Are charities that effective?

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by brandonhart61, Jan 16, 2012.

  1. brandonhart61

    brandonhart61 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    113
    Dec 24, 2011
    We hear all the time on television, radio and newspapers ect. the bad things that happen in third world countries and how we should try and stop world hunger (such as mass starvation in Ethiopia for example), and that we should donate money to help those less fortunate, but is that effective?

    Charities in the world are essentially trying to do too much to no avail. It's like pissing on a forest fire, you get loads of people pissing on different spots in the fire and it won't go out, but get a load of people to piss on one spot, sure enough it will go out. What I'm saying is, should charities focus on one country such as Ethiopia for example for about 10 years so that they become a better country and more self sufficient instead of helping dozens of others at the same time?

    These stupid charities have been going on for over 50 years to no success, they have to change their approach.
     
  2. AskWazzup

    AskWazzup Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2008
    You can give a starving man a fish, which will help him survive for a day or two, or you can teach that man how to fish, then he will be set for life.

    While they are not the best solution, those people still need help, even if it's short term. A long term solution would be building schools, helping a 3d world country establish good infrastructure, industry etc. That of course is only possible in a perfect world, where countries help each other, but alas we live in a dog eat dog world.
     
  3. eom

    eom Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Feb 16, 2004
    so, you think we should all be pissing on ethiopia?
     
  4. Alphadrop

    Alphadrop A right proper chap.

    Aug 21, 2008
    That's what a fair amount of charities such as Oxfam, Red Cross and Doctor's Without Frontiers do. However they are doing it in massive countries with less funding than said countries' government (who are doing sod all in this regard) so of course they aren't going to make a big splash on the news but in their own small quiet way they do help people.
    Then again I may be slightly biased because I volunteer for Oxfam. :V
     
  5. Richwizard

    Richwizard WHY!? NOT!? Orderite

    Jan 18, 2010
    AskWazzup thinks we should all be pissing on each other. Seriously though, brandonhart61 does have a point. Many charities are sincere in their efforts, but they do not have the resources required to have a lasting effect on a global scale. While it may be practical on a regional scale to concentrate efforts on a smaller area to make those people more self sufficient, that would mean abandoning needy people throughout the rest of the world to help that smaller area. Neither option is ideal.
     
  6. Sabirah

    Sabirah Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    930
    Jul 10, 2011
  7. Verevoof

    Verevoof Cryptid oTO Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Jul 12, 2009
    There are websites like Charity Navigator (though this only analyzes American charities) that will give a break down of where your donations go, and overall assessment of the effectiveness of the organization. You should do research into any charity before donating.

    But anyway, I think it's been said: there is really only so much a group can do. Doesn't mean to stop being charitable. And it is stupid to say that charities don't have any success; there are lives and situations being improved. It's unrealistic to think that the problems of the world could entirely be fixed, especially just through donations and in, as you have suggested, 50 years.
     
  8. Sub-Human

    Sub-Human -

    May 31, 2011
    I always doubt if the money go to the right hands. After all, you never know if you payed for a $100 lunch, or helped starving African kids.
     
  9. fedaykin

    fedaykin Vault Fossil

    Jul 15, 2007
    And how do you propose to force many charities to focus on just one country? Did you consider the side-effect of neglecting other areas?
     
  10. Token-not-found

    Token-not-found It Wandered In From the Wastes

    199
    Nov 11, 2011
    Implying any help given to 3rd world countries does not end up in the hands of warlords.
     
  11. DexterMorgan

    DexterMorgan A Smooth-Skin

    647
    Aug 6, 2008
    In my experience, disaster relief charities are invaluable in situations of, well, disaster. On the other hand, development charities (NGO's) are very hit and miss (mostly miss).
     
  12. Guiltyofbeingtrite

    Guiltyofbeingtrite Vault Dweller

    751
    Oct 13, 2008
    Plenty of charities do focus on building infrastructure by education people that live there. That's the entire point of things like microcredit loans.
     
  13. brandonhart61

    brandonhart61 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    113
    Dec 24, 2011
    Granted it means neglecting the needs of others but if you think about it, it happens anyway to millions of people. If we did all focus on one particular country, their problems would be solved entirely and we wouldn't need to help them any-more as they can help themselves. Charities are spread too thin, and they are truly having no real impact on the country as a whole if they only focus on a particular area of that country, that is happening by the dozens quite frankly.

    We can give money so that farmers in a particular area are more self sufficient and better or money so that there are more water pumps in areas affected by drought in Africa, but what about other parts of the country? It's pissing on different spots on the forest fire of world poverty.
     
  14. DexterMorgan

    DexterMorgan A Smooth-Skin

    647
    Aug 6, 2008
    For every NGO that builds stuff there are at least a dozen that organize worthless seminars and shit like that.
     
  15. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Carbon Dated and Proud

    Feb 23, 2006
    that's a waste of good piss
     
  16. Courier

    Courier Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Orderite

    Apr 10, 2011
    This is called the Nirvana fallacy OP.

    It's like saying, "Lol, you gave a sandwich to a homeless man? Yeah, that's doing a lot to stop world hunger."

    It's basically when you dismiss anything in the real world because you're comparing it to an unrealistic, perfect ideal to which it pales in comparison. It's a problem because it keeps us from getting anything fucking done.

    To quote Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
     
  17. fedaykin

    fedaykin Vault Fossil

    Jul 15, 2007
    You haven't really answered my questions. You're repeating what you already said.
     
  18. brandonhart61

    brandonhart61 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    113
    Dec 24, 2011
    As simple as the government passing a law that states that all charities must focus their efforts on a smaller selection of countries, preferably between only a few. Some will criticise, noting the side effects of neglecting other countries but frankly, those people can't deny that it happens on a regular basis anyway with millions being neglected that I previously said. It's the sacrifice we ha.ve to make to actually make a difference in this world
     
  19. Courier

    Courier Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Orderite

    Apr 10, 2011
    That's a pretty bullshit website though.

    Red Cross gets the highest rating available? What? :?
     
  20. Richwizard

    Richwizard WHY!? NOT!? Orderite

    Jan 18, 2010
    The Red Cross has always had a bad reputation going back at least as far as WW2. People working for the Red Cross had a tendancy to keep packages that didn't belong to them.