Being enablers of dysfunctional behavior is an acceptable solution?
In the long run, the enablers and the dysfunctional are equally guilty for destroying the overall society.
At some point, you have to expect members of a society to meet some minimum behavioral requirements in order to be allowed the benefits of that membership.
I think you might be overlooking the fact that aid does have a long term goal. It's not simply about feeding someone in the short term -- it's to help the impoverished fulfill their most basic needs so that they can go to school, get educated, get a job, and earn a living. If you haven't eaten in three days, you're not going to be in school, you're going to be on the street begging.
As part of a super holistic solution, aid could work, especially when a big chunk is birth control and gov't corruption / dictators are addressed. But today's solutions lead to even greater problems.
Search for: Former World Bank economist, Dambisa Moyo argues that the current approach isn't working. In her book, "Dead Aid", she says it has proved to be an "unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster".
Yeah, aid to Africa has proven to be just that. Sub-Saharan Africa has been booming in the last decade at least in part because NGOs have lost interest.
> Being enablers of dysfunctional behavior is an acceptable solution?
It seems for most people the answer is a firm yes. They can't think beyond the short run positive (e.g. free food keeps child alive) to see the overwhelming long run negative (e.g. millions die when free food can't be sustained). When you point out the long run negative you usually get a blank stare or a downvote.
>Being enablers of dysfunctional behavior is an acceptable solution?
It's funny that some people are fervent believers in Darwinian evolution and at the same time they think an organisms desire to propagate its genetic information is somehow dysfunctional. It's like they disavow the divine yet they can't let go of the idea of divine teleology. I'm not saying creationists are right, I'm just saying that they are ideologically more consistent than most Darwinian evolutionists.
At some point you have to acknowledge that a substantial portion of your population is in the bottom 10% of the IQ distribution. Holding them to behavioral requirements isn't going to really change their behavior.
> At some point you have to acknowledge that a substantial portion of your population is in the bottom 10% of the IQ distribution.
Say what? How can 10% of the distribution be a "substantial portion"? Ten percent is ... ten percent. For a normal statistical distribution, 10% of the IQ distribution is normally 10% of the population as a whole. To see why, ask yourself what percentage of the population is at or below the 50% IQ level. Then, having pictured that, ask yourself how 10% of the population could represent "a substantial portion" without contradicting what's just been demonstrated.
Your remark reminds me of the special conditions in fictional Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.
In the long run, the enablers and the dysfunctional are equally guilty for destroying the overall society.
At some point, you have to expect members of a society to meet some minimum behavioral requirements in order to be allowed the benefits of that membership.