Why should I help poor people in Africa?

[Woodruff]

it's basically the same as the fat old man who forces a prostitute to lick his ass hole in return for a wad of cash. it's degrading and it's sick.

I hear that the market will correct for that naturally.

[WILLIAMS5232]

greed causes folks to degrade themselves naturally. no need to force anything.

just like the fat old man that likes his pooper licked. he got greedy with twinkies. it wasn't the 4th or the 5th twinkie that got him fat. it was like the 70th or 80th. now he's degraded himself so badly he has to pay folks to lick his starfish. it's a vicious cycle really.

[mordigan]

greed causes folks to degrade themselves naturally. no need to force anything.

i don't think it's greed that causes a $300 per capita country to try and hang on to its foreign aid. in general, sub-saharans who live in poverty don't live in poverty due to their greed and poor life decisions

[WILLIAMS5232]

greed causes folks to degrade themselves naturally. no need to force anything.

i don't think it's greed that causes a $300 per capita country to try and hang on to its foreign aid. in general, sub-saharans who live in poverty don't live in poverty due to their greed and poor life decisions

who said they were greedy? i thought we were talking about hookers and johns?

if you're comparing hookers to starving Africans i don't like that analogy. Africans live in a country with a poor economic system ( not all Africans, just the starving ones that request/accept aid ) a hooker has a choice to pick up aluminum cans or lick buttholes. of course one pays a little more money than the other. a hundred or so years ago folks were able to for the most part take care of themselves or die. fortunately now we have the govt to take care of us for us. so a hooker in the states is in no way being forced to lick a fat mans butthole unless she wants to. i'm sure there was a time that a hooker licked a fat mans butt because he forced her to, but we are talking in general right? now a starving african has a choice to accept a free bowl of rice or just keep starving.

i'm basically just against handing money out. it's no secret that free money gets wasted. how do you solve that? i don't know. but when i owe money to people i don't give away my money to other people. i give it to the people i owe first, then when i have extra, i'll buy somebody a cheesburger.

[mordigan]

who said i was talking about american hookers? maybe unemployed americans are lucky enough to be in a position where prostitution is nothing more than a lifestyle choice but there are plenty of women whose children would starve if not for the money that their mother makes by selling her body.

i doubt your assertion that an american hooker is making a free choice anyway. do you really think a woman would go off with potentially dangerous men and suck their cocks for $20 if she thought there was another way to get by?

[mordigan]

besides, my point was that aid-giving governments behave in the same way as a man waving money at a hungry woman. they know they can make the recipient of their money dance before she gets her meal and they take advantage of that. still true.

[Woodruff]

a hundred or so years ago folks were able to for the most part take care of themselves or die. fortunately now we have the govt to take care of us for us.

You say this like it's not generally an improvement.

[WILLIAMS5232]

i doubt your assertion that an american hooker is making a free choice anyway. do you really think a woman would go off with potentially dangerous men and suck their cocks for $20 if she thought there was another way to get by?

it's unlikely anyone wants to become a hooker when they grow up. but some women are a bit trashier than others. we're all different. i don't sterilize my buggy at the grocery store before using it. others do. i'm a bit more tolerant to germs than those people. i'm going free choice here on this one. generally speaking of course.

besides, my point was that aid-giving governments behave in the same way as a man waving money at a hungry woman. they know they can make the recipient of their money dance before she gets her meal and they take advantage of that. still true.

fair enough. i realize your point, just when i think hooker i think "hooker who drives bmw" and "hooker addicted to crack" not "hooker who raises family via hooking because it's the only way" maybe that's because i'm an american i guess.

a hundred or so years ago folks were able to for the most part take care of themselves or die. fortunately now we have the govt to take care of us for us.

You say this like it's not generally an improvement.

i did say that sarcastically. if you think life today is an improvement from life 30 years ago then i'm going to say we think differently. try to think of just how many rules and regulations have been implemented in that short time, and then lets think what the next 30 years have in store for us. if that makes you happy then there's not much we'll agree on. if a person relies on the govt to get the most out of life, i don't trust that person's idea of what getting the most out of life is.

[PLAYER57832]

The point is just that aid for people overseas who truly do need it is an effective means of diplomacy. Sadly, too often it gets abused, (particularly a lot of US government aid).. but those are other topics.

abuse like... corruption abuse? elaborate/link?

You name it. Sometimes its just that the person with the loudest voice doesn't necessarily have the best idea, best understanding.

For example, after disasters, we often throw in a lot of food and so forth. It feeds people in a hurry, but unless done carefully can undermine some local struggling businesses. Early food aid included a lot of powdered milk, but many cultures don't drink milk like we do, so it was not used.... etc.

On top of that, you definitely do have corruption, and what might not be strictly corruption, but folks seeing this as more of a business opportunity than any real attempt at aid. Profit absolutely MUST be a part of the equation, but it has to be reasonable and the profit cannot be at the expense of aid, it must be the motivation to move things forward... often we are better off supporting local business and not so much just dropping things made here. However, things made here generate jobs here.. which helps us as well as those overseas. The real answer is likely a considered amalgam... supporting as much local business as possible (channeling some of the supplies maybe from us), supplementing with stuff from here and building long-term supply chains that don't exclude us, but also don't exclude local sources.

The trouble is that big business here has a lot of weight to throw around. Also, folks talk about "efficiency" -- and often JUST look at the costs of production or perhaps production + transport, not, say, the fact that a local mango producer may not produce as much in strict terms, may charge more than products (perhaps grain, not mangos) from the US-- BUT the mango money goes to pay for her kids education, keeping her on her farm and house, allows her to maybe build a slightly bigger house, maybe even buy some more land... etc. The benefit of the grain is gone once the grain is purchased and used. The grain, is only "cheaper" at the market and in the short term.

[Serbia]

Why are any of you bothering with this thread? Seriously, you all need help.

Bollocks.

[PLAYER57832]

greed causes folks to degrade themselves naturally. no need to force anything.

i don't think it's greed that causes a $300 per capita country to try and hang on to its foreign aid. in general, sub-saharans who live in poverty don't live in poverty due to their greed and poor life decisions

Not THEIR greed, but the greed of those in charge.. often, yes.

In Africa, a lot of problems happened because boundaries were drawn for western convenience, without any real regard to social and cultural limits. Many groups were split into different countries. In some cases, lands people needed for grazing or such were split. Maybe a water source was on one side of a boundary, etc.

On top of that, a lot of western imperialism took the "divide and conquer" idea to an extreme. That's how we got into the Iraq/Iran/Saddam/Ayatollah H, etc fiasco. We backed one because they were against the other... with the result that the people on both sides pretty much distrust and dislike us.

[TheProwler]

They will never return my favors anyway, so why spend money on them when they won't give me anything in return? Isn't that just a bad investment? I get the point with helping your neighbors and so on but these people will never give me anything. And if I'm in it to feel better about myself, why not give money to someone poor nearby, who can praise my name, hug me and thank me for my incredible kindness? Giving money to Africans is just pointless, most of the money you give won't arrive to the people you intended anyway.

I'm not gonna read the last 5 or 6 pages of this thread.

You made a good point: Most people only make sacrifices when they will see a direct benefit from said sacrifice.


Some people get enough out of "feeling good" for sending money to people far away. I think very few people actually do something entirely for the benefit of other people,and not for some benefit to themselves.

We are, basically, a species of selfish assholes.

[PLAYER57832]

You made a good point: Most people only make sacrifices when they will see a direct benefit from said sacrifice.


Some people get enough out of "feeling good" for sending money to people far away. I think very few people actually do something entirely for the benefit of other people,and not for some benefit to themselves.

We are, basically, a species of selfish assholes.

You know, this is actually just plain false.
In fact, most people get more joy from giving to others than themselves. Every study done on it shows that to be the case, even if people think otherwise.

[TheProwler]

You know, this is actually just plain false.
In fact, most people get more joy from giving to others than themselves. Every study done on it shows that to be the case, even if people think otherwise.

So what was false? People give money to Africans so they can feel good about themselves....you just said they "get more joy"...that is the direct benefit.


Selfish assholes.

[Lootifer]

Er a lot of people would give up their lives for their children (hard to argue they gain anything from that - unless theyre religious, but ive never heard that this sentiment is limited only to religious folk).

Genuine charity is simply an extension of this kind of action: just instead of giving up their life they are giving up some of their wealth, and instead of family/children they are making their sacrifices to help generic suffering.

[TheProwler]

Er a lot of people would give up their lives for their children

Do you know anybody who has actually done that?

[Lootifer]

No but I also dont know any parents who were faced with that dilemma.

You do get the occasional story pop up where someone has put their life on the line to save someone, seems fairly common *shrug*

[TheProwler]

Yeah...but it's usually a calculated decision...

"Should I risk my life to save this asshole? I might die, but if I survive, I'll be a big hero and probably get lots of pussy. Yeah, I'll take my chances."


Do you see? It always comes back to personal gain.


Selfish assholes.

[Lootifer]

lol, well its an unanswerable question so I prefer to think theres good in the world.

regardless I think [apparently] selfless acts should be encouraged. i.e. donate to charity (just, as BBS says, do your research and ensure it is good/effective charity: good - teach a man to fish, bad - give a man a fish).

[TheProwler]

Why does everyone think that killing fish will solve all their problems?



I have nothing against fish.

[BigBallinStalin]

lol, well its an unanswerable question so I prefer to think theres good in the world.

regardless I think [apparently] selfless acts should be encouraged. i.e. donate to charity (just, as BBS says, do your research and ensure it is good/effective charity: good - teach a man to fish, bad - give a man a fish).

It's not like selfless acts are entirely selfless. Suppose you donate your kidney to a genuine friend. If you didn't, you'd feel ashamed. To lift yourself of those costs, you'd donate. It's a cost-saving choice which seems entirely "selfless," but it isn't since you would realize the profit of donating your kidney--compared to the opportunity cost of being a dick.

This goes back to the debate about pure altruism being nonexistent. We live by informal rules and external enforcement which can pressure us into doing the right, 'selfless' act.

[patches70]

lol, well its an unanswerable question so I prefer to think theres good in the world.

regardless I think [apparently] selfless acts should be encouraged. i.e. donate to charity (just, as BBS says, do your research and ensure it is good/effective charity: good - teach a man to fish, bad - give a man a fish).

It's not like selfless acts are entirely selfless. Suppose you donate your kidney to a genuine friend. If you didn't, you'd feel ashamed. To lift yourself of those costs, you'd donate. It's a cost-saving choice which seems entirely "selfless," but it isn't since you would realize the profit of donating your kidney--compared to the opportunity cost of being a dick.

This goes back to the debate about pure altruism being nonexistent. We live by informal rules and external enforcement which can pressure us into doing the right, 'selfless' act.

And when people work for their own self interests it translates into good for the community, others. Life saving drugs are a good thing, the development of which was motivated by profit seeking.

Just because a person benefits personally from an action doesn't make that action wrong and even can be considered doing good for others and/or the community. If one spends a ton of their time chopping wood to sell to their neighbors, the wood chopper benefits. So do the people who buy the wood because they don't freeze to death in the winter. It's win win for all involved and gives rise to a well ordered and just society when lots of people do the same sorts of things as the wood chopping entrepreneur.
Based in self benefit which in the end benefits lots of other people as well who are (hopefully) doing their own version of entrepreneurship.

[TheProwler]

So we can all agree that we're selfish assholes?

[PLAYER57832]

Er a lot of people would give up their lives for their children

Do you know anybody who has actually done that?

Yes, I knew people who gave their lives for their children, both directly and absolutely as well as many parents who effectively gave up their lives, denied themselves all their dreams and passions to give their children a better future.

And pick up any history book to find many more that we don't necessarily know personally, but know of well.

[PLAYER57832]

lol, well its an unanswerable question so I prefer to think theres good in the world.

regardless I think [apparently] selfless acts should be encouraged. i.e. donate to charity (just, as BBS says, do your research and ensure it is good/effective charity: good - teach a man to fish, bad - give a man a fish).

then again, maybe just giving them cash is really the better choice.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/08/ ... oor-people