If 50% of the defence budgets of the 10 biggest nations was given to philanthropic causes, would we see more or less war and violence in the world? - Ecotrain Question of the Week

in #ecotrain6 years ago

Some mighty appetite




Well, who knows?
Humans are not exactly famous for being able to deal appropriately with complex scenarios and therefore they tend to oversimplify things.
History has shown that just throwing money at problems is usually not enough to solve them.

One of my favorite examples is when the British decided to do something about the cobra problem in British-India by paying rewards for each dead cobra the Indians brought, with the result that they had more cobras than ever, because them Indians began breeding them cobras to collect more of them rewards. 😁

So we like to think that it´s a no brainer, spend less on weapons and more on development, make love not war, and all will be rainbows and unicorns.

The hard truth is that it doesn´t cost much money to kill people.
A couple of years ago I read a study that the majority of people killed in armed conflicts is not being killed by some expensive hightech gear but by your trusty, cheap AK 47 and similar firearms. The majority of American casualties in Iraq did not die during the actual hightech war, but later on during the occupation, killed by cheap IEDs, in guerilla warfare.

So I guesstimate you could reduce the defence budget of those 10 nations by 50 % and it wouldn´t change a thing, because the slaughtering by Boko Haram or in the Congo or in Sudan or wherever the shit hit the fan would just keep going on. Those guys are not relying on nuclear subs and star wars shit, they kill with machetes if they have to.
Just look at them Tutsis massacred in Ruanda in 1994, 800 000 to one million people killed in three months and not a single fancy weapons system involved.

Genocide Memorial in Ruanda




Also what exactly are philantropic causes?

For years foreign aid has been pumped into Africa, but what has really changed?
People became dependend on the World Food Programme while neglecting their own agriculture, respectively African markets have been flooded with cheap garbage from Europe (parts from chicken the Europeans don´t want for example) thereby driving African farmers out of business, or the clothes we throw away or donate destroy the African clothing manufacturers.
Infant mortality rates may have gone down, but that doesn´t mean that people suddenly see a future for themselves in Africa, instead there are a few hundred millions who would like to come to Europe in search of a better future.

So some experts are now demanding to stop all aid, to let Africa figure it out for itself, because obviously the foreign aid system is not working.
What appears to be working is giving microcredits, to women especially, because they are the ones taking care of their families. So help to self-help.
But the millions spent on ambitious development projects are usually only good for the ego and the wallet of the African elites trained in Western thinking at Western universties to drink the Kool-Aid of Western progress and growth philosophy.

I forgot who said it, but the saying goes something like, you get more of that which you pay for, like the cobras in British-India. If that logic holds true then you get more poor if you give more money to the poor, something the do-gooders don´t understand.

In the UK they wanted to be very social and support single teenage moms by giving them moms and their babies their own flat. Suddenly they had lots of single teenage moms because those girls where not really thinking about what it meant to have a child, but they saw giving birth as a way to get away from home, to live independently without nagging parents in their own flat and get support from the government.

I think agression, violence, war is even older than money, just ask Abel, and money, while being a strong incentive for human behaviour, is neither the root cause nor the solution of those problems.

You might find some answers shadow boxing with C. G. Jung instead. 😉



@ecotrain


Supporting People Who Help

Make The World A Better Place


Sort:  

The reason they have so much budget in military it wasn't because of defense, but it's because of simply profit, it's all about business destabilizing a country can leverage their own economy by imposing culture and rules of the game, whoever imposes the rules of the game that means they own the game and they always win, since political and economical games is all about zero sum game. The question remain, how do we design a system that is a positive sum game that can benefit all people in the world.

I concur, weapons is business and i hate it when most of our African leaders fail to realize that. Stoping wars is saving a lot of money and if we can just stop buying these weapons we can save a lot of money. Check out our response to the question and share with us your thoughts: https://steemit.com/ecotrain/@thegreens/philanthropy-can-t-stop-wars

I agree with you on every point and don't want to restate what you've already stated eloquently. But I guess I would add that if 50% of the US defense budget went instead to some cause, you'd start seeing a lot of corruption take place behind the scenes of that cause, whatever it was. Seems like it would be smarter to eliminate the defense budget rather than divert it somewhere else. Rent seeking is rent seeking, no matter which budget is being tapped.

Its very true that if they gave that 50% it will be like adding 50% corruption in the government. However, i believe in the power of the grassroots people and think they can make a change. I believe if women are given small loans in Africa, it will bring about a great change. I mean, like to directly give them small loans. However, i think education can solve this problem. heck out our response to the question and share with us your thoughts: https://steemit.com/ecotrain/@thegreens/philanthropy-can-t-stop-wars

ahhh, wise words no doubt.. just throwing money at things can cause more problems than we solve..

maybe if all the money was put into education and self sufficiency things might be improved.. definately in Africa.. i agree just buying food for poor people is a stop gap.. but going there and planting trees to raise the water table, or teaching them how to self build out of junk.. well that might actually help...

The real challenge would be HOW to spend it.. that is for sure .. the system would probably spend half of it just deciding how to allocate it!

This is really a great post and i like the way you put it, weapons or high tech gear don't kill people. It reminds me of this famous adage that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and seriously money can't stop brutality but people can stop it.
I really wish if all the foreign aid was converted to micro grants and given to grassroots people for them to start business in Africa. It will bring about the change the world needs. All these multinationals having big offices and luxurious cars are not helping but the little grants of $500 given to grassroots women is changing lives.
Thanks for this great post and do well to check our #QOTW response. https://steemit.com/ecotrain/@thegreens/philanthropy-can-t-stop-wars

I think what people need are opportunities. Thankfully, the digital real creates an abundance of opportunities for everyone who is connected to the internet. Maybe this would be a good spending for that military money, a free broadband internet connection for the poorest places. This would create an infrastructure of communication and cooperation.

Absolutely agree. Killing only costs you your soul. And they'd give it to the white helmets or some other such bs.

Great article. I am optimistic however, that thanks to crypto, in a few years poorly developed countries will have the means to start an economy, build savings and accumulate wealth. The EU and other parts of the world still have to lift certain protective tariffs to enable Africa to flourish

Loading...

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.15
TRX 0.12
JST 0.025
BTC 55851.69
ETH 2536.36
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.23