|
Struggling with what concept? That there are downsides to charities? That there are charity organizations that waste money? That simply giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish may do more harm than good?
In this case, charity efforts are not to put those hundreds of thousands of recipients on a permanent dole, but to help them get on with their lives and back on their feet.
A lot of the work being done here is attempting to move able-bodied, work-capable victims out of the calamity zone into areas where they can reconnect with their families and find work, or to help them rebuild.
Direct giving of food and medicine is done merely until supplies normalize... something which will be a long time coming. In this case, a direct monetary contribution to a large multinational like the Red Cross is often more effective than giving in kind, because of the economies of scale and more focused action possible with such organizations.
If you're looking for charity to address root causes, however, no amount of charity will change the climate, and there is already work underway to redefine danger zones and to move people out of it.
In the meantime, there are people without food, medicine and shelter and without the ability to harvest or make their own. Which is why they still need general donations of all kinds.
-
Again, thanks for the attempted lecture, but there's nothing there I haven't already seen or experienced firsthand.
And if you don't think you've done good by giving to charity, why donate at all?
|