Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Thus, for me, the only answer that makes sense is that we have no obligation to save the world, but we are allowed to donate whatever we want.

That's the status quo. The whole reason we're having this conversation is because not enough people are donating X% in order to fix global poverty. So, what's your burden? What's my burden? 10% is a handy figure because it's small enough to be doable for most people, but large enough such that if everyone were donating 10%, we'd have enough money to basically fix global poverty forever.

It's handy for us to agree to discharge our infinite debts to each other by agreeing upon some figure. 10% fits that nicely.




That would be handy, granted. However having looked your argument over I don't think it ads up. Thus I maintain that my burden is 0%, so if you want to fix global poverty you will have to do it without my donations.

The real problem isn't that we are not giving enough to Africa, the problem is that we don't buy enough from Africa.

If you try to solve that problem instead the Africans will be much better of, you won't have to worry about convincing me, and you can make yourself rich in the process.


> However having looked your argument over I don't think it ads up. Thus I maintain that my burden is 0%, so if you want to fix global poverty you will have to do it without my donations.

Can you explain your reasoning? If you don't think you have any burden, then naturally the whole point of relinquishing the infinite debt and the 10% Schelling Point won't have any relevance. But in your original comment, you seemed to imply that there was some amount we are on the hook for, you just couldn't understand why we settled on 10%. But if I am misunderstanding, please correct me.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: