Solutions to social problems must consider the human perspective | Hacker News Reader

Solutions to social problems must consider the human perspective

terranostra.one

31 pointsveddox13 comments

> The crux of the matter is that social problems are never just technical, but always at least in part human.

I would revise that further: social problems are never technical; they are primary political. That we are, in most western countries, rich enough to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone doesn't mean we will/can, if the political will doesn't exist to implement it.

Technology can be used to simplify the implementation, but you have to solve the politics and policy challenges first. This fact isn't strictly a negative, either, although it's usually a lot harder to make the case that we should do something, as opposed to how we could do it.

One trick technology can do for political aspects is to offer options[0]. Whether or not politicians choose to do something is not really up to engineers, but we can try to make desirable decisions easier to make, by offering more, cheaper and better options for implementing them.

This is a double-edged sword, of course, as a lot of damage to society and environment has been done by technologies creating - often unintentionally - easy options for undesirable behavior. Optimizing internal combustion engines had that side effect, so did optimizing production of plastics. One big argument against adtech surveillance is based around precisely that: it may be mostly harmless now, but it creates cheap and easy options for government abuse.

[0] - Not my idea; something I stole from Saul Griffith[1], via Bret Victor[2].

[1] - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/saul-griffiths-fas...

[2] - http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/

You also bring up a good argument in favor of supporting the social sciences. Often times the arguments against providing a minimum standard of living boil down to "but if we give people things they won't have any incentive to work hard to get them themselves!" Is that true? Maybe, probably not, we can't really know unless studies are done and we work out the facts.

Speaking of aid to Africa, major voices have told the West that aid (as currently practiced on a large scale) is counter-productive, and have asked it to stop.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/feb/19/dambisa-moyo... is one example, but you can find many others.

I've learned a lot about social impact projects and the people that gravitate this space in recent years due to my involvement with thesunprotocol.io, trying to build infrastructure in sub-saharan Africa. Technology might not be the only challenge, but electrical power, gsm networking and wi-fi and water purification systems are very much needed on the ground.

Oh, technology is absolutely needed! But simply "dumping a load of machinery" on Africa doesn't work, or at least not for long, if one doesn't consider the social and cultural ramifications.

Daniel Vedder is absolutely right about this; I learned it the hard way trying to do the same thing as the first world guy in his post. The best way to help out in the developing world is to find an up-and-running NGO (charity) and support them with cash money and referrals to other potential supporters.

My project: https://cristosal.org/ Working in the northern triangle of Central America (El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala) they're addressing the root causes of large scale northbound migration: governments and civil institutions that can't or won't keep their people secure.

The best way is — simply — to trade fairly with the country. All sorts of effects kicks in; wealth, a demand for educated people and in that trajectory a demand for education. Currently it is only China that takes this approach — at least in Africa — and gains influence. It’s a pity.

While agreeing with your first point, I strongly object to the notion that China is trading fairly with Africa.

I've known the Zambian Copperbelt (the major industrial province) for over twenty years. In the last ten years, and especially in the last five, it has literally been overrun with Chinese "investors". Driving between towns, you see almost only Chinese companies, Chinese mines, Chinese trucks. Signposts are written Chinese first, English (the official language) second. Some time back, they managed to negotiate a 10-years tax-free period for them with the Zambian government. They prefer to import their own labourers - tens of thousands of them, living in heavily guarded compounds. Where they do employ local labour, workers are forced to work seven day weeks under precarious conditions. (Last year, 40 people died when a slag heap collapsed.)

China ingratiates itself with African governments by offering immense loans for big infrastructure projects. Western governments are almost always unwilling to do so themselves (partly because of corruption in the target countries), so the Africans jump at the Chinese offer. But the loans come with strings attached: the projects have to be given to Chinese contractors, who often charge ten times the regular price. And when the country in unable to pay back the loan on time (as they inevitably are), the Chinese government takes over key national assets in "mortgage". (Compare here: https://www.africanstand.com/news/africa/east-africa/china-t...)

I was not aware of that. Thank you for correcting me!

Author here :-)

> find an up-and-running NGO (charity) and support them with cash money and referrals to other potential supporters.

That is good advice. The most effective aid projects I have seen are small organisations built on local experience. People who've been "on the ground" for more than a few months (ideally, decades), who know the problems and the pitfalls associated with solving them, and who have the respect of the community. These teams tend to be small and agile and unencumbered with the bureaucracy of the big-time NGOs. On the flip side, they struggle with a chronic lack of funding and limited clout with government agencies. (That's where the big NGOs have their advantages.)

Personal question: How did you settle on a project to support? I imagine that to be somewhat difficult, especially when trying to avoid "rogue" aid projects.

I learned about Cristosal and their mission because they run weeklong short courses on how to move towards justices in Central America. Some friends said, "come to this!" and I said, "well, OK."

In the course, they focused on some themes in the book "Toxic Charity," and how they are doing their best to avoid those pitfalls. Also, they're suing--successfully--the government of El Salvador for redress of wrongs from some massacres during the civil war of the 1980s and 1990s.

Their short courses include both norteamericanos and local people. So some level of relationships are built.

You know how South Africa had a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" that enjoyed some success? El Salvador had a "Reconcilation Commission," but they left out the truth part. That Doesn't Work. The government is weaker than the MS-13 and Barrio 18 rival gangs now. Cristosal is persistently trying to rebuild civil institutions.

That short course is a pretty good development tool; spreads the word about the challenges and gets people enlisted in the mission.

And if you travel to poor communities in Central America, bring soccer balls.

Evgeny Morozov calls it "technology solutionism' in his book To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism

Reply on news.ycombinator.com