December 22, 2004
FORWARD TO BASICS:
Let's first tackle hunger and disease (Bjorn Lomborg, 23dec04, The Australian)
At the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus project, 30 specialist economists joined forces with eight of the world's top economists -- including three Nobel laureates -- to make such a global priority list.The project's results were highly encouraging: we can do enormous good for the money we spend. The expert panel of economists found that HIV-AIDS, hunger, free trade and malaria should be the world's top priorities. More than 28 million cases of HIV-AIDS could be prevented by 2010. The cost would be $US27billion ($35 billion), with benefits almost 40 times as high.
Providing micronutrients missing from more than half the world's diet would dramatically reduce diseases caused by iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A deficiencies. This would have an exceptionally high ratio of benefits to cost. The expense of establishing free trade would be dwarfed by benefits of up to $US2400 billion a year. Mosquito nets and effective medication could halve the incidence of malaria and would cost $US13 billion, with benefits at least five times the outlay. [...]
Climate change is not the most urgent problem facing the world's poor majority. Their problems are truly basic. They are dying from easily preventable diseases. Their children are malnourished from a lack of basic micronutrients. They are prevented from exploiting opportunities in the global economy by lack of free trade. We have the solutions. We can prevent HIV-AIDS by handing out condoms and improving health education. We can prevent millions of malnutrition deaths by providing vitamin supplements. These are not space-age technologies but basic provisions.
The message from the Copenhagen Consensus is that it is possible to solve some of the most serious challenges the world faces -- and that it not only is morally imperative but also would be a very good investment. We need to start doing the best things first.
He's wrong about the condoms, of course, but the rest makes sense. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 22, 2004 1:54 PM
Whatever defects condoms may have, they are better than nothing and it is far more realistic to pass out condoms than to think that Third Worlders can refrain from copulating.
In the wager between biology and morality, always double down on biology.
Posted by: Bart at December 22, 2004 3:04 PMBy definition they are less effective than nothing.
Posted by: oj at December 22, 2004 3:09 PMThat's absurd. Just ask the Thais.
Posted by: Bart at December 22, 2004 4:48 PMThey cut their HIV infection rate. "Nothing" would have eliminated it.
Posted by: oj at December 22, 2004 5:19 PMThat's nonsense. How would 'nothing' have eliminated an STD rate that was off the moon when nothing was the common method of contraception and prevention of STDs?
Posted by: Bart at December 23, 2004 6:41 AMAh, yes, the Thais. Mom always told me I should look to the Thais for sexual guidance and inspiration.
I wonder how long it is going to take, and how many deaths, before the progressive world looks in the mirror and admits at last that sex causes AIDS.
Posted by: Peter B at December 23, 2004 6:52 AMOJ,
It is of course self-evident that abstinence is 100% effective in stopping the transmission of STDs. However, it is entirely unreasonable to expect the mass of men and women to refrain from engaging in sex. It is contrary to human nature for them to, and human nature is essentially immutable.
Which is the wiser policy decision, the one which is based on changing human nature or the one which accepts man as he is?
PeterB,
Sex causes AIDS. Sex also causes children. Are you prepared to live in a world without both?
The Thais have been staggeringly successful over the last several decades in eradicating most STDs and in expanding their economy while expanding their population in a sensible manner. Their behavior and attitude in sexual matters is worthy of emulation not ridicule.
Posted by: Bart at December 23, 2004 9:48 AMBart:
The one that punishes bad behavior rather than encouraging it.
Posted by: oj at December 23, 2004 10:03 AMThe one that acknowledges that 'bad behavior' will be with us no matter what we do and is intended to mitigate its harm.
Posted by: Bart at December 23, 2004 10:25 AMBart:
Yes "meant" to. Instead it generally exacerbates it.
Posted by: oj at December 23, 2004 12:20 PMBart:
Hmmm, you trash the entire developing world in almost scatological terms and then suddenly commend Thailand as a model for us all. Is it the female sexual subservience, the child prostitution or the sex resorts that boost tourism that you admire most?
Posted by: Peter B at December 23, 2004 12:33 PMPeter,
You overstate my position dramatically. I do not see the developing world as a monolith.
Thailand has a booming economy, a national program that has virtually eliminated STDs which were a massive problem in the 60s and 70s. They have done both without destroying their underlying Buddhist culture, essentially remaining true to themselves in the process.
There are many nations like this which I respect, places like the Czech Republic, Taiwan and Chile. My personal favorite is Singapore, which is by any standard rather puritanical.
Posted by: Bart at December 23, 2004 4:02 PMBart:
One AIDS free man + one AIDS free woman = one Aids free family.
One Aids suffering man + one Aids free woman (or the reverse) = big trouble.
Sorry, but sometimes the rational, secular scientist in me just screams out to be heard.
Posted by: Peter B at December 23, 2004 7:19 PMPeter:
When is it OK for perfect to be the enemy of good?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 25, 2004 9:25 PMThe bad is always the enemy of the good.
Posted by: oj at December 25, 2004 9:29 PM