is charity always a good idea ?

[Guest timmberty]

after TW started his thread about charity it got me to thinking about a certain ex pop star who has probably been partly to blame for more people dying than anyone else in history thru his good intentions.

im sure we all remember band aid, which is one of the best charity fund raisers of all time, for a short time charity.

i remeber i *ran the world* as it was known at the time, a short 5 or 6 km run around the streets of london, there was also the concerts which pulled in millions of pounds/dollars etc from all over the world.

that charity saved the lives of thousands of african children, but ive always had a different take on it, after i'd thought about it long after the event.

i remeber seeing bob geldorf on the t.v. many years later again trying to raise money to save the lives of african children, which led me to my question.

if it had not have been for the original band aid and all the lives it had saved, how many children that have died of starvation and disease since then would have actually been born ??

would it have been better to leave them to their own devices as i personally dont think what band aid did has been that benificial to africa in the long run, sure there will have been a few success stories over the years, but as i said before just how many children have died for no reason other than the fact that they were born.

[Guest thaiworthy]

if it had not have been for the original band aid and all the lives it had saved, how many children that have died of starvation and disease since then would have actually been born ??

 

Charity begins at home. So, yes that is a good idea.

 

Charities that fund high fat cat salaries like those mentioned in my thread are not a good idea.

 

I am not familiar with band-aid or the work it did, and just as well would not care to speculate on what-if scenarios, so what's the point?

[Guest timmberty]

the point is band aid saved the lives of children who then went on to have children, and the children that those children have had have/are starving to death.

[Bob]

Before I react too uncharitably to the OP's question, let me ask the following.  It's your theory that somebody who saves lives is somehow responsible (or wrong-headed) because some of those saved lives will later die of disease, war, starvation, or whatever?

[Guest timmberty]

im surprised that you replied to my post at all, so id fully expect your reply to be uncharitable whatever my post was about.

my post asks a simple question is charity always a good idea? i give a reason i belive its not.

do you think keeping someone whos in a vegative state alive is a good idea ?

[Rogie]

Just as some charities are better than others, some replies will be more uncharitable than others. Bob's question doesn't seem uncharitable to me.

[Rogie]

That's a minefield, that one Timmberty. The debate about keeping people alive who are on life-support systems. Very very difficult. Then there's euthanasia. Unless we've got all day, all week and all year, to debate these and other issues - where people's actions can be construed as either charitable or not - would make Thai Visa Forum look like a needle in our Giant Haystack.

[Guest timmberty]

true rogie but im sure the next one will be,

i said i joined in with the charity and raised a fair bit of money for it.

but years later people are still dying for the same reason they where then, and lots that wouldnt have been born are dying horrific deaths.

my wording isnt always to good but if you start a charity it needs to be on going, not one that makes people feel good about themselves for a while then move on.

[Guest fountainhall]

For those who were not aware of it, Geldof's 1984 "Band Aid" recording was so popular and raised so much that he followed it up with the far larger "Live Aid", one of the biggest musical events in history. It is said to have raised over £150 million for famine relief, mostly in Ethiopia.

From what I remember, there had been harrowing scenes of children dying from starvation for weeks/months on TV. No-one seemed able to do anything about it. Geldof did, and mobilised the pop industry to help raise all that cash. I'd suggest it was more than worthwhile. It clearly helped save many lives. At the same time, it acted as a spur to those, like timmberty, who no doubt felt at the time they were contributing to a good and worthwhile cause.

Yes, I agree that ideally a charity should be kept going so that lives saved can be monitored and provided with medicine, education, housing etc. Yet, it's illogical to assume this can happen other than rarely, for lots of reasons - corrupt governments, wars, limited resources, and other tragedies that require more immediate attention.

But the implication from the OP seems to be that it’s better to abandon those in desperate need so they will not bear offspring who in turn might end up in desperate need. Sorry, timmberty, that sounds just a little too close to the Nazi agenda about cripples, the mentally ill, gays and others having to be sterilised to ensure the purity of the race in the future. Different methods – virtually the same result.

I’m certain some of those who were nursed back to life as a result of Geldof’s efforts remain alive and have given birth to healthy kids. Surely that’s something to be thankful for! I agree, though, that the situation in Africa seems a never-ending human disaster, no matter how much aid is channeled into that continent.

But then I don’t think you can equate charity and the saving of lives with the politics and governments which permit such disasters to happen. The root cause of most of Africa’s disasters is surely massive poverty. And the old colonial powers have a great deal to answer for in that regard. But history does not save lives; cash does. And until the continent sees a few leaders like Deng Xiao-ping with the passion and the know-how to drag hundreds of millions out of poverty, I fear there will be the need for a helluva lot more charitable giving in years to come.

[Bob]

my post asks a simple question is charity always a good idea? i give a reason i belive its not.

do you think keeping someone whos in a vegative state alive is a good idea ?

 

First of all, if you want to try to switch the topic to the wisdom of spending a ton of money to keep elderly or vegetative patients alive, I'd suggest you start another post.  The post you started in this thread is not at all about that topic.

 

I can understand why you didn't substantively answer the question I posed as it would likely show your premise to be as repugnant as it is.  The idea that you suggest people who give money or assistance to keep children alive are somehow responsible or complicit in the deaths of either those aid recipients or their progeny later is incredibly wrong-headed and, as I noted, repugnant.  With thinking like yours, all nations and individuals with means would just let everybody else rot and, to you, that'd be in the long run the "kinder" thing to do.  Yea, sure.

[Guest thaiworthy]

Zieg heil timmberty!

[kokopelli]

Actually I have had the same thoughts as Timmberty regarding the fruitlessness of certain types of aid to some countries when the net result is more people being born into a life of misery and making the situation worse. If the aid resulted in population control, better health standards and economic improvement it would make sense. However many impoverished countries will never have better living conditions until their greedy leaders are deposed.

[Guest thaiworthy]

Sorry, Koko-- I can't agree. I believe the money is spent to make things better, not to make it worse. If the net result is more people being born into a life of misery, it is not the fault of the benefactor, but is another entirely different problem altogether: such as when you said until their greedy leaders are deposed. Don't assume something will go wrong until it can have the chance to be made right. Humane efforts sometimes take very small steps.

 

To accept what you and timmberty suggest is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

Throw out the baby with the bath water is an idiomatic expression used to suggest an avoidable error (greedy leaders) in which something good (money) is eliminated when trying to get rid of something bad (misery) or in other words, rejecting the essential along with the inessential.

 

This avoidable error, IF it is in fact the greedy leaders, may occur over the long term, whereas in the short term, money is applied. Withdrawal from it completely is punishment, and undeserved. Where I come from, this is still charity.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_out_the_baby_with_the_bath_water

 

This is just like Fountainhall said it was. The Nazis killed millions that weren't immediately effective to accomplish their zealous plan.

[kokopelli]

 

This is just like Fountainhall said it was. The Nazis killed millions that weren't immediately effective to accomplish their zealous plan.

 

 

Let us not confuse the crimes of the Nazis with the merits and consequenes of charity.

[Guest fountainhall]

Sorry Koko, but there was no confusion when I made the statement. The end result is surely at least similar to enforced sterilisation. A proposition has been put forward. Don't give to charity aiding the huge number of people starving in Africa. Lives will then not be saved. New babies, who would eventually also need charity, will then not be born. Same result - only different reasons and different methods.

 

I do see where you and the OP are coming from, and I partly agree with the bit about the mega charities and their often far-too-high administration costs. But with respect to the OP's question, "would it have been better to leave them to their own devices?" the answer has to be 'No'. The world has surely moved on from turning a blind eye to where human beings happened to have been born in the lottery of life.

[kokopelli]

 

 

Sorry Koko, but there was no confusion when I made the statement. The end result is surely at least similar to enforced sterilisation. A proposition has been put forward. Don't give to charity aiding the huge number of people starving in Africa. Lives will then not be saved. New babies, who would eventually also need charity, will then not be born. Same result - only different reasons and different methods.

 

The same reasoning, regarding new babies not to be born, could be made against use of contraceptive and abortion. By the use of such methods we are depriving the world of future Einsteins, etc ,etc.  I don't see a direct relationship between the genocide of the Nazis  and not supporting charities which may do more harm than good in the long run. There is a difference.

[Guest timmberty]

when all hope is lost what keeps people going? the kindness of others.

when the others turn a blind eye, all hope of kindness is lost.

in an ideal world the arguments of bob and FH and TW would all hold true, sadly we live in a world whereby very few give a damn.

when you say, i saved a generation from starving it sounds great, when you realise you then contributed to 2 generations starving it start to unravel.

im not saying live aid wasnt a good intention, and im sure if the people who ran it could go back with hindsight they would do the self same thing.

but what did they actually change ? instead of 2 million starving we have 4 million starving.

im sure i will now upset you again, but isnt the reason africans have lots of children,is because they expect some of them to die? you might say im out of order for saying such a thing, but thats how i see it. life in certain parts of the world is very cheap, isnt thailand one of those places also. where looking at someone can get you shot.

[Bob]

but isnt the reason africans have lots of children,is because they expect some of them to die? you might say im out of order for saying such a thing, but thats how i see it.

 

I have no doubt that's how you see it but, nevertheless, it's a bit incredible that you said it.  Would you mind telling us what is your source to support that africans have a lot of children because they expect some of them to die.  You find that tidbit on the back of a cereal box? 

[Guest timmberty]

FH there is now a procedure where by you can tell if you are going to have a baby that may have some faults .. if it is found that the baby does indeed have faults the partents of that child can have it aborted. i dont know the figers but i do belive they would show that most parents would have such a baby aborted. are you saying those parents are wrong ? the scientists that gave us the capability to determine wether or not the baby was faulty shouldnt have done so?

when you hear about the ones that get away i.e. a mother who has a baby that has downs syndrome, she says i wasnt aware of such a procedure but even if i was i wouldnt change anything about my baby,

do you beilve that? would you rather have a sick child than a healthy one ?

sorry if ive gone off a bit again bob .. thats the problem with having a discussion things tend to move a bit.

[Guest timmberty]

no bob but if you look at death rates around the world you may find that to be the case ..

but hey lets not put facts in the way of having a dig in a someone whos postings i dont like !!

give me a shout when you grow up o.k.

[Guest timmberty]

well i have to admit i didnt know the facts there it was just my guess .. maybe its just being street wise means i dont need facts and figures to tell me how things are.

but before bob gets on his high horse again i did have a little check on t'internet

maybe the figures are fixed bob.. but i didnt fix them just to upset you please belive me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

[Guest fountainhall]

Sorry timmberty, I'm not going to get into a discussion about determining the state of health of unborn children or abortion. I reckon that's the subject for another thread. This one concentrates on the interesting topic of charity and I'm trying to stick to that.

 

I don't see a direct relationship between the genocide of the Nazis and not supporting charities which may do more harm than good in the long run. There is a difference.

By suggesting that giving to charity (not ‘not supporting’ that charity) will only cause more problems further down the line, you are denying relief to those who are most in need of it. If everyone felt that way, the world would effectively condemn to death many of those who might otherwise live.

It’s the ‘denying’ and ‘not giving’ because you assume from an historical perspective that the same or greater charity will be required in future years that effectively renders valid the comparison with the Nazis’ policy of sterilizing those who were ‘imperfect’. I am not talking about the genocide of the Final Solution. I’m referring to the decision to sterilize their own people, those who were in their view either physically or mentally imperfect. The objective of that policy was primarily to ensure that future generations would not have such ‘imperfect’ persons.

I see little difference between that policy and the denying of charity to African mothers - if you deny it on the grounds that their children may also require charity. In both cases, sterilization and denial of relief, you deny an entire group of people the right to bear children only because you have made an assumption that may or may not be valid in many of the cases. I don’t think any human being has the right to make such assumptions on behalf of others.

 

isnt the reason africans have lots of children,is because they expect some of them to die?

In some countries, I'm sure you are correct. Life traditionally has been cheap. But is that a reason to expect it should/will continue to remain cheap? 200 years ago, the middle-class merchants in England thought nothing of sending 12 year-old children down the coalmines for 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. Over time, that type of child labour and abuse died out. As people in poorer countries gain more access to nourishing food, medicines and other basic amenities, so less children are going to die.

Over time, people and society evolve. What was once regarded as a way of eking out a living, is now regarded as barbarous. As countries develop, albeit slowly, so traditions change. The need to bear many children may soon change. We cannot know. But we have no right to judge, in my view.

[Guest timmberty]

sorry i really dont get your giving to charity = being a nazi ...i am not talking about doing away with the weak, these are strong powerful people who have been reduced to skin and bone(thats the parents not the kids) thru drought lack of food ect.

maybe its gods will, and who are we to deny god ?

if there was no charity loads of people would be dead, charity isnt a guarantee, so you can not guarentee life on the off chance someone might slip $5 in a jar every now and again.

conditions in africa will never change, living in a desert isnt a good idea for anyone.

put a polar bear in the saraha and it will die before it has a chance to evolve.

sure they may get better medicine but they wont get more food or water, that takes billions of investment, and the governments of those countries would rather people starve tham pay for it.

going down coal mines etc etc was a choice not a choice for the kids but for the parents

having no food or water isnt a choice its the way it is, and it wont change so kids will die.

[Guest fountainhall]

I have only once been to Africa. A large part of it may be desert, but a large part is anything but desert. As for your other comments, I will make no comment other than to say I wholly disagree with them.

[kokopelli]

Gad; I feel that I am now a Nazi because I haven't contrituted to some charity for the unfortunate people in Africa. Talk about a guilt trip.