There are many charities and foundations that ask you to donate money to them for feeding the people in starving, dead end, third world countries. My arguement is should we feed them. When you feed these people, what do they do?? Well they reproduce. So by feeding those starving people you are not solving the problem because ten or twenty years down the road there is going to be another generation of starving people. So by feeding them you are just continuing the cycle. We will always be feeding these people if this practice continues. Should we let Nature finish them off? Getting rid of the starving people would eliminate a big problem–we wouldn’t have all these starving, suffering people in the future.
You know what? Why do we put all this time and effort into having hospitals and doctors? Why don’t we just let the sick people die? They’re going to die anyway, and if they die we won’t have all those sick people around. I bet a lot of them are suffering from inherited diseases; if we don’t try to keep them alive, they won’t be able to reproduce and pass those diseases to their children.
When you don’t, they reproduce and then die. Starvation doesn’t kill quickly, in fact what kills most people isn’t the actual starvation itself but the weakening of the immune systems, kwashiorkor, and so forth. Giving food to these people is a humanitarian act, just as it is advertised to be.
Would you rather have 300,000 die starving or 2 million? If you look at the problem in the “big picture” of things I think it is a good idea. The way I feel about it is save your money peoples–enjoy your life. You are only giving a temporary solution to the problem if you give donations to feed these people. Besides, half the charities these days are corrupt. After all your $20 donation may end up financing some dope deal in Florida.
Why are people hungry? People are hungry because they lack the money to buy food. So, naturally, eliminating hunger requires the elimination of poverty. In the big picture, this means that whoever is hungry must go out and work. They must work to live.
Frankly, I thought matt_mcl was right on the money.
Charities can be broken into two categories: those that fix problems and reduce future suffering, and those that reduce current suffering, but don’t do much for the future.
I (like you, Silo) agree that fixing tomorrows problems today is a much better use of our charitable resources. But you can’t spend nothing on todays problems.
You have a valid point, Silo. I’m all about decreasing the surplus population. Although, history might think us cruel if we have grain rotting in elevators because the poor won’t give us enough money for it. Maybe they can work it off in salt mines or something.
Thank you, Billehunt. To paraphrase Tom Tomorrow, we can’t wipe out world hunger by feeding the starving! It’s clearly time to stop addressing this problem - and start ignoring it!
We help those less fortunate because we are human & social. It is our duty. I am all for feeding those who need some temporary help as the locusts ate the crop, or the drought, or the wahtever. But it is pointless to help the same folk year after year. People need to help themselves, too, and take some responsibility for their lives. By helping too much, we take away their need or ability to do that. Also, some 3rd world dictators spend their budgets on palaces & tanks, instead of food, or better, agriculture programs. We should not bail these folks out more than once, if that.
And SILO, I suppose you would not accept unemployment, food stamps or aid, if you were laid up, and could not work?
If there’s a more basic moral imperative than giving food to those who will otherwise die from hunger, I don’t know what it is.
If you’re willing to let people starve to death because it might make less trouble for you in the future, you’re evil.
And of course you should try to provide both long-term and - when needed - short-term solutions. Unfortunately, it’s hard to find the funding for even the short-term aid. Reading this thread demonstrates why.
Daniel says:
People on the brink of starvation have absolutely no ability to “help themselves” - they are focused on providing the next meal for themselves and their family. Next year ? These people would love the chance to plan for next week.
Their politicos screw them royally, sure - but a lot of the starving people have absolutely no say on who’s ruling their country anyway.
Silo says:
And if it looks like said life will end in two weeks due to starvation, tough for you. It’s for the greater good.
A temporary solution is exactly what is needed in case of droughts, floods etc.
Then give to the other half. There’s plenty of charities with a pretty good record around - Red Cross springs to mind. But why distinguish between charities, when you consider even the non-corrupt ones to be harmful ?
And when these unlucky nations join the international community, I’m sure you’ll take the opportunity to explain to their citizens why it was a good idea to kill off their families by means of starvation. No doubt you’ll get an enthusiastic response.
I actually have a sponsor child, because I don’t plan on having children but try to support life somewhere else.
But I sometimes agree with Silo’s point. The world’s population is increasing, we can’t deal with everyone. Perhaps the money would be better spent in sex-education so some of these starving families don’t end up with 12 children all of which they cannot feed.
SPINEY: did you actually READ my post, or were you just so mad at the callowness of this thread that you skipped over much of what I said? I said if there is a disaster we have a moral DUTY to help feed those people. But we do NOT want to overdo it. Get them on their feet, hand them a shovel, and let them help themselves. People should not depend on our aid, they should depend on themselves. If we help too much they will never learn to stand on their own.
Sorry, Daniel - I did admittedly get rather steamed up. Actually I quite agree with most of your points - please accept my apologies ?
(Note to self: Don’t post when angry and over-caffeinated).
OK, deep breath, count to 10: The OP describes a very real problem. Getting the 3rd world countries on their feet is the way to go, and I believe these countries are full of people asking for nothing more than a fair chance to do just that. Unfortunately, there’s often also a ruling class determined to live off the aid. When helping out, it’s a good idea to try to make contact with the first group of people and help them on their premises. This is way more expensive than simply handing out food, it doesn’t make for good television and it’ll fail more often that not. OTOH, it’s probably the only long-term solution.
Late 18th century economist Thomas Malthus already came up with this theory. Of course, it has been controversial ever since.
Don’t jump all over Silo for pointing this out: the idea is totally rational and would have easily been accepted had it not been for Human Morality. A debate about this subject might be rather interesting. Just where does morality end?
For the record: I, too, think we should help the needy. But it doesn’t hurt to look at things in a fully rational perspective. Even if we’ll never carry it out that way.
Here’s a little secret for you, Silo–the wealthier and more secure people get, the less they tend to reproduce. Really. The problem is not that we’re feeding the same people over and over; the problem is that, worldwide, not everyone has the same access to resources. If citizens of the Third World were able to be more self-sufficient and less dependent on Western largesse, I guarantee their birth rates would fall.
Also, I’d like to see a cite about charities financing dope deals in FLorida, and if you can’t provide one, I’ll consider the statement rescinded.
I think that Silo has been jumped on excessively here.
The issue here is not the Malthusian one, that has been dealt with quite adequately: increasing division of labour improves wealth, and children are inferior goods. Translation: when people get rich, they have fewer, better “quality” children. In the longer term population pressure is not a problem if people can be confident that their few children will have a decent chance of survival and prosperity.
There is a serious moral dilemma here, and it is going on right now in the Ethiopia/ Eritrea war. These are two very poor countries which have both suffered a recent drought and where many people are in danger of starvation. The problem is that the drought is not itself the cause of the imminent starvation: it is the disfunctional politics of the region.
If we again help alleviate the suffering in these countries with masses of aid, are we perpetuating the hopeless systems under which they and future generations live?
On the other hand, the victims are almost by definition, powerless. How can we let them starve in the vain hope that this will cause institutional reform? We sure as hell wouldn’t impose the same standards if our families were the ones in peril.