Starving children in third world countries?

Question

Why is it that those commercials are always on t.v., with little kids, with flies all over their faces and living in some poverty stricken third world country, and then there's Alex Trebek telling us we can help, for only a dollar a day!

Has no one ever processed the thought that if there's not enough food in that country to sustain their population, how would it help to send more food and supplies to keep those people barely surviving (which is a whole other topic- quality or quantity of life?), so that they can live another birthcontrol-free existence and produce more offspring that are doomed to lead the same, barely bareable lives, of eating one day and starving the next.

The only seemingly humane thing to do is leave them alone, and let nature take it's course and allow them to naturally retain a population their economy or livelihoods can sustain. Right?

Answer 1

Killing with aid. By the developed world giving many countries that are famine stricken; food local farmers cannot compete with free food, thus closing down local markets and limiting the economy that can sustain the population. Also, another point. Given that the developed world's food production is subsidized by each nation's government, more food is produced then needed and is not sold but given due to the fact that it would take time and money to destroy it.

Answer 2

i get where your coming from but

when i think over it...it sounds kind of...cruel.

if i was starving i sure would want some food

even if in small supplements. if we have the power to

help we should help.whose to say someone living

there won't change the world somehow?

Answer 3

This question is a difficult one to provide an answer that is not ethnocentric or condescendingly patrimonial to the countries in question.  Many of the charities we see on television are corrupt, in that very few of the monies that you donate go to food (rest goes to paying celebrities, salaries of administrators and their travel - in 4 star hotels no less, "overhead costs", etc).  All this provides is a band aid solution, the often just prolongs the despair of their situation, while providing a salve to the person in the armchair donating in feeling they did their part in helping.  Even true and well intentioned acts of altruism (Live Aid 1986), ended up prolonging war because the money, given to the government, was used to buy weapons - none actually went to food.

You are right that in order to provide aid, we have to change at the population and government systems level.  However, imposing contraceptives means imposing our Western beliefs on the people.  I think the UN is trying to negotiate with governments to provide agricultural assistance, but many of the governments are also corrupt and/or don't care about their people.  Long term, perhaps it is not the "best" thing to leave them alone, but perhaps the most effective.  This runs contrary to many people's (including mine) sense of humanity, so I don't think it will ever happen.

Answer 4

The bigger question is how can we cure poverty in a third world country or can we do something about it.  The answer is no, we can send assistance out of the goodness of our heart but it will not change their nation.  Political leaders use food and poverty as a means to control their people.  It's about greed to.  You can send the money or not but cure it you or anyone else will not.

Answer 5

they want them just barely alive so they can keep filming them to show the world that they need your money and keep 90% of all donations and use 50-60% to pay for the commercials

Maybe they will end up with 10-20 % to keep them alive long enough to film them.

The local army rade some of the shipments once in trucks to be deliverd...they follow the trucks and take the food and medicines.