Atheist Evangelism

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not that we cant do it, it's not that we don't know how. We won't. We won't.

Thankfully, there are tons of projects and pilot programs at various stages of development that are moving towards a sane solution to the issue...and it isn't charity or direct food aid.

Money, poor people need money. Hungry people need money. They can, after all, buy cans of peas with money whenever they want.

[Ahriman]

It's not that we cant do it, it's not that we don't know how.  We won't.  We won't.

Thankfully, there are tons of projects and pilot programs at various stages of development that are moving towards a sane solution to the issue...and it isn't charity or direct food aid.  

Money, poor people need money.  Hungry people need money.  They can, after all, buy cans of peas with money whenever they want.

Lol, which of course, they probably wouldn't, since then they could afford better fucking food than canned peas. But you're right, people don't need a little bit of rations here and there to get them through the week, they really do just need money.

[Silver]

Money, unfortunately, is a whole other problem of its own. We just need to make it obsolete like in the Star Trek universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sure we'd find some other way to keep score, but it would be nice if money weren't the only thing standing between people and dying of starvation.

So, back in 07, a huge charity called CARE passed up 45Musd in funding for their food aid program because, according to them, they found that it was actually harming, rather than helping, the target population. More recently, researchers have tried to nail down the specifics of whether or not food aid helps and if so, what kind - using nigeria as the example. They get alot of food aid. In their case, they found that food aid actually -did- help, but only in a very specific way that I doubt anyone would imagine beforehand. Basically, it boiled down to whether they could manipulate the (local)price of cereal grains to create a differential between what they called grain producing and grain consuming families. Positing that, since the poor are often concentrated in rural areas (and very often work in food production - the universe loves irony) if they could drive the price down it would not hurt one group of poor people as much as it helped the other. Yet again...robbing the poor, to help the poor.

Not that this matters much when all aid is suspended due to diversion, ofc.

[The Grand Nudger]

Psst,, pssst, know what food banks need, if we're wedded to the idea that trying to solve pervasive societal issues with disorganized charity is a good thing that we should be doing? Money. Money for walk ins, so that they can even begin to offer starving hungry or malnourished people healthy food. Assuming they're even willing to build a walk in if they had the funds - what with all the headaches and potential liability of trying to store perishables at standard for distribution.

[Silver]

Only an unnecessary bureaucracy can make helping a burden.

[Angrboda]

Christ on a cracker.  Not liking my answers is not the same as me not giving them.  What second part?

What does that have to do with you skipping part of the question?

Is avoiding starving to death a legitimate good?  Not necesarrily.  You might avoid it by eating someone, since we're deep into framingland.

So whether something is good depends upon who is doing the judging, the starved or someone else? Objectively, whose point of view counts and why?

[The Grand Nudger]

Whether not something is good…in this example, is being judged by the standard you suggested. Whether it alleviates hunger. Whether it prevents harm.

Not liking my answer is not the same as having not received an answer. I’m sure that we could argue objective ethics till the cows come home- but if we’re granting it or asking for an assessment specifically from that pov…then the answer gives way to any number of the facts I’ve communicated in quite a few posts now. Our reliance on these sorts of projects does not alleviate hunger or prevent harm. It causes hunger, it ensures harm.

One of the best examples of it actually working, is by further impoverishing one group of poor people to help another group. That’s the good outcome, a program full of competent people who want to help people. The rest of the picture goes from that to worse.

[Angrboda]

Whether not something is good…in this example, is being judged by the standard you suggested.  Whether it alleviates hunger.  Whether it prevents harm.  

Not liking my answer is not the same as having not received an answer.

No, but not answering is not answering. I didn't suggest any standard, much less on from what perspective to evaluate the good. I asked you about yours.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess I must have utterly misread all of your posts. Either way, I haven’t been shy with my opinion or how I reached it. I never am.