Archive for January, 2010

Why Haiti? Why now?

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Before I start, let me say that the earthquake in Haiti was a tragedy, and the public response to it has been laudable. Nothing I say here is intended to undermine the generosity of those who stepped forward to donate. But I feel the aftermath exposes a worrying pattern.

A natural disaster befalls a certain part of the world, and people wring their hands over it. Soon this settles down and people devote their energies to providing aid: governments and NGOs swing into action, and the general public mobilise their best efforts to provide funds from T-shirts, concerts, bake sales and good old-fashioned donations. The sense of hopelessness is temporarily assuaged until news gets back that aid can’t get through: Haiti’s lack of infrastructure combined with the crippling effects of the quake mean that aid is blocked by sheer logistical difficulties—and we’re back to hand-wringing again.

Nobody likes to feel powerless. But if you want to prevent unnecessary deaths, then I have good news for you: it’s easier than you think. Around one million people die from malaria each year, and nearly two million from tuberculosis (TB). An incredible 36 million die each year from causes related to malnutrition (this number very likely overlaps with the numbers for malaria and TB). The vast majority of these deaths are preventable, and at surprisingly low cost, since the limiting factor isn’t the Herculean logistical task of getting emergency aid in through narrow transport channels already at maximum capacity—it’s simply lack of funds.

Haiti may not be getting all the help it needs right now, but it’s quite possibly getting all the help it can handle for the moment. Meanwhile, poverty hasn’t let up elsewhere in the world, and by the third day of the Haiti relief effort an equivalent number of preventable deaths had happened elsewhere in the world.

I don’t pretend to have any answers to global poverty, but I’d like to suggest two questions that could usefully guide our human desire to make the world a better place. Firstly, how can I target my giving to optimise the amount of suffering saved in the world? Secondly, how can I target my giving to be sustainable and continue to pay dividends over time? If we can satisfy these, then I don’t see what more can be asked of us.

Book Review: Crucial Confrontations

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

Crucial confrontations book coverMany of us would admit to failing to face up to people who have let us down. The authors of Crucial Confrontations provide numerous examples of this effect that have led to serious cost to companies, human relationships and even lives. However, observing the problem isn’t enough to solve the problem, because the problem lies in people’s ability to confront people. More specifically, it lies in their perceived ability: people think they won’t be able to have a productive confrontation, so they avoid doing it.

Luckily, as well as diagnosing an insidious problem this book provides clear and actionable advice that could be helpful to anyone, whatever their current level of communication skills. The authors blend well-observed general principles with specific examples from professional and personal contexts. They have done particularly well to reduce a potentially confusing topic to a single clear model that is simple enough to comprehend and general enough to be useful.

The scope of the book is both broad and narrow. It’s narrow in that it focuses almost exclusively on a single case: people who have violated an agreement or expectation. However, in a sense this still has great breadth since these situations occur in all walks of life. The examples in the book show how the principles apply equally well in work and at home.

I never feel like I’ve written a fair review unless I’ve picked a few holes in a book, and I’m struggling to do so here. The worst I can say is that this isn’t an instant classic, if for no other reason than its narrow scope. However, I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t be well advised to give it a read.


Why Amazon’s retroactive deletion of Kindle books isn’t such a big deal

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

It was of course ironic that the first case where Amazon were legally compelled to revoke rights to a book purchased in their store was George Orwell’s 1984. But to hear some commentators talk about it you’d think this was some sort of censorship.

I’m not too worried about Amazon’s technological ability to delete books that have been purchased and downloaded to the Kindle, because Amazon’s actions are still constrained by the only two things that really matter: the law, and good business sense.

If I go to eBay and purchase a laptop that later turns out to have been stolen, I don’t have any right to retain ownership of the laptop once that fact has come to light, no matter how innocent my purchase was. The laptop will (ideally) be taken away from me by the police and returned to its rightful owner. I won’t even get my payment refunded by default, it will be up to me to pursue the matter with the seller (who may themselves not know they had been dealing in stolen property).

The Amazon case isn’t so different to the stolen laptop. By selling the book to people, the right of the copyright holder to control distribution had been taken away from them, and it was only right that that was corrected. The innocence of the purchasers of the book (who received an immediate refund when the book was taken away from them) doesn’t change that.

The capability to remove books could in theory be used for suppression of ideas, but I can’t see it making business sense to do so. The Streisand effect means that removal of an existing book will make much more of a splash than not listing the book in the first place (which they are equally well able to do with plain old dead-tree books). The vast majority of books in the Kindle store sell so few copies that the best way to keep a text out of people’s minds is simply not to promote it.