Charity and Philanthropy

You know, speaking strictly about economics, giving money to charity or something like that doesn't make any sense at all. Exchanging income for nothing at all is absolutely absurd.

But we all know that charity is about helping others. There's one place here in town, the Povarello House, that refers to their charitable efforts as a "spiritual pursuit, but not necessarily a practical one". We throw our spare change in jars here and there to support research for breast cancer or muscular dystrophy or, in light of Hurricane Katrina, to help our fellow Americans in the South rebuild some kind of normalcy in the storm's aftermath. Things like that. It may not be much from you and I, but it all adds up and it all goes somewhere to serve good causes.

And philanthropy... If I ever become a millionaire, I'll give back some to the community. I don't yet know how, but I will. I was watching Ray on TV the other night, and the ending epilogue mentioned that he gave back over $20 million to African-American universities and schools for the blind and deaf. A lot of celebrities do a lot of the same things, notably Angelina Jolie and Bono (in their own little ways).

Whether we always show it or not, every one of us has got to care on some level about our fellow human beings. There are those, unfortunately, who seem to adopt a holier-than-thou stance against people like me who give to charity only when it hits close to home, but the important thing is that we're all giving, isn't it? It's one thing to give in just a Katrina-type scenario, but it's a completely different thing to ignore everyone suffering completely.

I know most of us here... actually, all of us here, are relatively young and might not have the time or money to give away so freely to charity or whatnot, but like I said. The important thing is that you do.

I can't believe that anyone could possibly criticise someone for not giving money to charity regularly, if they provide the occasional donation.

I myself find that it’s so much easier not to care.

It makes perfect sence. You realocate resources that you are willing to give up. This works seamlessly and berly really effects the economy overall. Most corps will donate a huge sume (as wal-mart seems to do) and write it off on thier taxes. On that same note, many charities that collect money (wal-mart Katrina donation boxes) also serve as a write off for the company. Its the write offs that get me :)

Bipper

what katrina brings up is hugely wrong though.

3 million starving africans in niger never once touched on the american conscience. they don't speak english, we can't understand what they say when they cry. they are less human in that way. it doesn't matter. who cares if they die they are a few thousand miles away? but when something happens close or if they speak english it makes a difference (unless it is huge and quick like the tsunami). they are somehow more human and more deserving.

that is what is wrong with the current state of charity. katrina and niger/sudan illustrate it so well.

the world turned it's back on niger but rose to it's feet to help america. one was more severe than the other. one is an injustice.

And that’s why I gave up caring. There are too many things in the world to feel like crap about. Much easier to pretend that most of them don’t exist…

Quote:

---

what katrina brings up is hugely wrong though.

---

The person you love the most is dying, and you can either help him\her, or some person you've never met, not both. Who would you choose? I rest my case.*


*... Man, in-case you didn't choose the person you love the most, there's something very, very wrong with you. :(

but these aren't loved ones, relatives or friends. they are random strangers. they just talk the same and are closer. there is no emotional attachment.

Quote:

---

there is no emotional attachment.

---

Sorry, but I feel great solidarity with my people. No, it's not as strong as it is with my family or friends, but it's sure as Hell a lot stronger than it is with some random person, elsewhere in the world. Americans saving Americans is not to frowned upon, because Americans did not save Africans. You know what? When Africans start helping Africans, I'll join in. Untill they do - I'll help my own.

yeah cos starving african no1 is gonna share his food with starving african no2.

the west can afford to help it's own and others. it just refuses to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

The person you love the most is dying, and you can either help him\her, or some person you've never met, not both. Who would you choose? I rest my case.*

---

This is wise. I never give money to charity. If you have extra money, buy your friends or family something, rather than give it to charity. That way, you know your money is going to someone who deserves it (assuming you think your friends and family are good people). You're also making yourself happy by making someone you care about happy. If you care about such things, you'll also know that you're helping your local economy if you buy something locally, and that will benefit you (perhaps).

Even if it was a choice between saving someone who's dying, and buying my girlfriend a nice birthday present, I'd pick the birthday present. Unless the person dying was someone I really cared about. In fact, every one of us makes this choice every single day. There is an endless supply of people who desperately need money in the world. Every cup of coffee you buy from Starbucks could be feeding a starving baby in Africa. Every time you buy a video game, you're using money that could be saving someone's life.

At least part of the money you give to charity to help large numbers of people is going to go to help bad people. Wife-beaters and child-molesters live in New Orleans too. I wouldn't want to help them, even accidentally.

I consider everyone my equal. I wouldn't ask someone from Africa (or anyone else) to give me something for no reason, so I wouldn't expect someone from Africa to expect me to give them something. Are they sub-human or inferior to myself in some way, that they require pity from others to survive? I have more faith in humanity than that. People have control of their own lives, or should.

You know, the good Doc has just basically summed up the entire answer to this thread. My god, that was an awesome post.

Dr Unne, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE.

"Are they sub-human or inferior to myself in some way, that they require pity from others to survive? I have more faith in humanity than that. People have control of their own lives, or should." we are talking people living in the desert with nothing around them except sand for hundreds of miles, starving and dying. these people cannot help themselves. they don't have control of their own lives. they will die without outside aid. men, women and children will die from that idea today. they will die a slow, agonising death that can take weeks. only one set of people can end that. and we continue to refuse to.

it's no better than the warsaw ghetto.

Hey, if you're dirt poor, what's there to give? I got bottomless pockets myself, so what difference will it make. Not much, even if some fat 20 something nerd with an allowance wants to update gaming hardware for the 3rd time in a month instead of giving it to some homeless person. It's not gonna move mountains and change the world. Especially not throwing money at big random organizations. Now as a non-rich person, if someone directly asks for your help, and you are able to provide it, that's up to you. Good or evil, be the best you can be.

I don't see why it's such a big deal for people to defend themselves when they don't give to chairty. I'm still gonna judge you no matter how awesome your reasoning is, just like you're gonna judge me for being a dummy for donating too much of my time and money that I don't have. I just wanted to say that before the fight started. :)

Fights breaking out over charity. I’d like to see that…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

I don't see why it's such a big deal for people to defend themselves when they don't give to chairty. I'm still gonna judge you no matter how awesome your reasoning is, just like you're gonna judge me for being a dummy for donating too much of my time and money that I don't have. I just wanted to say that before the fight started. :)

---

If you mean "defend themselves" meaning "Please don't judge me" or "Please don't hate me", that's not really my goal. I only think it's an interesting subject to talk about. I don't think that people who give money to charity are dumb; it's your money, you can do whatever you want with it. Spend it on yourself, spend it on charity, burn it, pile it up and look at it, whatever. There's nothing immoral about any of those. If people judge me for not giving to charity, I think they're wrong, but it's their right to believe that, and I have no wish to avoid judgment any more than I have a wish for everyone around me to stop thinking entirely. Certainly we can all discuss things without resorting to a fight.

[qq=Cloud No.9]we are talking people living in the desert with nothing around them except sand for hundreds of miles, starving and dying. these people cannot help themselves. they don't have control of their own lives. they will die without outside aid. men, women and children will die from that idea today. they will die a slow, agonising death that can take weeks. only one set of people can end that. and we continue to refuse to.[/qq]

In the beginning, everyone in the world lived in caves and deserts and holes in the ground. Now, we don't. How did this happen? If living in the desert means that you're unable to survive without help from outside sources, when EVERYONE was in the desert, how did anyone survive? There were no outside sources. Space aliens?

No, someone decided "Hey, living the desert kind of sucks" and figured out a way to get out. On their own. If people could do that with no help whatsoever, what's stopping people from doing it today when you have 10,000 years of knowledge to build on? Does it take superhuman powers to say "Hey look, that American isn't starving to death. Let's ask him why." Or "Hey, let's stop warring with each other long enough to build a library." Or "Hey, instead of having 10 babies I can't afford to feed, how about if I work to support myself, educate myself (here, or work hard to get to another country to do it), then I'll actually be able to change my environment for the better in a meaningful way, if I wish to do so".

I knew some people at my college who were from Africa. They were not mentally handicapped. They were as capable of anything as any other human being. What would they say if I said "You're from Africa? Here's some money. I'm so sorry for you." I'd probably be punched in the face. Rightly so.

Let's say everyone in the US chips in and gives Africa enough money to feed everyone for one year. After one year, what will happen? Will everyone then magically be able to support themselves and live in the desert without help? No. By "end the problem", I think you mean that I should work nonstop until I die to support people who live in Africa. I don't think that's really an acceptable solution. The solution for ending problems in Africa is for Africans to change their way of life.

Here's an idea. First, try to walk out of the desert. If you're unable or unwilling to do that, then your second option is not to have babies. In one generation there will no longer be a problem of people living in the desert. Every human being has an inate understanding that "PAIN = BAD". Every human being has a knowledge that "Other people feel pain the same way I myself feel pain". I don't know of any human being who doesn't know where babies come from, and isn't able to prevent having them if they choose to do so. If someone has children anyways, it's not my problem any more than it's my problem to pay the medical bills of someone who hits himself in the head with a hammer.

This goes back to the whole idea, "People shouldn't get welfare checks becuase it encourages them to be lazy".

Well, I thought this would be a quick thread. Looks like I was wrong :D

Like Dr. Unne says "You can do what you want with your money..." this is right to a point.

If we had so many people saving all thier money it would created a temporary economic vacum, then as the savings are spent, tadical injections could cause a temporary rise in the economic cycle, which would then be followed by a bigger recession. In no way do I think we should control the way people allocate thier resources; but I couldn't help but put some bs that I learned in econmics down. :)

When one donates money, they do so intending it to help people. After seeing the Red Cross 9/11 scandal in action, then so many Katrina scandals, the only place I donate to is my church. Giving your money to a fool is not smart donating. Leaving your money with those whom are responsable is the best answer; the parable of the Talents (Mathew 25: 14-30).

""Hey look, that American isn't starving to death. Let's ask him why." because his riches from the subsidies, tarriffs and taxes which kill 30,00 africans a day. that is why.

"Here's an idea. First, try to walk out of the desert. If you're unable or unwilling to do that, then your second option is not to have babies. In one generation there will no longer be a problem of people living in the desert." a yes genocide. what a quaint idea. or we could just do tis whole process forcefully and gas them all and save anyone the hassle...........

and fyi the birth rate in africa is so high because most babies die within their first year. that's because they are starving. and that is due to subsidies, tarrifs, debt and lack of aid.

Hi. I typoed my earlier post. It should say the following.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my brain before I typed

I don't see why it's such a big deal for people to have to defend themselves when they don't give to chairty. I'm still gonna judge you no matter how awesome your reasoning is, just like you're gonna judge me for being a dummy for donating too much of my time and money that I don't have. I just wanted to say that before the fight started.

---

I was just trying to point out, before people got all hairy, that we're still going to keep the same opinions regardless of anything, so we shouldn't even begin to fight about it.

I do agree with cloud that tarrifs are a huge deal. I really do, but its something that our government has to figure out. There is a lot of pressure on them to do so. Bill clinton said it best on CNN the other night, he basically said that its not weather or not we are going to do things, it is simply how to impliment them. It was a fairly good program called somthing to the extent of "Global sumit with President Clinton". Sony Bono was on it with some VERY advocating ideas. I persoanlly like his stance on religous peace as well. The man gets two thumbs up from me :D

See the problem with what you are thinking cloud, is that these terrifs crush the Affrican economy, and cause thousands to die. Well, we can and have offered affrica a LOT of aid. While our federal govenment has not steped in, there are so many groups dedicated to helping.

There is a huge gaping difference between charity and Federal Aid. Charity allows the people to help directly, without (idealy) polotitians and other outsided sourcees touching the money. Charity is also money simply given to what one 'beleives' is a good cause. Federal aid often is used as a political tool by federal governments to aid the world economy or boost its self image. If Africa had a great resource that our government could use, and we couldn't already get it, they would aid the hell outta them to get that country in thier debt. The political facet of aid.

Charity on the other hand, lets me donate my resources to -say- the 'Children's Christain Foundation' (i think.) to utilize my donated resources to help whatever cause they are for. Charity should be looked at as being nice, and giving to those in need - where as federal aid, will never be a true form of charity.

but aid cannot be used effectively without just trade. you can give the farmers as much seed and trowels as you want. but if he isn't able to sell his crops then he will go back to being poor and starving in a few years.

Either way the farm can grow and sell crops locally. Trade wise, a country should be fine as long as it has the possibility to be self saficiant. Affrica has the abbility, what the lack is ths opacity. I really do not know how else to say it. If they changed thier horrid farming habits, they could infact become self saficiant.

If we aided the hell outta them, and dropped all tarrifs, and infact gave them the anti on the world market, the second any amount of global economic harship hit, they would fail again. Why give some one somthing, that they can easily obtain when it will make them weak in the long run?

Bipper

trade subsidies and artificially cheap crops ruin the local market in africa also.

Cloud, I'm just letting you know, if/when Hachi and Dr. Unne return to the thread they will entirely agree with you and I that tariffs/subsidies = bad. NOBODY IS DENYING THIS. (You'd think that when people as loony, radical and diametrically opposed as you and I agree on something, it'd be pretty obvious it needs to be fixed.)

To reiterate: We entirely agree that those trade policies are wrong.

Also, I am comparing the differences of forign aid to charity. I think there is an important difference where a line is, and should be. I don't wish to debate tarrifs and other dumb set ups. Ever have a debate with someone you agree with? Yea, its don't work too well. :D

To note even Bill Clinton and several politician's realize there are issues here. It is simply getting the people's will done. I really don't want to derail this thread into a nother niger thread. I simply brought it up as it was a good platfrom to explain and possibly identify the differences between Charity and Government aid. I am currious as to exactly how correct I might be thoguh :D

Bipper