fighting world hunger

**Dexter Rutecki** · 08-07-2005, 09:21 PM

[trying not to be preachy...]
Whenever I stop to think about it, which seems to be more and more often these days, it kind of sickens me to realize how many people are starving and dying in different places. I'm never sure what can really be done, but every now and then I try to remember to give some money to an anti-famine organization. I've given to wfp.org, which is associated with the UN, a few times. This past time I thought that maybe some other maggots would do the same, or could tell us about a better place to donate (I can't figure out how much of their donations actually is spent on feeding people, but I'm just hoping they're efficient about it).
Donations are tax-deductible, too, if that makes a difference.
I know it would be better to solve the conflicts and government problems that create much of the hunger in the world, but as that seems fairly hopeless I like to think these donations help people.

Also, found this site, don't know anything about it, but it claims to provide money simply based on people clicking on the sponsor ads (doesn't cost you anything), so I figured why not.
http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin...jects/CTDSites

**Blurred** · 08-07-2005, 09:33 PM

Sally Struthers has spoken.

**LAN** · 08-07-2005, 09:39 PM

What's gotten under my skin is that we're a Band-Aid nation. Angelina Jolie is on the cover of every magazine because she "graciously" adopted an African baby who's parents died of AIDS. It makes me wonder though ... what are we doing here within our own borders, for our own people? I'm sure she won't touch a Detroit crack baby with a 10-foot pole ...

**powderfinger** · 08-07-2005, 09:45 PM

www.freedonation.com

Make sure to click on the other causes as well on hungersite and freedonation!

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/charity/hungersite.asp

Snopes:

At The Hunger Site, you can "donate" money to hunger relief simply by clicking a button. How? The Hunger Site, the creation of John Breen, a 42-year-old computer programmer from Bloomington, Indiana, was funded by various companies who sponsored the site for a day. Every sponsor donated the approximate cost of 1/4 of a cup of food to the United Nations' World Food Program for each user who clicks on the site during the day. (If multiple companies were sponsoring the site, the amount of food donated was multiplied by the number of sponsors.)

Breen created the site in June 1999 as a personal project to help deal with hunger in developing countries, and the response was soon so overwhelming that he spent most of his time administering the site even though he received no income, loans, grants, or donations to compensate him for his time and effort or pay his expenses. Eventually The Hunger Site became part of GreaterGood.com, a shopping portal where customers could direct up to 15% of the cost of every purchase to causes they selected. GreaterGood.com ceased operations in July 2001, and The Hunger Site was temporarily shut down until CharityUSA.com took over its operations a few weeks later. Oher sites also offer similar means for visitors to aid various charities:

* FreeDonation.com

* Animal Rescue Site

* The Breast Cancer Site

**BakerBoy** · 08-07-2005, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by LAN

What's gotten under my skin is that we're a Band-Aid nation. Angelina Jolie is on the cover of every magazine because she "graciously" adopted an African baby who's parents died of AIDS. It makes me wonder though ... what are we doing here within our own borders, for our own people? I'm sure she won't touch a Detroit crack baby with a 10-foot pole ...

I agree with you 200%. I can't fucking understand how people want to solve world hunger when we have millions of starving kids within our own country. How are you supposed to help someone else when you can help yourself?

**Spats** · 08-08-2005, 04:03 AM

Feeding 100 starving people this year = feeding 106 starving people next year.

Note: I draw a distinction between disaster relief, i.e. earthquake or tsunami survivors, and places that simply have too many people living in a desert or on a flood plain. If it happens every few years, it's not a disaster, it's a natural condition.

13 · 08-08-2005, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Spats

If it happens every few years, it's not a disaster, it's a natural condition.

As heartless as this sounds, that's a fact. The earth can only sustain so many humans.

... 6 billion and counting.

**bklyn** · 08-08-2005, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Spats

Note: I draw a distinction between disaster relief, i.e. earthquake or tsunami survivors, and places that simply have too many people living in a desert or on a flood plain. If it happens every few years, it's not a disaster, it's a natural condition.

Don't you think we have more people in here, living in deserts and complaining about droughts and also more living in flood plains and complaining to FEMA about their water filled basements? We tend to tame nature more than in other countries.

Hey, I'll be frank with you. I am not as sympathetic toward people living in poverty here vs in other countries. It is not as hard in the US to have access to clean water, sanitation, basic medicine, education, food. Poverty here is a paradise. And poverty does not equal "I didn't get Nintendo for Christmas", that's bullshit.

**Dexter Rutecki** · 08-08-2005, 09:08 AM

There's a big difference between 'hunger' in the U.S. and places like Darfur. I'm unaware of thousands of people dying every day due to lack of food in the U.S. And I don't buy the argument that by feeding people you're encouraging famine. It's like saying that by issuing hurricane warnings you're encouraging people to live in dangerous areas--there are two different mechanisms at work. It's possible to address the immediate problem while also working to change what led to the problem in the first place. To simply shrug off mass starvation as a normal condition is needlessly defeatist--people starving due to ethnic cleansing/civil war are not undeserving of help.
And if the world has a natural carrying capacity, we're nowhere near it.

**LAN** · 08-08-2005, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by bklyntrayc

It is not as hard in the US to have access to clean water, sanitation, basic medicine, education, food.

When it comes to access to medicine, I wouldn't say that it's easy for our nation's poor to receive care, especially preventative.

**Ireallyliketoski2** · 08-08-2005, 09:19 AM

You are right from your side, but I am right from mine.
Just one too many mornings, and a thousand miles behind.

**natty dread** · 08-08-2005, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by LAN

When it comes to access to medicine, I wouldn't say that it's easy for our nation's poor to receive care, especially preventative.

Trayc didn't say it's easy to access "basic medicine" in the US, , just that it's "not as hard" as in places like much of africa. Seems logical to me.

But ya gotta put your .02 regarding anything medically-related, don't ya nurse LAN?

My guess is you're taking erroneous issue with trayc's statement cause you're still jealous of her bodacious rack!

btw bleeding heart lib that I am, I also am a bit less sympathetic toward those in trouble in the US versus those in impoverished nations. There are panhandlers in Portland standing on freeway off ramps who have cell phones for chrissake! And many hungry/homeless just don't access many of the services available to them in this country--often because you need to lay off the bottle/needle to take advantage of them. I do feel for the children getting fucked over by parents who can't/won't take care of them--it's not their fault.
But I totally understand BB's and others point about wanting to take care of things here before there. Why volunteer to help kids in africa when you can help impoverished kids here?

**LAN** · 08-08-2005, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by natty dread

But ya gotta put your .02 regarding anything medically-related, don't ya nurse LAN?

My guess is you're taking erroneous issue with trayc's statement cause you're still jealous of her bodacious rack!

Can we please let boobygate DIE??? I have my own set of HATs that are quite lovely.

I know she didn't say that it's "easy" to access medical care here in the US. Easier than a 3rd world country where DWOB are offering water, vaccines, food and treatment for various infectious diseases? Depends on your outlook.

Part of the problem with the homeless population is not only addiction, but also mental illness. A large percentage of those who are homeless are mentally ill, off their meds for one reason or another, and get in that endless cycle of being unable to get off the streets.

I'd say it's a no win situation and we're fucked either way.

**sea2ski** · 08-08-2005, 09:58 AM

I look at this problem much differently than you. I give money to the CT Food Bank because I can end hunger for a larger number of people than for whom I can end starvation.To me it's much like a doctor in an MASH unit, you don't save the most badly wounded soldier at the expense of four other soldiers who could be saved in the same amount of time. Sucks if your the most wounded soldier but if your job as a doctor is to prevent soldiers from dying than saving four is better than one.

**cj001f** · 08-08-2005, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by LAN

Easier than a 3rd world country where DWOB are offering water, vaccines, food and treatment for various infectious diseases?

Yes.

Your money goes alot further to fighting poverty, hunger and environmental problems in the 3rd world than it does in the first. You can feed hundreds in the 3rd world for what it costs to feed 1 in the first. You can treat 10's in the 3rd for what it costs to treat 1 in the first. You can buy square miles in Patagonia for what people spend to save 1 acre in california. My limited money can make much more of a difference to more people overseas.

**LAN** · 08-08-2005, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by cj001f

Yes.

Your money goes alot further to fighting poverty, hunger and environmental problems in the 3rd world than it does in the first. You can feed hundreds in the 3rd world for what it costs to feed 1 in the first. You can treat 10's in the 3rd for what it costs to treat 1 in the first. You can buy square miles in Patagonia for what people spend to save 1 acre in california. My limited money can make much more of a difference to more people overseas.

Very possible, but it brings me back to my original question - shouldn't I be helping my own people, within my own country, before I reach out to help other nations?

**natty dread** · 08-08-2005, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by LAN

Can we please let boobygate DIE??? I have my own set of HATs that are quite lovely.

I'm sure yours are lovely, but sorry, boobygate will NEVER die!!

Originally Posted by LAN

I know she didn't say that it's "easy" to access medical care here in the US.

Then why did you say "I wouldn't say it's easy" in response to her her post?

Originally Posted by LAN

Part of the problem with the homeless population is not only addiction, but also mental illness. A large percentage of those who are homeless are mentally ill, off their meds for one reason or another, and get in that endless cycle of being unable to get off the streets.

True that. That's why it would help to allocate more money for treatment of both mental illness and addiction. But look at what our goverment has done to the VA's budget for example and look how it concentrates on the punitive side of the war on drugs rather than the treatment end, which actually has some level of success.

**cj001f** · 08-08-2005, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by LAN

shouldn't I be helping my own people, within my own country, before I reach out to help other nations?

Triaging the situation it seems helping more people is better, no?

Sorry, I've never been a good isolationist, and I don't feel that because someone lives in my country they are a more worthwhile human than anyone else on the planet.

**LAN** · 08-08-2005, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by cj001f

Triaging the situation it seems helping more people is better, no?

Sorry, I've never been a good isolationist, and I don't feel that because someone lives in my country they are a more worthwhile human than anyone else on the planet.

I'm not saying that people outside of our country aren't worthwhile, I'm just saying it's hard for me to send my dollars to another country, when I could use my own two feet and hands to help people in our own country.

Natty, the VA is a depressing place overall. I've spent some time on the psychiatric wards, working with vets, some as young as 19/20. It's a goddamn shame what W has done to those guys.

**Dexter Rutecki** · 08-08-2005, 10:15 AM

What CJ said. It's great to help hungry Americans, but I think people elsewhere are in much more dire need, and face a more immediate risk of death than those here, where basically anyone can have enough to eat if they just ask.

Originally Posted by sea2ski

I look at this problem much differently than you. I give money to the CT Food Bank because I can end hunger for a larger number of people than for whom I can end starvation.To me it's much like a doctor in an MASH unit, you don't save the most badly wounded soldier at the expense of four other soldiers who could be saved in the same amount of time. Sucks if your the most wounded soldier but if your job as a doctor is to prevent soldiers from dying than saving four is better than one.

I think you've got it backwards. $10 for Africans can keep several people alive for a day, I doubt the money does the same here. As to which group is more likely to eventually be able to sustain themselves, I think that it's possible the American needy might be in that category, but it's not definite.

**LAN** · 08-08-2005, 10:17 AM

Here's another question - and I'm asking, because I don't know. Let's say I send $1,000 over to a third world nation for food and water. Is it a temporary fix? Does it really have any longstanding effect on the longevity of those peoples lives?

**Dexter Rutecki** · 08-08-2005, 10:24 AM

I think it depends on the situation, and what the money is used for. If the organization does things like helping farmers use water efficiently, and dig wells etc., then it's more than just a band-aid. If you want to know that your money is being used in that way, I'm sure you can find organizations that will do that.
I think it's great to help the hungry (or impoverished) here as well as abroad, I just tend to see a greater need in places where people are on the brink of death. Actually, I don't even know which country the money I gave will go to, as I designated it for 'area of greatest need'. Presumably they know where it should go.

**cj001f** · 08-08-2005, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by LAN

Let's say I send $1,000 over to a third world nation for food and water. Is it a temporary fix? Does it really have any longstanding effect on the longevity of those peoples lives?

It depends how they spend the money. Some groups take a direct approach, purchasing food (with a meal going for under $1 in India, $1k goes along way). Some do development work, water, hospitals, etc. Some take a longer term view focusing on education. $1,000 would by 4 girls scholarships at Room to Read

**LAN** · 08-08-2005, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

I think it's great to help the hungry (or impoverished) here as well as abroad, I just tend to see a greater need in places where people are on the brink of death. Actually, I don't even know which country the money I gave will go to, as I designated it for 'area of greatest need'. Presumably they know where it should go.

Do you think it's more than just bringing them back from the brink of death? What about the subsequent problems with longstanding nutritional deficits? Sometimes I wonder if by sending "temporary aid," in the form of water/nutrition, if we're just getting those folks over the starvation speedbump. I suppose going on a mission would open my eyes and answer some of my questions.