Are charities that effective?

B

brandonhart61

It Wandered In From the Wastes
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.
 
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.
 
AskWazzup said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
brandonhart61 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Implying any help given to 3rd world countries does not end up in the hands of warlords.
 
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).
 
Plenty of charities do focus on building infrastructure by education people that live there. That's the entire point of things like microcredit loans.
 
fedaykin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Guiltyofbeingtrite said:
Plenty of charities do focus on building infrastructure by education people that live there. That's the entire point of things like microcredit loans.
Click to expand...
For every NGO that builds stuff there are at least a dozen that organize worthless seminars and shit like that.
 
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:

The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
 
brandonhart61 said:
fedaykin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
You haven't really answered my questions. You're repeating what you already said.
 
fedaykin said:
brandonhart61 said:
fedaykin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
You haven't really answered my questions. You're repeating what you already said.
Click to expand...

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
 
verevoof said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty bullshit website though.

Red Cross gets the highest rating available? What? :?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top