I grew up in the 1980s with the pictures of the starving kids in Africa. And I wanted to help.
"For the cost of a cup of coffee per day, you could feed an entire family!"

Besides, they were cramping my style. My mom would say "Finish your meal, there are starving kids in Africa!"
Man I wish I could have fixed it! For BOTH reasons (LOL).

And at some level, I was amazed. Americans were giving up their money to help feed people in a far away country.
Of their own free will. I was Proud to be an American. There were a couple of MILLION starving people in Africa, and we were HELPING Them. Props!

Then over time, I see these Signs "Please Don't Feed the Animals". And I thought it was because bread was bad for the birds, or whatever. But then I got an education. We started learning that our GOOD INTENTIONS have HORRIBLE side effects. By feeding wild animals, you can literally breed out the ability to be self-sufficient. When the people stop showing up, they don't know what they can eat. They starve.

Wow... I get it. Some times, helping is destructive. And potentially OBVIOUSLY destructive with a little forethought.

So, let's think back. Was sending food to starving Africans a net good or a net bad? Lets frame the question in terms of number of poor people that are starving, or just living in horrible conditions?

I would say it was Net Bad. Because we went from Millions of people in a bad conditions to tens of millions. See, we NEVER realized that if we protected those little boys and girls from starving to death, they would eventually get to child bearing age, and they would have MORE THAN enough children to replace themselves. Putting even more stress on their food situation, and eventually getting to where they are today!

Nature kinda works. It is cruel and hard about it. Only those who can feed themselves and their families survive. If they only people who survive are the ones who don't care to have families, nature removes them from the gene pool by removing their ability to reproduce. If only the people who reproduce the most are surviving, but not able to feed themselves, nature removes them through starvation. The net survivors are the ones who do both. Natural selection.

Now, in a society like America, I have no problem feeding the hungry, and have done so through donations, and delivering food to them.

We are talking about foreign environments where the root cause is literally the lack of development, and infrastructure, and availability of food. Where we were sending countless millions of dollars to feed people. But we were not going there to build infrastructure and educate (I support missionary work to Africa every year!)

But simply feeding those that are hungry may actually create a culture of dependence. And worse, without education, and other things, the poor tend to spend more energy on reproduction, which makes the problem worse.

The same can be said for putting out forest fires. The logic of extinguishing all forest fires is being questioned. Because it turns out that NOT letting some areas burn naturally creates too much demand for limited water, which actually causes MORE forest to become super dry, which means that the next forest fire will be gigantic. And we are witnessing that.

We cannot work against nature all the time. Capitalism works, because it works within nature. People are naturally Self-Interested but also interdependent. Capitalism leverages both of those things.

Communism works AGAINST nature. When it is everyones responsibility, it is no ones. When everyone owns something, nobody takes good care of it.

So, the full title should be:
Please Don't Feed the Hungry... Build them infrastructure, and start getting them educated, so they can feed themselves!