Last Thursday, Jeffrey Sachs—the Harvard economist dubbed “the most important in the world” by The New York Times Magazine—spoke to a full house here at the Y. He spoke of worse poverty outside the U.S. and solutions which only the lack of political will precludes. He claims we already have the resources and solutions to poverty. The problem is getting adequate financial resources to the solutions.

He argues that donating—not lending with interest—one percent of the rich world’s $31 trillion is needed to spring Africa from the poverty trap. He also argues we need more and smarter aid: ‘more’ meaning we increase our donations to offset the cost of consultants and the cost of supply delivery, which consumes half of foreign aid; ‘smarter’ meaning we don’t just give away food but also teach how to escape dependency.

Why don’t we do it? Sachs senses an emotional obstacle: fear of the poor—of getting entangled in their mess. As Frans de Waal would put it, human emotions interfere with rationality. Sachs also implicated the media, with its focus on disastrous Afrcian states (e.g., Zimbabwe and the Congo) at the expense of peacefully governed states (e.g., Ghana and Tanzania) that don’t squander foreign aid and still need it. Consequently, we operate under the misperception that aid to any African country will go to waste at the hands of corrupt officials.

Why should we care? Sachs makes an appeal to self-interest, among other things, not unlike Thomas P.M. Barnett last week: The problems of the poor world spill over to the rich world, affecting everyone’s health and security. Economic isolation will only exacerbate these effects. Commenting on his critics, Sachs says, “They’re writing from their offices here; they’re not over there, writing their criticism while seeing these [impoverished] people.”

An engaging night in which the rational seemed possible.