Odd how in these situations no one ever thinks of simply funding companies that would generate the most economic growth. And yet if you diff present conditions against conditions 100 or 500 years ago-- even in the poorest places-- I'd bet most of the improvement came not from explicitly benevolent projects so much as ordinary economic growth.
Obviously the two are hard to disentangle, but even in a project like shipping vaccines to poor countries, think about how much better it is to have things like fridges, phones, aircraft, etc. To say nothing of all the infrastructure in the labs that make the vaccines, etc, etc.
I agree that economic growth outweighs anything else.
But why would funding companies be the best way to generate the highest economic growth? There are many obstacles that prevent economic growth, especially in poor countries. Examples are high child mortality, malnourishment, corruption, lack of any kind of (micro-)credit, lack of education, tariffs, red tape, etc.
Taking away such obstacles can do very much for economic growth. The main advantage of funding companies is that their profits are returned to the investors.
E.g. the 1846 repeal of the Corn Laws had a much greater positive effect on economic growth in Britain than any investment in specific companies.
The repeal of the Corn Laws led to a massive flow of people to the cities, providing much needed labour to fuel the industries there. And by lowering the price of food, the entire country people had more money to spend on other goods. It also created a bigger market for the surplus of grain that the U.S. was able to produce, which gave a huge boost to their economy, and allowed it to continue to absorb enormous numbers of immigrants.
Also, the repeal of the Corn Laws became a landmark for the free trade movement, leading to a more efficient division of labour between states that gave a huge boost to economic growth that continued throughout the 19th century.
I read recently that the largest increase in human life expectancy came from the advent of indoor plumbing, which still does not exist in much of the world. I don't know the French word for Plumber, but perhaps we should start the equivalent Sans Frontieres for them.
My whole point was that what actually helps children in developing countries most is not heroic rescue missions but boring infrastructure improvements. That is, the stuff that helps children in developing countries most is the stuff that helps everyone, like making power transmission more efficient, or cloth manufacture cheaper.
Lots of YC funded startups make the world more efficient in some way. Octopart, for example. They make the electronics industry more efficient, and that helps everyone, just in a quiet, diffuse way.
Absolutely true, but does it help the children now? It's a bit like antimalarial research, of course it will help millions of people when a vaccination is finally available. But it won't help those children who will be infected next week, free mosquito nets and free drugs might help.
Looking only at the longterm economic development perspective you are absolutely right, but if you want to help those suffering right now, you are wrong.
Your quote:
"And yet if you diff present conditions against conditions 100 or 500 years ago-- even in the poorest places--"
What would starving people think about us when we tell them that we are not giving them any food because it's not worth it in the long term?
Obviously the two are hard to disentangle, but even in a project like shipping vaccines to poor countries, think about how much better it is to have things like fridges, phones, aircraft, etc. To say nothing of all the infrastructure in the labs that make the vaccines, etc, etc.