You can't save people. Or at least you shouldn't - once saved, people tend to stay saved, with all the negative hanger-on-ism that that tends to attract.
Hanger-on-ism is part of a vocabulary I do not recognize. Who talks about this?
The advantage of combatting illiteracy through education and lack of capital through microcredit is that it encourages the poor and dispossessed to take responsibility for their own fates. They will then take political action to save themselves. It's the best of all worlds.
Illiteracy and lack of captial are separate problems, ones that probably have scientific solutions, but I had not brought them up. Maybe if someone innovated a way to educate masses of people inexpensively... but I doubt that politics will suddenly change so that people focus on global education.
Anyway, I was talking about people not being able to succeed despite already having everything they need, except the potential.
Take, for example, the sale of high-yield crops. These are very rarely targetted to the specific growing conditions of the area, and therefore fail more often than the local blend... as a result yields actually lower.
I think you and me have different opinions of what a high-yield crop is. A high-yield crop with low yields is not a high yield crop at all. It is a mislableled and failed creation. You can also buy gingko biloba as a "memory-enhancer", but don't count on results.
The tragedy of the commons refers to common property. It doesn't have a lot of relevance to individual empowerment.
The tragedy of the commons refers to the temptation to act selfishly eliminating the possibility of maximally ultilized common resources, no matter how much some individuals might want that. Actually, I think the idea goes on to describe that the resources are eventually destroyed, but that's beside the point. I believe there will always be "developing" countries because, even though on average people might be better off if all countries were created equal, Americans, for example, would have less without the harvest of imperialism. In spite of that, I think a situation like this can be made better. Mass education in developing areas could accomplish that, maybe. And The Fed can reduce the amplitude of recession (and growth).
Cynicism is very first-world, but is it really more important to instil in developing countries than a good education?
Cynicism is very first world because the philosophy applies so well in a material culture. I am not a cynic, however. Besides, who said anything about instilling cynicism in developing countries?