Thursday, August 26, 2010

Haiti, Pakistan and the Concept of "Relief"

I'm in a quandary thinking about the two big disasters of 2010 - the Haiti earthquake and the Pakistan flood. In both cases, millions of people were and are in great jeopardy and in need of help. In both cases, the sovereign government was incapable of providing relief or reconstruction. And, in both cases, the affected areas were overpopulated and becoming even more overpopulated despite the fact that the basic services associated with "civilization" are unlikely to be available in the foreseeable future. Should relief be provided by the rest of the world if the affected countries do not take steps to change their ways?

What are the basic services associated with civilization in the 21st century? I suppose the short list would include a reliable internal food supply, commonly available clean water, transportation and communications infrastructure, workable governance and justice systems, and an education system that trains people for useful work. Governments are responsible to provide these things, I believe, as first priorities. Neither Haiti nor Pakistan provides these services, except for the elite. That's just the way it is.

The area of Pakistan affected by the floods has about 20 million residents. It's agricultural, with plots as small as two acres. Girls are often married by age 14 and have many children through age 25. The residents have no capacity to pay, through taxes, for the basic services described above. Moreover, each year the population becomes more likely to fall prey to those who would blame their subsistence conditions on the failure of their government or the outside world to "take care of them". That's why fears of insurrection rise when disasters like these occur and the government is unable to respond.

So, here's the quandary. Should the outside world provide massive relief to bring the disaster-ravaged areas back to roughly the same "uncivilized" condition they enjoyed prior to the disasters, with no preconditions? Or, should the outside world require governmental reforms and population control measures as the price of relief? Is preventing future disasters as important as mitigating current disasters? Should TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch) be applied?

In general, I've concluded that the second and third worlds now require a lot more supervision than in past times. Technology now provides great opportunities for these countries to upgrade their standards of living, but it also provides great opportunities for them to make mischief - North Korea and Somalia are poster children for the latter. Consequently, perhaps it's time to put out the carrot and the stick to Haiti and Pakistan's elite "quasi-governing" classes. Relief must be accompanied by radical changes in their societies, changes that in the long run will make for long term success.

7 comments:

Mike C said...

Nice to see you back at blogging LifeHiker, but surprised to hear you making an argument in favor of centrally planned societies. Wasn't the result of the 20th century's experiments with communism the fact that remote experts are not capable of accurately predicting/dictating the needs of local areas? We might do better to just increase microcredit programs.

Lifehiker said...

Well, Mike, I'd like to agree with you, but I find it hard to believe that microcredit programs will work in northern Pakistan where women have no rights except to bear children for their husbands.

All over the world are places with large and burgeoning populations, few resources, and great environmental risks. We'd be much better off trying to buy population control than by doing either tiny efforts at economic development or continuing and expensive disaster relief efforts.

thimscool said...

Governments are responsible to provide these things, I believe, as first priorities.

And you call yourself a Republican...


each year the population becomes more likely to fall prey to those who would blame their subsistence conditions on the failure of their government or the outside world to "take care of them".

You're all over the map here, LH. But I acknowledge that it is a sticky problem...


should the outside world require governmental reforms and population control measures as the price of relief?

Uh population control? It seems that communism is two steps from "I don't like taxes!"



Relief must be accompanied by radical changes in their societies, changes that in the long run will make for long term success.

Da, Comrade. They will be better off with you at the helm. Ignorant peasants... what do you mean ther don't like our one child policy and they are revolting? Well, due process = kill the rebels.

Lifehiker said...

Hi, Thimscool. You got me...I did not really mean "provide" all those things, since I truly believe the private sector does most things better than government. But I did mean that governments should create and maintain the conditions necessary for these things to be provided (if not provided by government.

I support China's one-child policy, but note that it has now been relaxed in some provinces and for the more well-to-do. I don't understand why, when so many people in the developed world self-select limited procreation (as I did), that those with very limited resources should produce huge numbers of kids and then beg for help when they can't support them. Incidentally, I also think this is a problem worth dealing with in the United States.

No more time...nice to see you back, and have good day.

Ron Davison said...

LH,
It seems like every society is self-reinforcing of the status quo and whether it is here or there, we face the same question. One question seems to be how a community hits critical mass on the development of new ways of thinking about the world and what to expect.

thimscool said...

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. You like the one child policy?

The reason that folks in the west have fewer children is that they are more expensive to raise and they are less necessary for ensuring a livable old age. Also, child mortality tends to be lower. Social security and medicare, my friend. If the government takes care of the old, then their families don't have to do so.

I'm more in favor of telling rich folx to pay more taxes to support social welfare rather than to tell people how many kids they can have.

20+ million surplus men of fighting age in China... And what's worse, a nation full of only children.

Good to see you back on the horse again to, pal. Life is busy for me too. I billed 224 hours last month, in addition to another 110 unbillable (I move into a new office). Not sustainable. But you've gotta make hay when the sun is shining. And based on the hosing sales numbers, as well as several high profile commercial RE defaults, I'd say the sun won't be shining much longer. Hope you've got your provisions stacked up for the winter.

Take care, brother.

thimscool said...

Bah typos. Movin too fast. Kids are home soon, time for dinner! Fresh corn and Quesadillas.