Atheist Evangelism

[The Grand Nudger]

I would like to assume that the vast majority of food aid programs of every kind are well run and staffed by fully committed and decent people who want to help people (and I don;t think that those people or those programs would vanish if religion did - if religion even could vanish). I could point at the largest direct program in the us, WIC, as an example. It simply doesn't matter. It's the idea itself that is flawed.

There is no amount of direct food aid that we can give people that will do more good than the money it costs to secure and distribute the products. That we refuse to do this for a number of reasons that amount to myths about poor people is what makes programs like them "the best we do" - but the best we do does not necessarily clear the bar for being good, or a good idea. It's preferable to people starving, but then again simply giving poor people those funds is preferable to starving -and- to direct food aid.

[Silver]

A recent television show, The Fall of the House of Usher made the point that if billionaires contributed and film industries stopped creating for an entire year, we could easily solve world hunger. Granted, the same could apply to not grossly overpaying athletes.

[FrustratedFool]

I'm not sure money is the issue. Resources are sufficient. Politics and religion and human behaviour seems the barrier to solving world hunger.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a shame that what the billionaires are contributing to is the idea that poor people should not get welfare and that we should rely on charity rather than taxes to deal with the issue. That wic should be a welfare program for food processors who make products our pediatricians tell us not to feed our children, that snap should be a welfare program for walmart so that it does not have to pay it's employees a living wage. That we should make flashy donations of fully deductible foodstuffs to third world countries rather than investing in their development or disbursing grant funds through a local microloan program.

The answer to poverty, and to hunger, is dead simple. Money. Give poor people money. They will not, in fact, waste it all on hookers and blow...though they might buy a lobster or two - which is just as bad, apparently.

[Ahriman]

It's a shame that what the billionaires are contributing to is the idea that poor people should not get welfare and that we should rely on charity rather than taxes to deal with the issue.  That wic should be a welfare program for food processors who make products our pediatricians tell us not to feed our children, that snap should be a welfare program for walmart so that it does not have to pay it's employees a living wage.  That we should make flashy donations of fully deductible foodstuffs to third world countries rather than investing in their development or disbursing grant funds through a local microloan program.

The answer to poverty, and to hunger, is dead simple.  Money.  Give poor people money.  They will not, in fact, waste it all on hookers and blow...though they might buy a lobster or two - which is just as bad, apparently.

Well, some of them might.....but just because that "might" happen shouldn't stop people who have way too much fucking money in the first place from giving some away to people who could use it a whole lot more.

[Angrboda]

I would like to assume that the vast majority of food aid programs of every kind are well run and staffed by fully committed and decent people who want to help people (and I don;t think that those people or those programs would vanish if religion did - if religion even could vanish).  I could point at the largest direct program in the us, WIC, as an example.  It simply doesn't matter.  It's the idea itself that is flawed.  

There is no amount of direct food aid that we can give people that will do more good than the money it costs to secure and distribute the products.  That we refuse to do this for a number of reasons that amount to myths about poor people is what makes programs like them "the best we do" - but the best we do does not necessarily clear the bar for being good, or a good idea.  It's preferable to people starving, but then again simply giving poor people those funds is preferable to starving -and- to direct food aid.

What about if you can't give them money instead, do you just let them starve to prove a point?

[The Grand Nudger]

I've actually dealt with exactly this. Say you operate a small farm and you have a bumper crop of greens. More than you can move. You call a food pantry and say hey, come pick up these greens or....if not that, when can I deliver them to you? You can't. They're not equipped. The food bank will refuse the product. So maybe you pay to put out an ad (or just tell people, word of mouth) that everything on your farm is free to whomever can come get it. Except, no, you can't, because all of that excess foot traffic tends to leave a mess ..damage the fields.....and, for some operations, might even decertify you. If, however, you mean that you personally don't have cash to spend but you do have a can of peas - that's yet another issue I have personally encountered. That's why cans of peas are like tribbles at food pantries.

Nevertheless, somebody bought those cans of peas and the money it took to purchase them would go further to feeding hungry people than they do. Sell them. Have a big drive where you sell the damned peas..and disburse that money. This issue repeats itself across the entire operation. Say someone donated a building for you to operate a food pantry? What you should do is rent out that building and disburse that money.

(I did manage to con them into taking a whole short truck packed top to bottom once, but it all rotted)

[The Grand Nudger]

I think I can sum up my entire position on whether or not handing out food has some effect on my tolerance for a shitty religion to a single question. When's the last time you heard someone say "Sure, he's a rapist, a murderer, and a thief - but he does hand out cans of peas." Lay aside all of the well documented issues with every direct food aid program we've ever tried at any scale. Even if none of that were true.......

[Angrboda]

I've actually dealt with exactly this.  Say you operate a small farm and you have a bumper crop of greens.  More than you can move.  You call a food pantry and say hey, come pick up these greens or....if not that, when can I deliver them to you?  You can't.  They're not equipped.  The food bank will refuse the product.  So maybe you pay to put out an ad (or just tell people, word of mouth) that everything on your farm is free to whomever can come get it.  Except, no, you can't, because all of that excess foot traffic tends to leave a mess ..damage the fields.....and, for some operations, might even decertify you.  If, however, you mean that you personally don't have cash to spend but you do have a can of peas - that's yet another issue I have personally encountered.  That's why cans of peas are like tribbles at food pantries.  

Nevertheless, somebody bought those cans of peas and the money it took to purchase them would go further to feeding hungry people than they do.  Sell them.  Have a big drive where you sell the damned peas..and disburse that money.  This issue repeats itself across the entire operation.  Say someone donated a building for you to operate a food pantry?  What you should do is rent out that building and disburse that money.

(I did manage to con them into taking a whole short truck packed top to bottom once, but it all rotted)

None of that actually answers the question. Care to try again?

[The Grand Nudger]

 They will not, in fact, waste it all on hookers and blow

Well, some of them might.....but just because that "might" happen shouldn't stop people who have way too much fucking money in the first place from giving some away to people who could use it a whole lot more.

They wouldn't be "giving it away" they'd be paying their taxes.  We are already giving it away to them.  That's what coddling billionaires bank accounts is.  Welfare for rich people. Food banks, and all of the riches own charitable projects - are not a solution. They are a symptom of the disease and more often than we would like to accept, a tool for spreading it.