Great rant. Your mom kicks ass.

We can afford to feed the entire planet healthy food and clean water. But we don't, because many people think there are principles more important than life. I think that's a crime.

Well although I agree with that first point as well, does everyone in this world have the means to help themselves?  Or should this world be so self-centered that everyone is on their own?  As a child, people helped me.  As a young adult people help me.  Why should I be the only one to enjoy help from others which I return to them.  I don't have the means to do everything myself, and I live in America, so why should I expect the rest of the world to do it as well. 

If we live in a world that continuously puts themselves in front of the whole, then of course it'll be easy to just say they should be able to do it themselves.  But that's just a false representaiton of those who make that argument.  They have plenty of people helping them in their lives.  To deprive others of that same love and care is a logical contradiction. 

I help myself on a daily basis and I try to help others on a daily basis.  I think being under a capitalist society, like mine in America, we have a problem with understanding the concept of "doing something good for the sake of the act".  It's actually surprising the American Christian society can't grasp that, considering their entire philosophy is completely taken from Nichomachean ethics written by Aristotle.  He said doing virtuous acts required that it come from an unchangeable person, that person knows they are doing it, and they are doing it for the sake of the act.  Essentiallyl doing the right thing because it is the right thing.  In modern society, everything is dont for the sake of getting something in return.  Why can't that return be the love of humanity, protection of our planet, or justice itself.  Something more than just piece of paper or materialistic goods.

This isn't direct as a criticism of you, just giving an argument against the idea of doing something for the sake of something other than what you are doing which would go against the idea that "they should be able to help themselves".  It just doens't seem a good enough argument to state that they should be able to help themselves when indeed everyone needs help. 

Well that's essentially what I'm saying.  The world shouldn't be on the bring of apocalypse to bring the best out in a person.  Or basically the worst should have to bring out the best in people.  Everyone needs a friend, and just knowing that you are there for them, is good enough to get anyone back on their feet.  The world needs to care as a planet, not as timely factions.  If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need to dump money everywhere to help those... they wouldn't need the help. 

Really, by not caring and helping those around the world, and by at most times using and abusing them, we put ourselves further in debt.  Fix the root of the problems rather than continuously paying off the aftermath of them. 

Yes being able to see past yourself is something most find difficult.  But one must ask, should a human be calculated in monetary value.  That doesn't seem humane to me.  So yea I agree with you this world is bloody crazy but I think it is mainly due to ignorance.  They don't know there is another way.  They think only that to live you have to work or do these things.  Why not have a capitalist market for everything but the neccessites of life.  Just no one either thinks that way or no one thinks they can think that way. 

But thanks for the imput.  I'm always trying to analyze all these different arguments and look at all sides.  Always been curious in seeing masses of opinions and trying to find the best solution out of all of them.  Or more notably, trying to find what is the status quo and finding why it is flawed.  With such a crazy world, there has to be something better than what we have.  Oh well, but every now and then I just like to write things like this to see if I can get people to look at a different take on things that are commonly held.  Think people would be surprised how differently you can view the world if you just try to look at more opinions than their own. 

Haha thanks.  Yes I think the argument of the monetary one is a ba done simply because we are putting a price on human beings but that is just as good of a point.  We actually do have the ability to do all these things, but the wealth of this world is concentrated in the few not the many.  These people, all of us, have the ability to help the rest of the world, but we choose not to.  It is a crime.  It's the exact argument we used against the Nazis in the Nuremburg trials.  They stated they were following orders, but we ruled against them saying they were supposed to do the right thing.  Why not live up to that creed and do the right thing now. 

I completly disagree with that. We can't afford to feed the entire world. the economy is bad enough as it is.

Something happened in Haiti?

Look at it from this way:

Haiti is a nation of about 10 million people. This nation, due to a recent catastrophe, is heavily dependent on foreign aid and resources. But what will this aid really do, besides support a group of people who can't really help themselves? Basically, there are two main problems with giving aid to third world countries: Corruption in the government and among the few wealthy (which is prevalent in Haiti), and the inability for the people of the country to help themselves. You could provide free food and water to everyone in Haiti for the next 10 years, and by the end of those 10 years, they'll have no more food or water since you stopped providing it.

The Gates Foundation is one of the few charitable organizations that gets it. Instead of just giving people in impoverished nations free food, they help them to grow more food, fight diseases, etc. By helping these people sustain themselves, they ultimately accomplish more than just about any other charity group.

But in the end, one of the biggest problems with Haiti (and many other impoverished countries) is a corrupt and/or ineffective government. Now while this isn't true of all impoverished nations (Paul Kagame of Rwanda, for example, has transformed his nation), there's just no point in trying to help a nation whose leaders won't help the people. And if you want another example of a nation that went from poor and weak to incredibly wealthy and powerful, then look at China. It made this transformation not through some kind of magic trick, but through strong and effective governing. These nations, when they apply the same, see similar results (albeit on a much smaller scale). And many of these poor nations have the means to better their own situations (lots of natural resources, large young working populations). If you can find a way for countries to teach culture, stable governing, and a strong work ethic, then that would be fantastic.

Also, I'd love it if all the nations worked together and helped each other all the time, with no exceptions and only each other's best interests at heart. That's called a fantasy world. This is the real Earth, and we live in it.

The United Nations estimates it would cost about $195 billion a year to end world hunger.

22 countries have pledged to donate 0.7% of national income to meet this goal, but only 5 countries have done it.  The U.S. hasn't.

Meanwhile, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad cost $592 billion to make over the last few years.  I think it's affordable.

Well although I know that is a argument from a lot of people against this, it is a very poor one and it is easy to show why.  I could reconstruct that using a different example. 

"Also I'd love it if all the nations were able to communicate over long distances at enormous speeds which would help the spread of communication and information.  That is called a fantasy world.  This is the real Earth, and we live in it."

What's the problem with the argument?  Well you pretend to exhaust all options when indeed that isn't true.  Obviously it's not impossible to have the ability to communicate across the world.  Hell we do it today with the telephones and the internet.  It's called a false dichotomy, which as I explained, is where someone states the possible options and attempts to exhaust them when clearly that is not the case.  Thus that argument isn't a good one at all, because obviously a fanstasy world is not impossible.  Now probability is a different thing, but you talk to someone 2000 years ago about the same thing I Just stated there and well you'd get the same reply.

The point is, we need to be conscious of our arguments.  I'm not trying to criticize you in particular, but just showing people common mistakes in logic.  Obviously this is a fairly popular one which I see all the time.  Now, of course, my original argument I stated was an idealist view, but that doesn't make it impossible.  Now you could argue against the impossibility of my proposal by getting into a discussion of human nature.  However, that is a brutal discussion which will definitely lead to a "nature vs. nurture" argument, and quite frankly I'm not sure if many people are able or willing to discuss it haha.  But hey this is a discussion eh.