I created this thread for people interested in donating, not for you to debate overpopulation/decreasing population, who's more entitled for donation money, and so on. Take it to your walls, please.

I created this thread for people interested in donating, not for you to debate overpopulation/decreasing population, who's more entitled for donation money, and so on. Take it to your walls, please.

You should never give money to Red Cross.  They give donations directly to their volunteers to party, buy booze, and buy video games.  And in the aftermath of 9/11, they were so "confused" and didn't know who needed "relief" that they started "randomly" and "accidentally" handing out money to rich New Yorkers that were completely unaffected.  Donate ANYWHERE else.  Donate EVERYWHERE else.

Here you can donate to other charities through PayPal, and they'll cover 100% of the processing fees: https://www.paypal-donations.com/pp-charity/web.us/campaign.jsp?cid=-12

thank you for that particularly moot point

even countries donating to countries dont end up where they should. Australia gave millions to indonesion after 2004 tsunami and they spent it on ex russian fighter planes, good job australia. 

I plan to donate blood monday.

Then you shouldn't have asked the question in your title. Those people are just answering it and saying why they don't donate.

Well, I personally believe the world is very overpopulated as well, but in my opinion the context of a catastrophe isn't the right place to discuss that and my personal method of choice to decrease the population size would be a rigorous birth control and not letting people die, which frankly doesn't seem all that "humane" (to refer to your nick).

I can't believe how ignorant and naive this comment is..

Sure if the get rid of all those pesky wild animals and cultivate every landscape (i.e. make "use" of those "useless" forests and swamps and so on), that may be possible as long as we are in a climate optimum.

But the climate _will_ change, there never was a point in earth history where climate was constant and right now we are in a short warm period (former warm periods were 10-15k years on average) within an ice house climate (ice ages on average were 70-100k y long within the last 2.6m years).

Now if the climate changes (to a new ice age or to a hot house climate) we will have far less agricultural production, so if we had 15 or 50 (lol) billion people living on earth in that situation what do you think will happen? I can tell you.. unbelievable hunger, huge wars for water resources/fertile land, billions of people will die within some years/decades and the wars will destroy a lot of the enviroment.

It's absolutely not in humankinds best interest to use/populate earth to it's maximum capacity, we need to find a sensible max of human population, which I'm afraid already is exceeded.

By the way, "poor" countries don't produce enough food to feed their people (nearly all of them have to import food from the west, ofc especially during droughts and so on), they produce a lot of "cash crops", because in the rich countries we want chocolade, peanuts, cotton, coffee,... (and we want all that for very cheap prices). These plants don't qualify as "food", as they use a hell of lot of water for a minimal (consumable) energy output. But to clean/desalinate water we need to invest much (electric) energy as well.

Governments in poor countries don't even have the choice to tell their people to do otherwise, as there is a lot of pressure to go on doing so/produce even more export orientated agricultural products to pay off their depts (which we made sure they can't).

I complained about "dahuman" 's nick, but "baka" in yours might be justifiable.