Please Don't Feed the Hungry
Posted by CaptainKirk 7 years, 7 months ago to Politics
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!
"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!
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Those people who shook your hand, acknowledged that you stretched them!
Doing what feels best is often not the right thing. (especially if you do it with other peoples tax money, LOL)
:-)
BTW, one Gulch Article talked about the COST of immigration Per State, with a great graphic.
Twitter had ZERO references to this that I could find by searching. BUT, it blocked me from posting ANY reference to the link saying "this looks like an AUTOMATED response, and to reduce spam you cannot tweet". Only when I removed the root website could I send my message.
It was this link: http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/new...
Which means they are basically blocking tweeting about ANY of that sites posts... Which is an AMAZING amount of discourse lost.
Unfortunately, they're all addressed to me :-)
Who delivers the needs and how can determine if you want to give. The Ethiopian food crisis 30 years ago was created by drought and a governmental disaster that was exacerbated by receiving and enormous influx of food sent to the government who used it to bait people into compounds and enslave them on the government plantations, starved others and sold the 'free food' for enormous profits to those remaining that had enough money to purchase it. Sending money for infrastructure or education on how to support themselves could be equally misused by governments who side track the gifts for their own needs and desires keeping the tyrannical government in power. If the people are not free to choose for themselves sending almost anything reroutes the 'help' to those in greed not need. Many churches were using the poor to route money to their coffers while offering very little help to those who were starving. Getting the right kind of help to those who would benefit is very difficult. The best help is liberty and opportunity, the choice to build or starve remains the choice of the individual. As an economist once said; "Starvation is a powerful motivator!"
Venezuela is a different story entirely. My brother lived there for two years prior to the government completely falling apart. One can make the argument that Venezuela has brought upon itself its own demise by allowing communism to take over and be justified. And you are correct there that their situation will not get better until they reject socialism/communism and turn to a free government and free market policies. I think the people are beginning to realize this, but it will take several more years of starvation and hardships to revolt and overthrow - through armed force - their despotic leadership. I also hope that when that time comes the US will extend a hand of assistance.
"In the core argument, feeding a group can cause them to make terrible decisions and become dependent, and have too many children, creating a new problem down the road."
The question is always one of duration. The real problem with welfare is not in the temporary assistance but in the mindset of mooching that can be the result. And when the welfare is presented and doled out without addressing the underlying cause of poor job skills, education, or health concerns, it is all too easy for the situation to devolve into a cycle of dependency. If one is going to be "charitable", one must do it within the context of enabling self-sufficient behaviors and attitudes rather than dependent ones or one is indeed exacerbating the problem.
Regarding "having too many children" - that argument is fallacious nonsense. The real question is the morals being taught to the children. This is why the family structure is so important: it forms the basic principles of that child's moral attitudes. Do those children grow up to be valuable: to perform work, to exchange ideas and products and services with others?
"But you bring up governments impact on people. It's tragic. But a ruler who starves and kills his people, will not be a ruler for long."
Unfortunately, tyrannical governments have lasted for decades and even generations. Take Communist China which has existed since the '50's or Soviet Russia which has existed since 1908 and hasn't really disappeared since. Communist North Korea is perhaps the most visible example and it has existed since the '60's as well. Yes, the effects on their peoples (and the world) has been tragic. Their longevity, however, is marked by the brutal suppression of their own peoples. While it may be easy for us to discount, until these regimes actually fall, it is premature to predict their impending demise.
"So, I see them as different, but requiring the same answer. Now, if a drought hits a developed country, or some natural disaster, etc. All bets are off. But if a population cannot naturally feed themselves, you feeding them is just as bad as feeding wild animals in that they will become dependent, and it interferes with natures ability to manage resources."
I agree that the principle of self-sufficiency should remain the goal. There is no benefit to either from the welfare state. I merely caution not to throw the baby out with the bath water in harsh judgment.
For example, I am also AGAINST helping feed the people in Venezuela. The corruption and SOCIALISM that created their problems must be resolved FIRST (and Identified as the causes).
In the core argument, feeding a group can cause them to make terrible decisions and become dependent, and have too many children, creating a new problem down the road.
But you bring up governments impact on people. It's tragic. But a ruler who starves and kills his people, will not be a ruler for long. But FEEDING the NK people, for example, allowed the food resources of the government to be spent developing Nuclear. We can't care more about the people of a country than their own government.
On the Enterprise... We have strict rules about helping undeveloped people. :-)
So, I see them as different, but requiring the same answer. Now, if a drought hits a developed country, or some natural disaster, etc. All bets are off. But if a population cannot naturally feed themselves, you feeding them is just as bad as feeding wild animals in that they will become dependent, and it interferes with natures ability to manage resources.
When this particular incident was going on there was a major civil war in Ethopia which resulted in the nation splitting and the new nation of Eretria being born. (I met in the 90's with several individuals who had further escaped from Eretria as well.) At the time of the civil war, all resources were being diverted into the waging of the war and the country (though it has arable land) was too busy with the art of destruction to even raise food. Their poverty meant that buying it from other nations was also out of the question.
The true cause of all this suffering was a desire for power - not an inability to work. I do not condone the practice of enabling the welfare state. However, one can also look at situations like these as business opportunities where with a little investment (food and clothing are CHEAP), we can help institute trading-partner nations with which we can do business and mutually profit. It's very easy - though short-sighted - to simply see these situations as meaningless welfare state results when the truth of the matter is different.
For some reason my area is also a blue dot in a red state. Duh, me wonder why that could be.
Something else I learned if you're going to donate by check. Scratch off your phone number if it is there.
I got one of those "Thank you for your past support" twilight zones last week. "What support?" I asked as I deposited the donation request into the trash where it belonged.
Yep, the Charities SHARE the names/phone numbers with other charities. And I love when they lie "Thank you for your past support..." "Really? What date? How Much?" (They don't give me that, just that you were a past supporter)... LOL. Well then I did my part.
Again, now I give DIRECTLY to the people going, on my terms.
But the key point is that we can't bring everyone here, and we should not help people destroy themselves, or overpopulate, but to help them sustain themselves. There is a lot to do, and destroying our country to save a few aint going to help anyone!
America created something the world has NEVER SEEN BEFORE:
- FAT POOR PEOPLE -
Go back in your history books and look for Obese poor people! Good luck with that!
For example: Over a decade ago, some southwestern American Indian school sent me a dream-catcher (aka a bad dream catcher that's a net), a note pad, envelope address labels, a photo of cute kids and I sent them a little money.
The next thing I know every Indian tribe in the Southwest are sending me dream-catchers, note pads, envelope address labels and photos of cute kids.
And this has been going on for 10 years. I have a heaped-up cluster of dream-catchers hanging on the wall by the bed and scattered elsewhere about the house.
https://www.google.com/search?q=dream...
Guess how many I "paid for" with a donation. Just the first one.
The other day I felt like flinching when I saw a dream-catcher tattoo on a young lady's arm.
Other worthy causes send me dino what I call "guilt money." That worked on me only one time during the 70s. Do you know what happens if you send a donation for a request that came with guilt money? The recipient wastes no time sending back another donation request with more guilt money attached.
(Evidently, charities also waste no time selling or else sharing your name with other charities).
Yesterday, me dino pulled two nickles off a donation request, scratched off the glue, pocketed the nickles and dropped the request into the trash.
Last week I was sent a big time guilt trip one whole dollar bill by the donation request of some Republican cause. I'll vote for a RINO (like Richard Shelby) over a Jackass candidate when forced to but I performed the same procedure as I did with yesterday's nickles.
Also yesterday, I was also sent what I like to call "guilt stamps." Charities have figured out that cold-blooded Scrooges like me will cut stamps off and paste them on envelopes sent to pies in the skies such as Publishing Clearing House. So yesterday me dino saw seven fruit art stamps on one return envelope. There are (me dino now looking at them) four 10-cent stamps each with 2 pears, one 5-cent stamp with a cluster of grapes, one 3-cent stamp with three strawberries and one 1-cent stamp with a pair of apples. You guessed it. Me dino cut those stamps off anyways.
Me dino bad! Bad to the bone!
Consider, in the news recently, the forced departure of Robert Mugabe, dictator
of Zimbabwe. When the name was Rhodesia, with a hard-working class of expert
mainly British farmers, and motivated African workers, the country was well
governed, developing, prosperous, exporting all kinds of food produce.
Then with a takeover by terrorists and Mugabe pushing to the front, Rhodesia
the bread-basket of Africa became Zimbabwe the basket case.
They got guns from China in exchange for mining rights, and food aid from the
West. Most of that aid did not go to the hungry but was sold by the new elite.
However, all help, all altruism, should not be condemned, with proper supervision
and targeting, with money freely given, rather than politicians big-noting
themselves with other people's money (virtue signalling),
there may be good results.
Wonder of the world for his people.http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/na...
It was a massive underground man made River. . Gaddafi had plans to sell and build this irrigation system through out Africa. The first bombs were dropped on the cement factory that made the huge pipe sections and then the bombs destroyed the dangerous " irrigation River"
That helped produce food in an Arid Climate for the Libyans.
Just like animals, if you feed them, you become their keepers, hence the teaching stating: if you feed a hungry man, he will be dependent upon you for life but it you teach a man to fish, he can feed himself for life.
We may choose to be the keepers of our pets but I, for one, choose Not to be the keeper of other humans.
We are Not our brothers keepers but if they absolutely cannot physically keep themselves for legitimate reasons...I might, I reiterate, Might, choose to "Share" that burden so long as it my choice and not by force.
Assuming of course, I have enough to feed myself first!..."Rational Celf-interest" (yes, I wrote: Celf... as in how my cells tend to their own survival first).
Load more comments...