Charity-helping them is hurting them I thought I'd write a thread about this to see if other people share this view. Let's say you donate millions to a feed a starving village in Africa. Wouldn't the people then continue having children whom they can't afford to feed, so those new children would eventually just starve to death? Wouldn't it then be your fault for helping those children get born in the first place? If you had done nothing, if you had sent zero dollars, many of those children would not have been born in the first place. Therefore, your charity money is actually multiplying the problem. Your money is causing many more children to be born who then starve to death. Now, one argument to this is that charity money goes to 'family planning' to educate people about having affordable numbers of children in thier families. But hasn't this failed? If it works, then why is there still a constant need? I think family planning is just wishful thinking. Likewise, charities that help starving people overseas have been around for many decades, yet the problem continues to grow. Does charity even work? If the village can't grow food, then it can't grow food. Your money won't make it rain for the next hundred years. I believe charities merely lead to increasing the population, thereby increaseing the amount of disease and poverty. By trying to help the starving people, you are only making a greater disaster in the next generation. When a forest is too dry, there is a forest fire which clears the land for a new forest years later when the region has enough rainfall again. Mabey 'dry' villages are supposed to die out. If you help them, you would have to keep helping them forever. The moment you stop supporting them, they will start dying again. Isn't charity just promoting the ultimate solution of having a hand out forever? I believe when you interfere in such ways, by trying to be a hero and rescue starving people, you are actually becoming a future child torturer and killer. The people you help use your help to have many children, who then starve to death which is a torturous way to die. To some, the parents are poor souls who deserve all the help the can get. But in my eyes, the parents are child killers who see nothing wrong with producing children knowing full well they will likely starve to death. Why do people want to help child torturers and child killers? I don't understand. Can people not see beyond the here and now? What good is helping today's generation of poor if it means causing more suffering in the next generation. A similar problem is with AIDS. Let's say you send over a large amount of AIDS treatments to help keep AIDS patients alive. It may sound cold, but people can't spread AIDS if they're dead. By keeping the carriers alive, there is at least some chance they can pass the virus onto others. Therefore, your charity work of keeping AIDS patients alive has increased the number of new AIDS patients. Doesn't that make you a killer in a shrewd sense? Why would you want to increase the number of AIDS patients when your goal is to reduce the impact of the epidemic? Why can't people understand this? Why do cleberties and such go on television and plead too the public to help these doomed viallages? Why do they also insist on movements like 'make poverty history'? Don't they know that the only way to accomplish this is by removing billions of people from the world? If people want to make a difference, they need to choose smarter battles and stop promoting fairy tales. There is also a problem with child soldiers and other war time attrocities. We are expected to help out these people...a people who are so evil they use children as their soldiers and establish 'rape factories' and commit genocide. To me, it sounds like the people we are supposed to help are far beyond help. If you help them, you are helping a people who produce men who use child soldiers. Wouldn't it be better to not help them? If the people are dying this means there are fewer men to create more rape factories and child soldiers. This one is hard to explain, but I will try. Let's say you donate billions and remove all these horrific attrocities form one region. You've done it; you've gotten rid of child soldiers being used. Ok, but you've just helped a group of people who have been producing child soldiers become successful. Those people, due to your help, have become prosperous. They can now grow and prosper...to produce even more men who will use child soldiers. What I'm saying is, the people may be genetically disadvantaged over centuries of warfare to the point where the entire region is, for lack of a better word, evil. Or, shall we say, the people are very prone to producing child exploiters in each generation. If my theory is correct, and it's just a theory, then I have to ask, why help them? It's kind of like a rape victum giving birth to a rapist's baby. The woman raises the baby, who has 50% of the same DNA as his rapist father. The womon should chuck the rapist's baby down the nearest well. When someone kills a child, we think "How horrible. How can someone do that?" But it's OK to do it to future children? I don't get it. It's Ok to help a woman in Africa produce children who are certain to die by the age of 4. Anyway, for all these reasons and more, I am opposed to this sort of charity. You should instead help people who you know are going to be helped.