The Darker Side of Charity

Is charity a killer in disguise? Here we look at this question, without emotion, from a perspective of mathematics and cause and effects relationships.

Let’s go back fifty-five years. One day, while watching television, we see a clip of several poor, sad, and hungry children that will soon die. Maybe a disease is involved. The scenes on television tug at our hearts and we cannot help feeling empathy since we perceive ourselves as warm and caring human beings.

In the next 20 seconds, we see more images of starvation, disease, war, dictatorship, perhaps even hear references to human trafficking.

We and thousands of others are compelled to help. We send money for food, clothing, and medicine or shelter to the sponsors of the advertisement. All seems well and we feel better. Many sign up to donate monthly.

Soon these children grow to adulthood. Based on world population figures, each child in a poorer nation has four to seven children of its own.

The wars the starvation, the disease, and the human trafficking continue. Many of the newborn children die sad and horrible deaths. Those who survive produce more children. The donations keep coming.

IIf each person in a poor country, with no birth control, has 5 to 7 children and we say only 4 live, here is a quick chart of the population increase over the years with only 4 children surviving from each parent.

Cycle 1 = 10,000 times 4 = 40,000 surviving births
Cycle 2 = 40,000 times 4 = 160,000
Cycle 3 = 160,000 times 4 = 640,000 surviving new births
Cycle 4 = 640,000 times 4 = 2,560,000
Cycle 5 = 2,560,000 times 4 = 10,240,000 surviving births

Now let’s consider that for every 4 children that survive only one will die. Keep in mind we started with only 10,000. Please remember that the real the death rate is higher. It is closer to double or even more than the numbers used in this example.

Cycle 1 = 10,000 deaths… Total cumulative deaths so far = 10,000
Cycle 2 = 40,000 deaths… Total cumulative deaths so far = 50,000
Cycle 3 = 160,000 deaths Total cumulative deaths so far = 210,000
Cycle 4 = 640,000 deaths… Total cumulative deaths so far = 850,000
Cycle 5 = 2,560,000 deaths… Total cumulative deaths so far = 3,410,000

The death numbers have now increased exponentially.

Instead of several thousand children starving and dying, now over three million people starve on cycle 5. There are now 30 times more people dying per year than were originally saved.

Every few decades there is a severe global economic downturn. The charity donations drop and people become restless. Studies show that wars break out during these economic downturns. Populations become slain by the hundreds of thousands. People die horrible and cruel deaths. The food shortages from the political strife kill even more.

The horrible truth is that for each person saved, hundreds, even thousands, more suffer and die.

So the huge theoretical question is – Would it have been kinder and more benevolent to have left the few thousand alone to starve, then to create millions and millions, that will now starve instead?

That indeed is a sick question, but the world we live in enables it. It also gives rise to many other questions.

What is real kindness? Is this true compassion? Have our good intentions helped or have they increased suffering? What are the true mathematical cause and effect consequences of our good intentions, our charity, and our compassion?

Currently, over 7,000,000 people  die of starvation annually. In the year 2011, one child died every 10 seconds. Clearly, our current approach is not the best solution. The most important questions follow. Is there a better, yet sustainable solution? If so, what is it? Who is preventing it? Why? Is our world capable of agreeing long enough to carry it out?

 

Do you like this blog? Why not subscribe? No SPAM or sales letters. I only post 2 – 5 times per month.

___________________________________________

Attention Writers

Is your setting weak? Is it missing convincing elements? Are you having trouble getting started or filling in the details?

Maybe you just want to learn more about setting or need a few ideas.

Picture of book by Paul Nieto - Quick Essentials of  Setting and Worldbuilding

Click now. Only $0.99 at Amazon.
Free on Amazon Prime




4 Replies to “The Darker Side of Charity”

  1. I agree 100% with you. Charity is wrong because if people are unable to take care of themselves, it’s pointless to try to help them. By artificially trying to inflate the living standard of places like India, we’ve caused a massive population explosion and if this is unchecked, the pollution which will be created by such a huge population will end up destroying the planet by destroying the environment.

    We need to let 3rd world countries collapse and die out on their own. Without the help of western countries, such 3rd world shitholes already would have collapsed long ago. It’s not racist to admit that some races are just too stupid to help themselves and would be better off wiping themselves out. Before they wipe out the whole world.

    1. +Magneto – You said without the help of the western world certain people wound have perished. I am not so sure. The question asked is if “what the west did was really help?” Did the west really help or make it worse? With proper help, many societies would most likely have learned to prosper by now. Who knows – perhaps left alone and in smaller numbers, they could have done it alone. It is difficult to predict what could have happened.

      As for the race, I think race is not relevant. I am part white and part South American Indian. Some of my Indian ancestors partook in bloody horrible mass human sacrifice rituals. The whites, on the other hand, using superior technology, efficiently killed millions more than other races in rituals called war. One set of my ancestors enslaved the other half for the mining of silver. So who do we say is most stupid? Who is inferior? Who is better? Who is superior? I say neither. The more technology man gets, regardless of race, the more he kills himself off in larger numbers.

      I 100% agree with you on this, “Humans are an incredibly stupid species. It’s amazing we haven’t gone extinct by now.”

      I think all people are capable of tremendous good, or tremendous stupidity, or great evil. I do appreciate your input so I hope you realize that I am not attacking you, but rather just discussing. I hope others will join us.

      I also readily admit I DO NOT have the answer.

  2. I’ve also long pondered these same questions and quite frankly, the best solution would be mandatory IQ testing and then mandatory sterilization of anyone with an IQ under 120. All the problems of the world could be solved within one generation if we did this. But people do not have the WILL to implement such a strong solution. Therefore Mother Nature will simply continue to wipe us out thru war, disease, famine, etc.

    Humans are an incredibly stupid species. It’s amazing we haven’t gone extinct by now. And if we want to prevent our own extinction, we have to start making HARD CHOICES right now. Choices that will involve sterilizing large numbers of people, and withdrawing all financial aid to 3rd world countries and letting those countries die out. We will also need to DEPORT a lot of the 3rd world savages who have invades the Western world looking for welfare and free handouts. They are PARASITES and they contribute NOTHING of value to the human race. We must economically and politically isolate 3rd world countries, BAN all immigration from those countries, and let those countries just wipe themselves out.

  3. +Magneto – I am not in complete agreement with you but I appreciate a well-articulated opinion. Here is my reaction to your major points.

    I’d be against forced sterilization when more voluntary options are so easily available. I think the industrialized world has prevented a population problem for its own members by use of birth control. One could see that as a form of voluntary sterilization. Many men, for example, get vasectomies after seeing whet their friends go through during divorces. Once could say that a man is financially rewarded for doing that. I wouldn’t be surprised to see other societies follow that path once the opportunities are available.

    As for starvation, I was thinking more along the lines of resource assistance instead of handouts. In countries with dryer climates, having ocean water turned to something usable would allow for people to devise their own food production within their given climates.

    I, like you, believe a person should carry their own weight, but I did not create my job or the environment that allows me to get a job. Water is an important resource for beginning an agricultural transition. Once populations can grow their own food, they can change their economies. I’m not saying it would be easy or that the technology is cheap, but the money is being spent already. We can help others, but it would better to help others assist themselves as well.

    As for a high IQ, high IQ does not necessarily include common sense or wisdom. Look at our own leaders. Some of them with high IQ do very stupid things. Some of the most destructive members of our society, those who rob you and I legally, have IQs in the range you point out. Some of the most diabolical schemes and inventions were given to us by people with higher IQs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.