"Why wasn't everyone doing it?" My interest fades as soon as I saw any article that reports on proper humanitarian cause like these are being paywalled with member access while you get politics and dramas coverage for free. It should be the other way around.
2 weeks ago | 85
I'll feed my children. Get the billionaires to foot some of these bills. Wouldn't even notice their account get smaller saving millions of people
1 week ago (edited) | 7
That money isn’t going to help anyone. Charities spend 70% of the money on themselves. They give themselves fancy positions and boards for internal nonsense. Help the people in your own life instead
1 week ago | 3
I’m focusing on stopping myself from starving first. The people with billions should pay for it all
2 weeks ago (edited) | 115
what tone-deaf irony! An article about unaffordability is being paywalled! At least Trump and co. are straight up clear about their intentions. These guys try to hide their faces with a false facade of genuineness and being 'people people'
1 week ago | 14
$100 one time for terminating starving?!?!?!? Unbelivable!!!!!! It's a miracle!
2 weeks ago | 3
Most of all money that people spend goes to the organisations staff salary and housing. Which in case of United Nations can total many millions of dollars. That is applicable to other aid organisations aswell. Just to pay for flight tickets, supplies and then the housing for the staff in the countries they go to which can sometimes be quite the luxury hotels. Most money goes to paying the leadership of course. The actual board members, CEOs and the like. So all these statements about "With only this little money you stop a child starving!" is mostly incorrect.
1 week ago (edited) | 0
Great! Now that child can grow up and have more children that need to be fed.
1 week ago | 4
You stop a person from starving TEMPORARILY MAYBE if it was even true. They might just starve all the way next year when less funds come in, or the year after that.
1 week ago | 2
Nah. Why should i when one billionaire can solve world hunger for less than 1b $
2 weeks ago | 15
So is that $100 going to the civilians or is it going to the corrupt middlemen governments and politicians that might leave them $30 after furthering the corruption and evil with their $70? That's why I can never trust charities, especially those to Africa. The infrastructure to dole out billions of dollars to civilians is simply not there with the rampant corruption, it's mostly just funding private jets or watches for some white collar criminal. Also, with the aid money, Africa knows it can just rely on American funds and imports, and so they never have a reason to export goods and stimulate their own economy. A lot of economists say that Africa would actually be better off without the aid, because so much of it is just stopping Africa from producing its own economic power, and funding corruption. Altruism sells and people have good intentions with the charities, but it's usually not how it seems at face value. I’m just trying to make sure you’re cautious with these things, and consider all perspectives. It’s wonderful that people want to help, but let your good intentions blind you, look at the bigger picture, and look at the details.
1 week ago | 4
Vox
One night this year, senior reporter Sigal Samuel stumbled upon a nonprofit called Tamaika and saw that it made an extraordinary claim: For just $94, she could get a severely malnourished kid access to its treatment program, which helps the vast majority of kids recover within weeks.
But what really shocked her was the purported cost of actually saving a life with Tamaika’s program. Since not every person who gets treated for malnutrition would have died otherwise, you’ve got to treat a bunch of people before you can assume you’ve actually saved one person’s life.
In her reporting on effective philanthropy, she was used to seeing programs — particularly malaria programs — that said they could save a life for around $4,000. But Taimaka was claiming that with their hunger program, they could do it for just $1,500.
If that’s true, it would make this one of the cheapest ways to save somebody’s life.
She wondered: Could I really prevent a kid from dying that easily? And if so, why wasn’t everyone doing it?
🎨: Nicole Rifkin for Vox
📸: Pius Utomi Ekepei/AFP via Getty Images
2 weeks ago | [YT] | 837