Ok. So this is something that I like to ask people and have gotten some pretty interesting responses. Here is the question:

How much of our own personal wealth should go to making sure every human being is fed, sheltered, and given the BASIC necessities needed to live? How do you decide what the limit is? How much does proximity make a difference in your decision?

Do you feel more responsible for the homeless child down the street than you do for the homeless child in Africa?

Let's say, tomorrow, we discovered a planet with 10 Billion humans on it. All of them live in extreme poverty, similar to Africa. What is our responsibility to them? At some point, would you say "you know, I like having a nice car, a nice house, $200 jeans, I just don't really care if they die or not."

Do you think the main reason why we turn our cheek to other humans in desperate need is because 'out of site, out of mind'? If we were forced to witness people starving, would we sell most of our possessions and make sure that every single dollar we earned went to making sure everyone had food?

Also, who is more nobler? The guy who has $5 billion dollars and donates $1 billion to charity but makes sure he owns the biggest yacht, the biggest plane, the biggest house...basically he has figured out a way to spend his money on ANY AND EVERYTHING he could before saying 'heh, ok I'll give some away now" or the guy who makes $40,000 a year and donates $1000 of it? The $40,000 a year guy clearly hasn't exhausted all of his opportunities to spend every last dime on all of lifes luxuries...

Lots of questions. I'm not a hippy. I just think it would be interesting if we found that planet with 10 billion people. What would we do as a civilization? For the most part, we ignore Africa. Would we completely ignore that planet since we really wouldn't want to deal with the burden?

I think having a safety net can definitely help prevent crime, but that's as far as I've gotten. Working in a low income area has made me re-evaluate most of the thoughts I already had on the issue.

I have no idea how you've answered any of my questions.

You don't know what a safety net is? It's exactly what you're talking about. I think we have a responsiblity to make sure that people in our own country don't become completely destitute when they fall on hard times.

I'm more focused on the proximity issue and how much we should be spending to make sure people can eat, have medicine, etc.

Each of us could cut out a shit load of things in our life to make sure someone is fed. I think we all assume 'it's someone else's responsibility' or 'it will get done...nobody really starves in this world'. Diffusion of Responsibilty. If we were forced to look at 10 kids in Africa and they said "you go on that vacation and these 10 kids die" we would probably think twice about the vacation.

Or would we?

What about that other planet?

Why worry about a hypothetical planet when our own has billions of suffering people?

Well, simply most of us do the bare minimum when it comes to our own planet. So I'm trying to figure out what it is that actually makes someone respond to the needs of starving people.

Also, if there was a planet of 10 billion starving people...we simply couldn't feed them all. You couldn't do it. So, given that, would you just say fuck it and buy a jet ski and go on with your life? Or still try your hardest to feed as many as you can.

Basically, should we be redistributing all of our wealth (on our own terms, not being forced) to people who are less fortunate than us? Or, is it simply, each man and family for themselves? Why do I have a responsibility to any humans simply because we are both humans?

You may not be looking for this, but I have to pull out the ol' "Teach a man to fish" card. If your hypothetical amount of money can be spent on building the infrastructure to allow a society to sustain itself, or prevent it from ruin (i.e., stop war), then that may be the path to go.

I'd say your biggest responsibility is to those you personally brought into the world. Making sure your children are fed is the highest priority. Then, making sure you are fed. Then, making sure people who have supported you over the years are fed (ie, aging parents). I'd say your obligations end there. Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't help out others whenever possible, but I don't think anyone else has a claim to your wealth.



I don't feel responsible for either. I probably would feel more sorry for the kid in Africa, because that kid probably has a drearier outlook for the future, much less opportunity, etc.



There's probably a reason that planet lives in extreme poverty. At some level, there's either a lack of resources or a lack of responsibility; and I think only in the former case could we do anything for them.



I doubt it. I think it's more an inability to help than an unwillingness to help. I can't do anything for the homeless guy on the corner but prolong his agony for a few more hours. Then, it comes down to my first point... I'd rather make sure I have the resources to take care of those whom I do have a moral responsibility for (they don't exist yet for me personally, but might in the future).



I'd say whoever made the bigger sacrifice with the better intentions is nobler, but I can't say for sure which of those two people made the bigger sacrifice.



Well, I don't think that planet is a very good analogy for Africa. We've been pumping aid into Africa for decades to no avail, and that's not so much a lack of resources as it is corruption on the part of the African states.

No, I don't disagree. But that's not really the question. I didn't ask where the money should be spent or how it should be spent. What are our obligations to other human beings? How much of our disposable income should be going just to make sure people can eat? Down the street? In Africa? On my new planet?

And why do we turn the cheek on most? I believe it's Diffusion of Responsibility. I'm guilty of it.

That's a tough question.

I've encountered it before though. And my usual response is to mention the drowning victim scenario. Lifeguards are taught to bring a buoy with them when they swim out to a victim. They are also taught to not get within arm's reach of a flailing victim. When someone is panicking in the water they grasp for whatever they can to keep themselves afloat and they hold on for dear life. It's very hard to get free once they get a hold of you. The rescuer can then also become a victim. So as sad as it sounds, the stark reality is that lifeguards are also taught that one victim is better than two victims.

I don't think this scenario exactly suits a situation where there are poor and homeless in your neighborhood. But it certainly can illustrate how good people just trying to do the good Samaritan thing could potentially end up doing themselves financial harm.

Giving a set percentage of your income that doesn't break your bank account every year can absolve any guilt you might be feeling if you decide to buy jet skis, or yachts, or even a few CDs ever month. Plus you can get a tax break, if you give to non profit organizations that serve as the "lifeguards."

No one single person can save a starving planet.


I've financially supported work done in Africa. I've purchased trinkets from this store:
as someone mentioned "teach a man to fish, etc..."
http://www.mpwn-uganda.org/


I've also financially supported The Order of The Purple Heart in the United States.

I've paid for hearing aids for deaf children in an orphanage in China.

And I *almost* got involved with a start up charitable action group to supply needed items (quickly without having to go through a bunch of red tape) to orphanages in Africa. The founders, after time, proved to be untrustworthy, severely unorganized, and misguided in their motivations behind the work. So I learned a good lesson. Don't just throw money towards what seems to be a good cause, without inspecting the organization as if you would inspect your own investment options.

What do you guys think about micro-loans?

A hand up is always prefered to a hand out.

Everybody is good and self-fulfilling until they start digging their filthy hands into a pot that's bigger than they realize. People are way to anxious to do it, it's probably the greatest "lack of responsibility" facing our species at the moment.

Looks very promising from what I've read so far.

For some reason I can't fully answer this question. I typed a paragraph earlier but it was too theoretical sounding so I deleted it.

This discussion can't be had without talking about the million other stupid things the government spends money on instead of feeding people in OUR country. Do I feel bad about africa? Yes. As bad as the kids livign in their minivan in my town? hell no. I will give them every spare dollar I have before I send a penny to africa. I'm not saying we can't help africa, or planet X, but lets take care of our country first. We spread the money so thin around the world that nothing every gets fixed, we just provide band aids. Why not fix 1 problem at a time. Once our country is fixed, go to the one that needs help next...adn I have no idea how to choose who is more needy that the next.

Kind of off topic, but why don't we stop sending shit to Mars, stop building hadron smashers, stop providing death row inmates with cable television, and use those millions of dollars to fight mote important causes.

I think you forgot the part about "endless war" and pork-barrel military projects

This is an awesome concept, and it's having an impact.

We should start programs which tie education to micro-loans. We need to encourage people in these countries to get an education, and to put their kids into school. There's no better way of doing that than offering micro-loans for farmers or for people to start commercial businesses. You shouldn't just hand out money to anyone though, this could backfire. It needs to be ensured to the greatest extent possible that the people who recieve these loans have the know-how to maximize their potential. One the largest things inhibiting the third world is the simple fact that there isn't enough education, and not enough investment. It's a terrible cycle that programs like this can help break.