No development aid ??

An prominent corporate governance advocate and economist told me a while ago that he did not believe in development aid. “The world is polluted and overpopulated, economically it would be better to let some of the people die in order to ensure survival of the rest”, so he stated. I asked him which part of the world according to him then earned the right to survive. His answer: “the ones that do not die from pollution, famine, war or diseases. Very simple logic, the survival of the fittest”.

This conversation has been on my mind for a long time. From an economic perspective this is a correct line of reasoning. However, taking human emotions into account, this sounds of course ridiculous. I am trying to gather my thoughts on this topic. Why does the logic of economic sometimes provide inhumane solutions? And why does it work in other cases? Development economics for example is the foundation for much of the development aid.

“When the IMF and the World Bank force a country to cut wages, lay off workers, produce for export instead of their own people, and sell off public property to cronies for less than its value, that's called "economic reform”

“A hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove...but the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child.”

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”