Yeah for how long would the hunger come to an end? Its all about long term soloutions and enabling people to help themselves rather than just dumping aid on them.

That is the key.

Giving aid to people in the form of processed goods and services - food packages, doctors with health care, ect are very temporary fixes that do no good when the aid stops. Although it can be good in short bursts, it damages long-term solutions. Warlords may steal food and re-sell it, people may become too dependent on foreign aid and not introduce programs to increase crop yields, people may get their kids to not go to medical school due to doctors helping them currently, ect.

I can't remember who quoted it - if it was highwaystar or someone else - but theres a great quote from a Kenyan politician essentially stating that 'if you want to fix Africa, stop giving us aid' simply because it was doing more harm than good.

Yeah, Highwaystar had the antitheisis to this thread.

Basically the best way to help the world is to cut off all foreign aid.  Since all foreign aid like food was doing was making local populations grow and require more and more levels of foreign aid.

In effect like giving money to a gambling or drug addict.

Give someone with a gambling problem money to pay off their gambling debt... and the chances are in 2 weeks they're going to come to you for money with an even bigger gambling debt.  Stuff like that.

Who knows what way is right though.  Honestly though, tragedys in other areas are more likely to have me donate to LOCAL charities.

There are plenty of people in need, right outside your doorstep... and the more of your money is going to help the people here because it doesn't have to travel so far and there aren't as many administration fees etc.

I have no problem helping other nations... however it seems more practical to worry about people within the country first... just because it's easiest and most effective.  Fixing your neighors faucet before you fix your own is inefficent even if you treat the problem equally, since you have to walk to your neihbors house.

This post reminds me of why I have so much respect for you. I too donate time/money to charity, however not to the same extent as you.

Fortunately, when I was in school, I was able to spend a significant amount of time doing some of these activities. I spent the greater time of 3 years working at a food pantry part-time (maybe 10hrs a week or so) helping carry groceries up and down stairs for disabled people, and helping obtain groceries at one of the largest food banks in Ohio (Mid-Ohio food bank).

So I'd 'like' to think that I have a little perspective on the problem. People are human - both volunteers and those receiving help. There were people that came in for food assistance that had no right using it, some came in that were going to sell the groceries, some were going to use what they got to suppliment getting a job, and then some were going to use it in the right way as they were truly needy. When you work with people in those regards, you do understand the fullness of the problem. In my own case, I'm hoping to spend Thanksgiving Day at a local firehouse running an event for the homeless of the community and those that have no family - like a city-wide event for the needy.

Not everyone can give the time/money needed to helping the poor. I am the first person that says we need to do more. However, the problem is that its not just about doing more, its about getting more out of aid. When giving to countries or people, the best things you can do are give things that aren't direct aid. I have multiple friends that make bad decisions with credit cards and money, causing bankruptcy, poverty and other issues. Me giving them money doesn't help (I gave one friend $3,000 to pay off all of his credit cards, and he's still in debt). The best thing that can be done in some situations is to teach better habits. Its like Kasz said about drug users and gamblers - you don't help them by giving money to them, you help by rehabilitating them. Much in the same way for those less fortunate - yes, assistance is greatly needed in direct ways like food, shelter and clothing, but that can only sustain a person for so long. You have to also teach them how to acquire food, shelter and clothing. In America, you can do that with adult education, litteracy classes, and job employment opportunities.

Knowing those things, there is no difference in rendering aid to a poor person in America as there is in Haiti, Zimbabwe, Kenya, or India. You have to start with sustainable living practices, then educate, then employ, then they grow. Some can be upset, but the simple fact is that not everyone that you can aid will use it in the way it was meant for.

I would give more to people but I find that giving to the SPCA can be more productive in terms of overall suffering alleviated and I never feel that im making sacrafices for people who would never do the same for me. Every person whom I know whom is impoverished is impoverished because of their own actions or attitudes. For example, I recently helped get my friend out of an abusive relationship with a woman whom was a complete nightmare. She only works up to but no more than the required level to keep the maximum 'government aid' as a single mother. She recently got a credit card with a $1000 limit and instead of buying a fridge which she needed she spent it all on junk. I met many truely nasty individuals when I worked with the poor so thats the reason why I respond in a more limited fashion and prefer to work with the animals, disabled, elderly. The people whom I know are most likely in the situation due to circumstances outside of their control.

Well I will give you credit for your efforts donated to helping othes.  I've helped out in the past as well but namely in donations to certain charities, salvation army, and of course countless food drives. 

But I'm curious why someone who has done that, has only thought so basic and linearly about it as to not really expand their analysis on the situation.  Why the refusal to give deep critical thought to the issue I've proposed despite having experience?  If the current existence of charity ahs good and bad sides, why not think of a way to make it only have good sides.  I'm always talking in ways where you find the root of the problem and you fix it and all subsequen things cease to matter.  Why sit their and accept a flawed system and act as if you've exhausted all scenarios when you can actually debate over here with me one that works. 

That's what I've been asking the entire time.  We know we live in this flawed world, even in the state of charity, yet we sit back and accept it.  That's what I'm asking.  Hopefully you finally understand what I'm saying.

When governments prevent propery charity to happen because they want to stay in power and want people to have no power you are left with three basic choices.

A) Remove the power.  Though not done for those reasons... see Iraq on the problems with this.

B) Cut off all charity so the people get angry and remove the people from power.  Of course this leads to all sorts of starvation.

C) Maintain the status quo.

While I agree that wealthy nations should provide aid to nations that need it at moments, you have to stop thinking in a fantasy world, Rubang.

Yes, wealthy nations could provide the world with food. But what is the incentive for third world nations to ever improve if they're on the dole from another country? It creates a permanent sub-standard for the country and would create the first indentured nation in the world. Congrats, you've just re-instated modern slavery.

As unfortunate as the world is and how much it pains me to see some countries suffer, you have to try to help them pull out of it with a strong government and prosperous industry, not more free shit handed to the citizens. Hell, with that kind of thinking, South Korea would still be run by the American government and its citizens would rely on us for everything. With smart moves by foreign bodies and a strong will of the people, the country has thrived as it became a world power over the past 50 years.

I was actually going to go off here, but I'll let the half dozen other people tell you how wrong you are (like they just did). My life is so easy.