If you do not care, there may come a point where you have a chance to do something that will help one of these people. But, because you have not cared for all your life, you may find yourself deciding not to help.
I'm not saying you WILL. i'm saying that kind of mentality might lead to that.

If the government has passed a bill, doesn't that mean that people are listening? If people are listening, and contributing, then doesn't that mean that somewhere along the line somebody is making a difference?

These people deserve a better life. If you say that there is nothing you can do about it, and don't do anything about it, than how will they find that better life.

The same way we did. Globalisation and the development of the middle class.

Psychologically speaking, you probably care about most of the people you are trying to help on an intellectual, rather than fully empathetic level.Profit per unit does not take into account the immense amount of money that it took to develop each drug, let alone the countless number of failed projects aimed at the same result.You have made an absolute statement. I know people who have personally seen the positive effects of charities.In Australia, at least, it just means it isn't run for profit. The workers still get paid.This isn't a great argument, honestly. Though assuming they are skimming funds because of pre-existing conceptions of charities isn't a great argument either.

This. They are basically the same way we was in the medieval age, a war torn hell hole.

That doesn't mean we can't accelerate the process by other means and subsequently reduce the amount of suffering that is experienced.

This. Every human being deserves a good life, or at least one that isn't terrible.

Also this. And once again even IF the people themselves do not get ALL of the money sent, at least they get a bit... And every bit helps.

That's irrelevant. The current point is that money sent isn't applied effectively or is applied into the infrastructure the perpetuates the current situation. In that case, the money sent would be counter-productive. The extent to which this occurs, which would be terribly useful information, has not been researched by anyone participating yet though, apparently.

I agree with 411570N3 - this discussion is kind of pointless until we figure out the amount of corruption going on.
But I would like to point this out about globalization:
[url]http://oro.open.ac.uk/10405/1/Globalisation_inequality_and_climate_change_final_draft.pdf
[/url]



If we don't act, these people will fight for a few years until some dictator manages to create a stable government. Then it will take a decade or two until the people manage to wrest power from his grasp and - hopefully - create a stable democracy. This is a very basic, sped-up version of medieval europe. Also, these people have the "benefits" of modern weaponry.

This is what could happen, and it seems callous to allow it to take place although we have it in our power to stop it.

Kind of offtopic but why does everyone want democracy?
I'm just saying. Since we [Americans] do not use democracy. we have a democratic republic.

No you select your leaders by having them box against a kangaroo, not by votes.

To most people, Democracy means Democratic Republic. During the Cold War, we said we were trying to spread democracy, not Democratic Rupublic(ansy?). It sounds catchier.

@lizard
I wish!

@tom
Yea that makes sense. I just like to call it a democratic republic. Maybe I'm just weird.

I haven't posted terribly strongly for either of the sides of the current argument. What are you agreeing with, exactly? Also, feel free to call me Allstone.

I don't think darkdoom fully understands his own platform, let alone yours.

This sounds metal, I don't see any problems.