Your answer shows that either I used the wrong method in conveying my message (maybe incompetent, quick and dirty application of the Socratic method), or, that my comment was actually on point.
TLDR:
Your make a lot of unfounded assumptions, you assume intentions and then you project implications. In so doing, you answer to a question which wasn't asked (see further below how).
Similarly, in stumbling while believing to be running, a "civilization" thinking the same way you do might be unknowingly crushing children dead itself. Which is why such though pattern are dangerous at large population sizes, when judged against their own values.
"Hell is paved with good intentions", as the proverb says.
Of course, if you see actual children dying, go save them because children are precious, period. Do not mix some "civilization level" morality judgment into the mix, or justify your helping them with it.
----
In more detail:
If you want to bear with me, I'll repeat the same as in my original comment, under a different form. This time I'll err on the side of verbosity to make sure nothing is lost.
What I responded to specifically was our last paragraph: that one gets to judge superiority of "civilizations", or judge whether how an act sets the human condition ("setting back", "advancing", "better", etc), and that the western is "objectively" better, even in the face of what you believe is a correct measure of the number of dead children.
What I _wasn't_ commenting on is the Canadian situation, or dead children. I wasn't implying _anything_. That is you projecting on me. I believe I was quite direct that it was about _you_: you'll note I used the word 15-20 times. I was explicitly NOT saying anything about dead children being a culturally subjective standard. Those are your assumption.
I'd argue that the same way you just projected upon me your assumptions wrongly, believing there were implications where there weren't, you do the same at the civilization judgment level in your comment I responded to. That is benign at in individual level, but terminally dangerous when societal.
Note: as a premise to what follows I do not deny that a one-, two- or multi-dimensional measuring scale which _may_ be imagined or that in the absolute, somebody _may_ compare two large groups of humans (tribe, nation, peoples, NOT a civilizations), or even pronounce a assessment _in the abstract_, NOT a judgment.
---
What I strenuously object to in your point of view is :
- That one even _can_ be objective in such things.
One may be suffering, while not being conscious of it, from historic or contemporary factual ignorance, as well as cultural, moral, and ethical myopia. Basically, being victim to the Duning-Kruger effect in such matters.
- That consequently one _should_ even judge such things in practice.
If you "haven't done your homework" value/morals/ethics wise, tried to counteract your ignorance or myopia, explicitly going through perspectives not your own, or even not western, how do you know you are fit to judge ? Maybe you lack the mental model to do so, because you are prisoner of your limits, which you are not conscious of. If you are not reasonably sure you are fit to judge, how can you allow yourself to judge ? And I'm not even talking about facts here, even though I should.
- That using a concept as broad as "civilization" is useful in such matters.
How do you circumscribe a civilization historically ? Last 20 years ? Last 50 ? Last 100 ? Last 500 ? How do you circumscribe its values ? How do you circumscribe constitutive peoples ? What about exchanges of values btw. civilizations ? Of knowledge ? What if a Civilization's internal "good" depends on external "bad" ? At the level of a Civilization, does a good today here neutralize a bad yesterday over there ?
- That inferiority or superiority are valid concepts in such matters. If you can't describe fundamental elements of a problem (see 3 points above), and you limit yourself in your methods of thinking (same), you won't be able to say in what direction you missed the mark. The mark is still in the box.
---
What I conclude to is you shouldn't make standards for "civilizations". One should refrain of making such arguments even if only for practical reasons.
In the Western though, such defective superior/inferior arguments have perennially been explicitly used as justification for actions against others in the last 200 years (from the individual to nations).
Yet, the measurable results of these actions were precisely the opposite of what the foundational values of said arguments would describe as desirable. So such arguments are counter productive much more often than not. They are used as an "western identitarian" cloak of infallibility, much like the Roman Catholic Church's (if you allow me the anachronism).
Why even use such arguments then ?
I conclude one shoud only precisely circumscribe its thinking groups and situations in time and space. If you don't, "right and wrong", become meaningless, undermining your whole construction.
---
My personal opinion on your apparent positions, expressed in my comment's last sentence:
Even within what seems to be your own moral framework, your own thinking about the matter is somewhat narrow. You are describing at a tree and missing the forest. As such, I do not believe you are fit to judge about superiority and inferiority of civilization, yes, even when using the relative quantity of dead children.
---
Finally, to answer your accusation of insanity, I argue not to make standards for "civilizations", even concerning dead children. It is dangerous. Only think with precisely well defined groups and situations in time and space.
Of course, if you see some children dying, go help them, but do not mix "civilization level" thinking into the mix. And do not believe yourself superior, or inferior. It is a gross, ridiculous, useless oversimplification.
If you are then interested in continuing this discussion, or asking "what's the alternative". I'll provide much shorter arguments and examples for each (this WAS vebose !) .