Le 01/08/2013 11:39, scott a écrit :
>>> One could argue that overall for society it's better to have cheaper
>>> mosquito nets (more people will be able to afford them and disease is
>>> then probably lower).
>>>
>> However, the local craftsmen having disappeared, society becomes
>> dependant on charity.
> 
> If the charity stops then surely the craftsmen will appear again just as
> quickly to return to the original situation?

They might, if the entry cost to craft is not higher than any other
local activities.

For a simile, let's look at the textile industry (just the part that
goes from the thread to the fabric), in Europe: wealthy in the 19th
century it is now rather in near-death state. The still existing
companies are using machines that are very old and there is no
manufacturing company any more for such machines (I speak of the most
complex ones, able to make motif of threads in the fabric)). The
knowledge is lost, and the cost to reacquire it is prohibitive.

> 
>> No win-win situation, except for the charity's
>> good conscience.

Every works is worth a rewards.
The charity should be inspired rather by the saying (guess the book ?):
"if you give a man a fish, he will eat one day. If you learn a man to
fish, he will eat every days".
Charity for day one is ok, but long-term repetition of the same action
become counter-productive if the charity is true to itself.


-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message