By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath on 06 June 2011
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
@Kasz. I'd contend that organisations like the Red Cross do more to help humanity than any localised group.

And can you seriously not see what the difference in terms of the need for aid is between hundreds of thousands of people being injured and/or having their livelihoods destroyed in a natural disaster and some homeless people in a western country?


In the same way that the US does more to help humanity then any other country... the Red Cross is bigger then any one local charity.

When it comes to amount of money vs help...

and amount of money vs sustained help?

Certaintly not... think of all the added expenses of being a large orginization and taking care of food and housing for your employees etc...

Also by sustained help... I mean health that fully sustains someone.

For example, food banks help out those in a city in Cleveland.  In two months time or a two years time... the majority of those families are fine, and plenty can sustain themselves.  10-20 and 30 years from now?  Clevaland and that area is in a better spot.  The economy is better... and there is more money to go into the  economy, and more people to help others both in Cleveland and across the world.

Ship foreign aid food to Somalia via the red cross... in two months, they probably are still living off foreign aid food.  2 Month from now... the same... 10-20-30 years from now... there are just more people requiring help via foreign aid, because of the crappy leadership. (or in somalias case lack of leadership.)  In a way our charity peversly is just causing more people to starve, just over a longer period of time... until we can't provide enough charity to cover everyone... and then... MASSIVE problems happen.  Research generally tends to show foreign aid having little actual effect on the countries... and in some cases... actual negative effects to the economy.

 

In a lot of cases... the charity may actually be destroying local buisnesses and ruining the infostructure of "less developed" nations.

 

In both cases, those who don't get money die.

In a lot of cases... foreign aid actually is holding down revolutions that could lead to better government and more prosperity... or if not revolutions... at least reform and focusing on food industries and the like.

In a lot of ways, the foreign aid we apply now, actually causes more longtime harm then good... and that money could be spent on other countries where it would create more good.

Money is spent emotionally and not logically... when it could be used to save more people, both at once... and over the long term.

We could be doing things a lot more efficently and rapidly fixing problems like world hunger a lot better... without more people dieing... just simply by focusing on the changes and people who are likely to benefit.

I'm talking disaster relief aid, where if the people are usually self-sustaining but due to a major event are temporarily not. This doesn't appear to be what you're talking about.