Intelligent approaches to poverty
Controversial Oxford ethicist Julian Savulescu cites evidence that intellect is an attribute that ‘makes life go well.’ IQ is negatively correlated with things like unemployment, divorce, poverty, jail and the need for welfare benefits.
If you could somehow improve the IQ of the whole population by as little as three points (or 3%, on average), contends Prof. Savulescu, "you would reduce poverty by 25%, you would reduce welfare recipiency by 18%, the number of males in jail by 25%, the number of parentless children by 20%."
Reduce poverty by 25%! That’s half-way to achieving the first UN Millennium Development Goal.
Is it even possible to make a populace smarter? One proven approach is to reduce environmental exposure to lead (in paint, petrol, water pipes, etc.) Pregnant women eating a diet rich in fish oils and choline (found in eggs and soy) appears to increase their child’s intelligence. The demonstrated link between breastfeeding and IQ makes the promotion and protecting of breastfeeding a poverty reduction strategy.
Conversely, the adverse impact of malnutrition on IQ may be a factor in the poverty trap.
Without wishing to distract attention from other causes of poverty, there must be numerous public health strategies that could raise population IQ. It’s the link to poverty (and education and employment, etc.) that makes intelligence a human rights issue.
Dear Olivia,
This is a little bit off-topic (off topic for breastfeeding, on topic for human rights generally), but I read an article by Steve Chalke in the Age yesterday about slavery in the chocolate industry. I do like Old Gold 70%, so I wrote an email to Cadbury asking them whether they certified their chocolate as being free of forced child labour.
I got a *very* long (and prompt) reply back this morning explaining that they were involved in the International Cocoa Initiative working to end the practise. This sounded like white wash, because “working towards” something can of course be as weak as you want it to.
However they also directed me to their website. On it, the “human rights policy” says they
# preclude the use of forced labour
# ensure children are employed only under circumstances which protect them from physical risk and do not disrupt their education
which of course is exactly what I want them to do!
So, why don’t they just say “No we do not use beans made with forced child labour”?
My question for you is, do you know anything about this International Cocoal Initiative? Is it effective, or just there to make it look like something is being done?
Also, how much confidence that company policy is being followed should we have? Are these feel-good sentiments, or a serious attempt to change?
Hope you are all well and that we see you in person soon,
Julie.
ps. A cockatoo just landed on my window and gave me a piercing stare. Better get on with work.
I’m not surprised Cadbury’s has a human rights policy, given its Quaker origins and apparent pride in the socially progressive aspects of the company’s history (heated dressing-rooms, no less!) Whether the policy means anything in practice, is, of course, the important question. I am not familiar with the International Cocoa Initiative, though monitoring of the industry would be a very good thing. Oxfam, which sells fair-trade chocolate, might be able to tell you more about ICI’s bona fides.