Does philanthropy cause more harm than good?
Does philanthropy cause more harm than good?
Define harm.
creates a dependent population that has no chance to ever become independent
They've independently figured out how to guilt trip a capitalist to exploit workers and have them share their free lunch. Is that any worse than capitalists not being able to do anything independently and rely on the labor of others?
Stop changing the subject, Marxfag
Explain to me how a capitalist is self sufficient without relying on others.
>Explain to me how a capitalist is self sufficient without relying on others.
No, fuck off
Maybe you should have posted in /pol/ if you wanted /pol/ answers instead of /leftypol/
>Maybe you should have posted in /pol/ if you wanted /pol/ answers instead of /leftypol/
I'm not the OP, faggot
>posts in Veeky Forums
>gets mad about marxposting
This is like me posting in /pol/ and getting mad at redditors trumposting
I'm gonna tell anybody who changes the subject like that to fuck off, I don't care what board they're on
Depends on who you ask
Depends on how you go about with said philanthropy.
I'm always skeptical of the claim that philanthropy hurts poorer countries more than it helps.
"Hurrrr if you donate rice you put local farmers out of business"
"Hurrrr if you donate new cars you're putting all of those body shop workers out work"
"Hurrrr if we donate solar panels we will put this one guy in Port au Prince who employs 30 people making sun panels out of business"
Fucking really?
Yes, really. It also allows them to breed beyond their sustained capabilities, causing massive overpopulation, which in turn causes an even greater requirement for foreign aid.
The argument is that it has lead to overpopulation in poor countries;
>People have more food
>They realize their family can support more children
>They have more children (upward total of 12)
>Their children have tons of children which amounts to more mouths to feed
>This repeats...More than half of the population of sub-saharan africa was born after 1996
>We don't know what will happen when overpopulation hits a critical mass or when that will happen but it probably won't be pretty
Overpopulation is nothing to fuck with; Contrary to what popular fiction would have you believe, it's not going to be people running out of room to live. It will first take the form of a massive shortage of basic resources like food or, even more worrisome, water
Requesting that Zizek's talk about charity and Oscar Wilde. I can't remember the name
tldr charity becomes a placebo for the rich to feed good about themselves without fundamentally address the flaws of the system
Generally better living standards eventually lead to low birth rates, and a lot of Western aid programs focus on family planning as well. I doubt that there is any significant impact on the local's birth rates from the relatively measly sums of foreign aid that is sent.
no, but overpopulation is a problem
>implying pic related is a true statement
heh
It depends on the kind of philanthropy, obviously. What a stupid question.
No that's because those countries have access to MODERN TECHNOLOGY idiots.
Most articles do that to push a extreme cut all aid view.
Aid like all things has goo ways to implement it an bad ways.
Even if there was no aid they'd still be struggling, dying and underutilized. Hint it's not overpopulation that's the problem but underestimation brah.
Many areas in Africa are underpopulated heavily.