to lift their gazes from the mud and look at the sky, to reflect for a moment on their place in the world. I have no idea how to calculate the benefit from that, but it wouldn't surprise me if it greatly outweighed the cost. As you say, truckloads of aid money has been pouring into Africa for decades, and not only has it not produced the promised results, it has been argued by people familiar with what actually happens there that it does more harm than good: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-african-economics-expert-for-god-s-sake-please-stop-the-aid-a-363663.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-intervie... By contrast, smartphones are connecting Africa to modern civilization, and that's something that might actually make a positive difference. There is after all no intrinsic reason Africans can't provide food and water and medicine for themselves just as people do in Europe and America and large parts of what used to be the Third World. What's missing is knowhow and organization. A truckload of money dumped into projects that feel good to rich Westerners won't provide those things. Putting the knowledge of humanity at the fingertips of individual Africans just might. And yet those phones weren't paid for by charity, because the people running charities are mortal and fallible; they just can't see that far ahead. The phones were paid for primarily by rich Westerners buying them as toys. The world is more complex than any of us can know. Enjoy your toys with a clear conscience.

mark_integerdsv 13y ago
While I totally agree with most of the sentiments you have expressed I do need to point out one issue I have with your comment: >There is after all no intrinsic reason Africans can't provide food and water and medicine for themselves just as people do in Europe and America and large parts of what used to be the Third World. What's missing is knowhow and organization. This comment is totally ignorant of the scale of the problems faced in the third world. Ridding ourselves of corruption and getting together a solid plan still leaves us with massive problems to fix. Truly, MASSIVE problems. It is the scale that requires capital and make no mistake that the first world has no small amount of complicity in the current state of the rest of our world. I agree with you that money isn't going to solve it all. Throwing money at it is largely a case of too little too late.

protomyth 13y ago

Don't let yourself go down that road of thinking. If you judge every happiness done for others based on how many other people it could have helped, you will eventually suck all the joy out of every endeavor of yourself and others. Weighing souls will weigh down yours. On a purely money note, Make-a-wish got a lot of publicity and goodwill which will help in other fund raising efforts so they can help even more people. It was an extremely good (and common) trade for a NGO. For example, the cost of holding an art show generally pays dividends in getting money to teach more artists. The "show" pays for a lot of "nuts & bolts".