Yeah, I admit, this thought did cross my mind during the whole Batkid foofoorah. It's joyful to see a kid's dreams fulfilled, esp. a kid suffering from such an illness, and it was certainly heartwarming for all the participants and viewers — but from a purely pragmatic basis (in terms of saving or salvaging lives), it was not the most effective spending of a million dollars.
Still … Batkid!
How Many People Died Because of Batkid?
Batkid. Remember Batkid? A sick child, running around San Francisco, living a wonderful dream? Terrible use of resources, that kid was.
This post has been reshared 1 times on Google+
View this post on Google+
69 view(s)
While a valid point, I think there are bigger wastes that could be targeted than bringing some momentary joy to a sick child.
True, but while charitable giving is relatively interchangeable, overall spending is less so. In other words, folks who gave to the Batkid cause are more likely to have taken that money from other causes they were giving to than from buying a Venti Caramel Macchiato twice a day. Giving isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it's close to it on a short-term basis.
It certainly beats charitable contributions to political organizations. Those shouldn't even be considered charity – bribery is more like it.
More to the point, it is not the mission of this charity to save children from malaria. Make all the arguments for mosquito nets that you want (great cause, I’ve given to one of the groups that buys them), but if you only want charities that work on the life/death line to exist, then you’ve got a lot of groups to close down.
There are many charities (some of whom the Batkid may be indebted to for his present survival) that have raise money to research cures/treatments for children’s cancer, Make-A-Wish tries to give these children something more than just being alive. (Since many are terminally ill, they (and their family) get experiences they couldn’t otherwise afford or bring to fruition.)
I’m really big on what’s referred to in the biz as “donor intent.” Whether a donor gives $50 or $50,000, they should have ‘buy-in’ to what the money will be doing. Did this one wish cost an extra amount? Yes! Did it raise the spirits of the child and a whole lot of other people? Yes! Might there be increased donations to Make-A-Wish because of it? Maybe, hard for me to say. But is life more than bread and water? Absolutely!
We cannot ever get rid of suffering and death; humans will never have that much power. Can we give more than we do now? Very possibly. Colorado Matters story on such here: http://www.cpr.org/news/story/bolder-giving-says-we-can-all-be-bill-gates-charitable-giving
Now, go and spread Christmas Cheer!
@Mary – I don’t question any of your points.
I’m not suggesting by any means that we shut down all charities except those that are judged to do the most “good” in their efforts. But in some ways this dives close to the idea that much of the “non-essential” stuff we pay for through our taxes — social welfare, basic research, the space program, foreign aid, etc. — would be better off done through private charity (and business), as to do otherwise is to assert popular “donor intent” where none may exist. don’t agree with that (or, rather, while I see the point, I think the political system serves somewhat as proxy here, as part of the broader social contract rather than individual giving).
“The poor you will always have with you,” in other words. Actually there’s a point to that particular tale from the Gospels that parallels yours — Mary’s use of the expensive ointment on Jesus’ feet when its cost could have been used for the poor was important to her. Life is not always always about maximizing utility.
That said, it’s worth at least considering utility. On the spectrum of “This will save lives” to “This will make people feel good but not really help anyone beyond that” the Batkid project lies closer to the latter end. That’s not without value, but there’s also value in buying a round of drinks, or going out and splurging on a new Jag. Being cognizant of the trade-offs in a world of limited resources (the poor always being with us or not) is a good thing.
+Paula Jones Well, they're considered charity (or, rather, tax-deductible) if they are at least ostensibly and by preponderance of activity "educational", vs. giving money (or advocacy) directly to candidates. Even that gets stretched pretty thin in too many cases.
I'm not sure our humanity should be reduced to a balance sheet. There was more going on that day than batkid's wish, as I think everyone who even just read the article could feel for themselves.
I agree; that would be a grim way of living. But it's also important not to let the feel-goods mask that there's a lot else that can and should be done — and I think lot of people lose sight of that in a particularly heart-tugging story like this.
If the event led to a lot of giving beyond just the immediate Batkid saga, then great. But a million dollars (plus time and effort by the community) could also have done a lot for a lot of little kids with leukemia. I don't begrudge Batkid what he got; I worry about the ones who were not so lucky.
I don't disagree with you at all. And I would second Les Jinkins comment and add my own.
1. The amount quoted is $100,000 not a million. ( although certainly still a lot of money)
2. Any accounting of what might or might not have otherwise been given to charity is purely speculative. ( I for one was inspired to donate and I doubt I was alone. I also would bet that everyone who even remotely participated in that event didn't walk away with donation burnout but quite the opposite)
3. There is an intangible but very real value in bringing communities together. That is something that will never show up on a balance sheet. This is a story about a city far from where I live and a child I will never meet but for a brief moment, because of this amazing act of kindness by the citizens of San Francisco, we were his neighbors, his brothers and sisters. For a moment we were embodying that essence that makes humanity something more than itself. Evaluating the productivity level of that moment is…somehow the illogic of what happened is the entire point. Altruism is illogical, we just really don't want it to be.
I understand that we have limited resources and limitless need, but moments like this are too few not to many. Instead of chiding ourselves for the sentiment, I say the momentum of 'batkid' needs to be harnessed and directed. I realize that is what the article is trying to do but I think they are going about it in the wrong way and producing the wrong effect. Look at the comments after that original post and look at the comments after this one. Which group of people do you think are more likely to put money and effort towards solving the worlds ills.
There's an implicit assumption in the headline that if BatKid hadn't happened, then the same amount of money would have been donated to other charities that would have saved someone's life. That's obviously not true, and the problem is not that people cannot rationally understand the differences between different charitable gifts. The problem, I believe, is one of motivation, and perhaps a little bit of the "many hands" problem.
What motivates us to give is probably not the desire to make the most effective use of our charitable gifts. I hypothesize that our charitable motivations are primarily about making ourselves feel good, which is perhaps easier with respect to events like BatKid than it is with respect to the kinds of charities that would make the most effective use of our gift through some unglamorous, impersonal, less-visible, or perhaps unsettling charities.
I suspect that BatKid is an instance of the "many hands" problem in the sense that each donor probably gave a small amount or made a small effort to help, and no one really added up the totals until it was all over. There's no moral problem in giving a small amount to make a single sick kid happy for a day, it only becomes a moral problem when the total devoted to one kid becomes so great that the kid is consuming resources that arguably should go to others who are more needy. So each individual, acting in ignorance of the big picture, performed a morally unobjectionable action, but thereby contributed to a joint action that is morally suspect.
Human motivations are so fundamental, it will be hard to find a way to combat the motivation problem. The many hands problem is difficult to avoid in a large free society. Public discussion and awareness is a good way to start, but while addressing these problems will improve the effectiveness of our charitable giving, I think there are other reasons to doubt that charitable giving can ever be optimal.
+Barrett McCarstle
1. You're right. My misreading.
2-3. I think it is an interesting question whether such an event inspires folks to give (in tangible or intangible ways) to others, feeling part of an extended community and realizing that there are needs all around, or if it leads folks to feel like they've done their bit and don't need to do anything else. I'd like to think the former, sure, but I do worry about the latter.
+David Newman I agree. Nor do I think there is a way even to define (let alone enforce) optimal charitable giving. Different sensibilities over priorities (proximity, life-and-death vs quality-of-life, worthiness of the subject) would make it impossible. Is helping the soup kitchen downtown better than sending hurricane aid? Is contributing to malaria nets worthier than helping inner city kids learn to read? Is contributing a heifer to a village in Pakistan objectively worthier than assisting a comic book artist who is facing medical bills he can't pay? Is donating to your church, supporting all the social support and outreach charities they provide, better than donating to the Michael J Fox Parkinsons Research Foundation?
(Indeed, even something as fundamental as whose "wishes" get to be made, and why a little kid gets priority over, say, a single mom or an experimental artist or a retired vet or a homeless guy at the freeway offramp, would defy objective agreement.)
I guess maybe it's more a matter to me of people being cognizant of that raft of issues and tradeoffs, and making decisions about giving (and helping in other ways) in a thoughtful manner, rather than hopping on a heartwarming social bandwagon. That may turn out to be the way an individual decides to go, but I'd like to think it was a relatively conscious decision.
(Also, of course, not being a dick about it. "Your father's funeral notice requested contributions to the American Cancer Society. I decided to donate to the Kenyan Water Purification Project instead because I consider it a worthier cause.")