The Life You Can Save – by Peter Singer

‘How to play your part in ending world poverty’

If you’re reading this book or listening to this podcast, your life is pretty good. Compared to billions of people in the world, we live a comfortable life and we don’t have to worry about where our next meal is coming from or if a little mosquito bite could kill you. Singer shows us that we have a responsibility to help end suffering and help lift others out of poverty. He also shows us that there are a lot of low-cost, high-impact things we can do and provides a template for the amount we should give. When will you start playing your part in ending world poverty?

The life you can save Book Summary:-

How to play your part in ending world poverty:-

What if I told you, that you can save a life, even many lives? Do you have a bottle of water or can of soda on the table beside you as you read this book? If you are paying for something to drink when safe drinking water comes out of the tap, you have money to spend on things you do not need.

Let us understand the purpose of the book “The life you can save”

 To reduce extreme poverty, not to make you feel guilty, 18 million people are dying unnecessarily each year. That is higher than the death rate in World War 2. Infact, In the past 20 years alone, it adds to more deaths than were caused by all the civil and international wars and government repression of the entire 20th Century.

Let us dive deep into the book, index begins here.

Saving a child

You are leaving for the work and on the way, you found that a kid splashing in the pond, you are passing by. The child is unable to keep his head above water for more than a few seconds at a time. If you don’t wade in and pull him out, he seems likely to drown. Wading is easy and safe, but you do not want to ruin the new shoes you bought last month, and get your suit muddy and wet.

What should you do? People predictably respond to save the child rather than saving at own. Life of a child must be costlier than your suits and boots at least.

According to UNICEF, 10 million die under 5 from causes related to poverty. For example, there is a small boy who died, could have been cured at the hospital. But the parents had no money, so he died a slow and painful death, not of measles but due to poverty.

Taking into account, if you donate a small amount of money, you can save a child’s life. Maybe it takes more than a pair of shoes, but we buy things we do not need all of the time drinks, meals out, clothing, movies, concerts, vacations, new cars or house renovation. Is it possible to choose to spend your money on such things, rather than contributing to an aid agency, you are leaving a child to die; a child you could have saved?

Let us take a look at Poverty index:-

South Asia has the most number of extremely poor people, 455 million in India, 380 million in Sub Saharan Africa, 200 million Chinese. All are living on less than $1.25 a day and most of you who have traveled there, think that it is easy to live cheap. In wealthy societies, poverty is relative. People feel poor because many of the good things advertised on TV are beyond their budget. In the US, 97% of people who are classified as poor own a color TV. Most of us are absolutely certain we would save a drowning child at considerable cost to ourselves. Yet while thousands of children die each day, we spend money on things we take for granted and would hardly notice if they were not there. Is that wrong? If so, how far does our obligation go?’

Is it wrong not to help?:-

Conclusion – if you do not donate to aid agencies, then you are doing something wrong.

Common objections to giving:-

A). There is no black and white universal code for everyone. It is better to accept that everyone has a different view on the issue, and all people are entitled to follow their own beliefs

• Saying it is up to us to determine our moral obligation
• This is moral relativism, it is attractive only until you are faced with someone doing something extremely bad
• If we see a person holding a cats paws on an electric grill, we would object
• But then he would say, oh well you are entitled to follow your own beliefs.
• We would have to let rapists, racists and terrorists go along

B). If someone wants to buy a new car, they should. If someone wants to redecorate their house, they should. They work hard for their money and have every right to spend it how they wish.

It seems fair but thinking about fairness, you might consider if you are middle class in a developed country, you were fortunate to be born into social and economic circumstances that make it possible for you to live comfortably. Nobel Prize-winning scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90% of hat people earn in wealthy societies. Without social capital, you won’t escape poverty no matter how hard you work. The statement says you have the ‘right to spend it how you wish’. But if your mother is sick on her death bed, you have the right to spend the weekend earnings, but probably you should not do that.

C). We are responsible for what we do. But there is no plausible argument to say we have a general duty to those whom we have done nothing wrong.

Most of us are using goods made from raw materials made from unethical dealings from resource-rich but poor nations When we do, we are harming those countries. In developed countries, we are contributing the most, to global warming. Where rising sea levels will inundate the fertile ground of Egypt, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and India. Misconception about skewed wealth. Some people look at the world’s wealth as a static quantity that is divided amongst a lot of people. In that model, the bigger slice that the rich get, the less there is for the poor. If someone is super rich it is skewing away from the poor, under this world view. But what actually happens, entrepreneurs who get rich do not necessarily make the poor poorer.

Giving money breeds dependency:-

Food directly to the poor is not a sustainable solution, except in terms of drought earthquake or flood. If USA ships food in, it destroys markets and reduces incentives for local farmers. We need to make it possible for them to produce their own food and meet their needs in a sustainable manner.

Cash is the seedcorn of capitalism, giving it away will reduce future growth:-

If Warren Buffet gave away his first 1 million, he would not have become a billionaire and give away 31 of billions and if you are like Warren, perhaps hang onto it until later in life.

If you give money to the poor in Africa. What we would have is no economy. No ability for them to generate wealth:-

Thomas Simmons Canadian philosopher –

“I do not want people to die. I just feel unattached to them. If I took a trip there, I would feel differently.”

Why don’t we give more?:-

• Parochialism 

Our brains take in the news of the disaster, but our emotions are rarely disturbed by tragedies that occur far away to people who we have no special connection.In the tsunami of South East Asia, 220,000 people were killed. Americans gave 1.54 billion and Hurricane  “Katrina” killed 1600 people and America pledged 6.5 billion.

• Futility

The proportion of lives has a big influence. You are more likely to give if you can save 80% of the lives of 100 people, than 20% of 1000 people.

•  Diffusion of responsibility 

A famous case is of Kitty Genovese, a young woman in Queens famously killed, 38 people in different apartments saw it but no one came to aid her.

• The sense of fairness & Money

Money given must be used fairly and at appropriate places, psychology and ethics also play an important role here.

• creating a culture of giving:-

We give relative to the reference group if our friends do it we do. Identifying the victim and the face of the needy makes us to help or give.

THE FACTS ABOUT AID

How much does it cost to save a life, and how can you tell which charities do best?

Find charities that really make a difference:-

Charity Navigator focuses attention on the problem. There is the idea that most of the money goes to admin costs. Most admin costs and fundraising expenses are reduced to 20% of their revenue

But this does not include the aid budget. Some salaries are put down as an aid budget.

How much does it cost to save a life?

Give well is a charity that measures effectiveness to a bunch of charities and gave out a grant to the most effective .600 – 2367$ per life saved to stop prevent malaria. For each HIV infection, avert costs between 200-700$.To prevent diarrhea-related deaths, about $250 per life saved.

Partners in Health provide health services, basics in rural areas and it costs about $3500 per life.

Interplant spends about 500-1500 for life-saving surgery.

Overcoming Poverty:-

An organization that gave microloans in poor countries was best at ensuring they got out of poverty

98% of repayment of loans.Proving effectiveness, more good things that could be done cheaply

Fred Hollows restores the site for 50$. Most people lose their sight due to blindness. In general, it seems to be 200-2000$ the cost to save a life in developing countries. In developed countries, like USA, the cost is at 2.2 million dollars, for the life-saving interventions we do. The environmental protection agency puts it at 7.22$ million.The infrastructure teams at 5.8 million $.If you have a spare 450$, and thinking to spend it on yourself or others, it would not be easy to find nearly as much as a 14-year-old with a fistula who needs an operation. If you have 50$, it is hard to find something more valuable than restoring someone’s eyesight.

Improving aid:-

A big critic is William Easterly who says that we have given 2.3 trillion in foreign aid and nothing has really happened. But per year, this is 46 billion. This equates to 60$ per person per year. And what % of income for affluent nations? It is only 0.3% and where does it go Top 10 recipients:-Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Columbia, etc. Iraq received 29.5% of the foreign aid budget in 2007. The top 10 poorest countries only received 5% of the aid. And only 20% of the aid goes to countries classified as ‘least developed’

How do we use the money

Most developed countries tie their money to the products from their countries.For example, USA requires that the condoms come from USA, even though they are twice the price of similar products in the local country, shipped on American ships (half efficient) . Grain also delivered from USA.

Worse still, when we ship in food it depresses local markets, reducing the incentive of poor farmers to become more productive.

Trade, not aid 

Some argue that aid cannot spur economic growth. One reason is something that they call ‘Dutch disease. Dutch found valuable natural gas in the 1960s, which should have been a great economic boon.

But as revenues came in, Dutch manufacturing slumped.

Something more significant than Dutch disease 

The USA and European countries undercut poorer countries through subsidies. For example, cotton, the only source of income for millions of people in West Africa. Africa produces it more cheaply and more sustainably, but the USA pays a total of $3billion per year in subsidies to cotton growers. According to some, eliminating agricultural subsidies could mean a $96 billion economic gain, $30 billion to the developing world.

The planet can’t hold them 

Saving more lives now will only mean that more will die when the population eventually crashes because the planet is past its carrying capacity. This is an extenuation of the thoughts by Thomas Malthus who famously claimed that the population would always outstrip food supplies.

your child and the children of others:-

Many would say if you do not put your child’s life ahead of others, then you are an unnatural mother

Fortunately, it will never get to that level. The real dilemma is that it is wrong to reject the pleas of designers label kid’s clothing, video games and send them to public school instead of the local school.

Asking too much:-

How to calculate how much you should give?

Calculate how many people below the world poverty line and calculate how much you need to get them above. This is 124$ billion per year raises everyone. The annual income of the 22 richest nations is 20$ trillion, so this is 62 cents out of every 100$. A person making 50K a year would need to give just over $300 . By comparison in 1999 Americans spend 116 billion on alcohol. But not every people are going to pick up the slack, so need to factor that in. Most philosophers do not agree on what the right amount is, but all agree on if you are not giving or only giving trivial sums of aid, you are acting wrongly. The singer is implying that it is wrong to spend money on many things when 27000 children die from preventable causes or diseases every day.

A realistic approach:-

How much? Singer says for those comfortable, a bare minimum of 5% of annual income is reasonable.

Most people could give this amount without sacrificing much, and save considerable amounts of lives.

People like Warren Buffet and Gates do a lot, but then there are people like Paul Allen (AJ salt and pepper) who have 16 billion dollars for investing in Microsoft early gas given 900 million over his lifetime but to arts foundations, etc. It has a bunch of toys including a yacht called Octopus that costs 200 million with a permanent crew of 60. It has two helicopters, submarines, etc. Quoted as saying ‘money is just a way of keeping score. Apparently he gave away 39 million to a developing country 

But he could give away 39 million per year for 600 years and still be left with a billion for retirement.

Now do the sums yourself and count the lives saved, or people’s blindness restored, etc for the cost of his yacht to show off to his buddies how rich he is.

Peter Singer’s system with brackets

100 – 148 K – 5%

Above 148 – 10% 

Max out at 33% philanthropic

The poorest Americans currently give the highest proportions. Those who give to charity are 43% more likely to respond ‘very happy’ in surveys. Singer recommends doing more.

Ends on Henry Spira, a man who gave away a lot and very effective

“I guess basically one wants to feel that one’s life has amounted to more than just consuming products and generating garbage. I think that one likes to look back and say that one has done the best one can do to make this a better place for others. What greater motivation is there than doing what you can do to reduce pain and suffering? Overall this is where it leads to

The life you can  save.