@rlumley - but not *thinking* it is possible does not, inand of itself, deduce it to be impossible. Thinking something is or isn't so is conjecture, not proof positive. In the end, even if it proves to be futile, Thucy values putting forth the effort to try and make a difference.This does not make him the fool as he nor you nor I know for a fact whther it will or not. And his acceptance that it may truly make no difference, just a hope that it might, precludes him being arrogant.

Had you just declared him foolish (not a fool, but foolish), I might have let it go, but he is clearly not being arrogant because of his acceptance of the less than optimal chance that he will make a major difference. However, if he encourages just one person and helps them get educated so they can make a new life, then it will have been worthwhile to him, I'm sure.

Here is an interesting example: I developed a system for recording vital statistics and reading them back online (www.myroadid.com, check it out if you like) quite a while back. It was two years of effort, but when that first person's life was saved because they were unconcious and couldn't tell the paramedics about all their medications (something which would have meant wearing dozens of dog tags/bracelets) but my system told them all the details via a simple cell phone call, it made it all worthwhile. I know it isn't the same as helping a continent one person, classroom, or village at a time, but the feeling was the same.

I don't think I ever called Thucy arrogant. (And FYI, I consider it quite a compliment to be arrogant).

My point is not that going to Africa is useless. It's certainly better than vegetating in front of the TV. My point is that there are more productive ways Thucy could spend his time, intelligence, stamina, etc.

To illustrate this, let's consider the following. Let's say that your system and Thucy's trip to Africa are equally successful in saving lives. (I think that's preposterous to suggest to begin with - yours will likely save orders of magnitude more) Let us further assume, for simplification, that number of lives saved is the only measure of worth to society. So far, Thucy and Draugnar have saved equal numbers of lives. Who is more likely to save a subsequent number of lives? Even if Thucy magically converts all of the people he saves to rational, logical people, who are equally as productive as the people Draugnar saves (highly unlikely), Thucy's African's don't have the capital to do very much subsequent life saving, even if they were capable of doing so. Draugnar's people (people who apparently have enough money to spend on medical dog tags) are highly more capable of saving lives. Ultimately, even if we made the assumptions as grossly in Thucy's favor as we did, he will not have done nearly as much good for society as Draugnar has.

@ krellin
All these ridiculous do-gooder programs....OLPC...HAA HAA HA!!!! Thank god some fly-swatting child has a new laptop. Too bad he's going to die of starvation tomorrow. Misguided NONSENSE! Feel-good liberalism.

so what are your suggestions? what "charities" do you think are worthwhile?

Except in my opinion, rlumley, though it is commendable to help anyone, helping the most unfortunate is most commendable. For, if everyone in the West went around saving each other's lives and let Africa die... where would that leave us, morally?

@rlumley - you are correct. It was krellin you called him foolish/arrogant. Damn, I keep inserting an entire shoe store in my mouth this thread.

@Thucy - I disagree there. You are now placing a greater worth on one over another. Saying that saving those less fortunate is more worthy than those who have just as great a need but may have resources at their disposal is just as bad as saying those who have the money should get the transplants. Both are of equal value at the moment of their need. And if you think about it, the endurance cyclist who gets clipped by a semi (lorry for those in Europe) while on a solo ride and is lying in a ditch unconcious may be the person who is destined to find a cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS. Many of the individuals who buy the Road ID are doctors who are avid about their personal health. Saving that one life could lead to *many* others being saved. But that doesn't make that life saving any more important than saving the life of a starving child in Africa. All life is precious and we should never place one over the other if it can be avoided. There are times when tough choices need to be made based on available resources, but a child in Africa and a cyclist on the side of the road aren't using the same resources.

Despite krellin's heated delivery, I think he has a point. I would say most charity isn't altruistic, but in the business of selling feel-good to assuage the classic white man guilt. It's efficacy per dollar used isn't often the real goal since it's mostly about the gesture. As a university student I can say that at least half of men volunteering for charitable organizations on campus are doing so to meet girls. University campuses are especially prone to the gesture rather than the efficacy. I see people volunteering their time for fundraisers or bake sales in which if they had simply worked a minimum wage job for the same amount of time and donated that money they would have been far more effective. There's pitiful profit from the bake sales such that the students and their mothers might as well have sent in money instead of baked goods they made, given that the latter simply requires more time. But again, it's about the gesture and basking in the admiration of your peers for your selflessness more than it is about the actual benefit. You can't find a successful sponsor a child program that doesn't give you a slew of things you can stick to your fridge so that when your friends come over they can see that you're a kindhearted person.

Call me a cynic, but third world aid practically runs on the fashionability of the cause. Haiti was underdeveloped before the earthquake but hardly anybody gave a shit. Then the earthquake hits and suddenly thousands of new charities spring up to sell the fashionable new cause which had everyone jumping in. It's still a good thing that people chipped in, but it's for all the wrong reasons.

That said, there are a lot of very effective NGO's and private enterprises out there that do good and cost effective work. For example, micronutrient distribution to children and chemically treated nets for malaria prevention are highly cost effective solutions. I've also got a lot of admiration for successful microfinance institutions such as the Grameen Bank.

@rlumley: your position is that Africans "mystical and irrational ways" will naturally result in death and, as all alternatives have been tried, only by facing this is there a chance of them choosing reason. Therefore, providing aid is wrong as it will delay the point at which they choose

I described "your position on Africa" as "a moral/rational one" and then explained that I respect the fact that "you have thought about the problem, with good intent, and believe that your conclusion is the best". In other words, your conclusion is not unprincipled or irrational. It is based on your knowledge of the situation, your previous experience and your value system. However, because of my different information/experience/values, equally rationally, I reach a different conclusion. For example, I do not agree that all education & health care aid is wasted; there is improvement (Thucy has already cited Botswana's sex education campaign) but sadly still much to do. Also, I do not accept that a whole continent of people can be left to die, without aid, until they become "rational".

As an aside, what rational choices do you expect a starving child to make before you would give aid? Must they campaign for good governance? Hand in an AK47? Hold an election?

Sorry, I misunderstood your point about education. Are you really saying that your experience in inner city schools makes you think that all people, in all countries, in all environments do not want to learn? I simply could not believe that you meant that. It is quite an extrapolation and certainly conflicts with my experience, some of the brightest/keenest learners that I know come from third world countries (including one from Rwanda).

I wonder what you are doing in those inner city schools. Given your negativity and pessimism it would be little wonder that any kids you encounter give up wanting to learn.

"For, if everyone in the West went around saving each other's lives and let Africa die... where would that leave us, morally?"

From a Utilitarian's perspective, we'd be one hell of a lot better off. (But I hate Utilitarianism)

And I would very roughly define the only immoral actions to be those that involve the use of force. So since in both situations, no force is being used, they are equally moral. One is, however, stupider than the other. :-P

"All life is precious and we should never place one over the other if it can be avoided"

That's the point. It can't be avoided. We live in a world with unlimited wants and limited resources. The entire discipline of economics deals with allocating those resources most efficiently.

"but a child in Africa and a cyclist on the side of the road aren't using the same resources."

Sure they are. Because that medicine could be shipped to France from Africa. Or that doctor could not take off work to go volunteer in Africa. Or any number of things.

Chrisp's last post +1.

"However, because of my different information/experience/values, equally rationally, I reach a different conclusion."

Congratulations. But your post tells me nothing unless you actually indicate what leads you to that conclusion. That's my point. And as I said earlier, you can't describe a thought process as rational if you disagree with it's premises.

"As an aside, what rational choices do you expect a starving child to make before you would give aid? Must they campaign for good governance? Hand in an AK47? Hold an election?"

Aid will never stop. I recognize this. And perhaps that's a good thing. But I would start to contribute A. If I had the financial position to do so, and B. If I were convinced that the money I would give were actually going to help.

"Sorry, I misunderstood your point about education. Are you really saying that your experience in inner city schools makes you think that all people, in all countries, in all environments do not want to learn?"

Now you're twisting words. Obviously, that statement is wrong, because I contradict it. But generally speaking, (and I base this on more than that one experience, but it was certainly a consideration) I think most people (I'll pull 90% straight out of my butt) have no interest in thinking, and would rather be told what to do, think and say by society, the government, or their religion. Being told what to do is easy. Coming up with what to do on your own is difficult. People like to take the path of least resistance.

"I wonder what you are doing in those inner city schools. Given your negativity and pessimism it would be little wonder that any kids you encounter give up wanting to learn."

I am actually quite uncharacteristically good with kids. Everyone who knows me tells me so. I'm always really uncomfortable, but apparently they're not.

Chris-

You're right to be cynical.... indeed most/all people who get involved in charities and such do it for its fashionability or for some underlying peer pressure. For instance why am I interested in Africa and not southeast Asia? I can offer a lot of hypotheses, but the best one is probably that I was exposed to a lot more media coverage of Africa's poverty because that is the "fashionable" poverty to care about. But whatever. I care now, and that's not going to change lol.

However I think the charities themselves are where you find the highest concentration of people who care a lot more about helping people than they do their image. Perhaps many are driven then in search of redemption, etc, and that would be fascinating to know the deep dark secrets of why they're all there, but in the end they've given their life to it and care more about it than merely their image.

However they also recognize that their donors care *primarily* about their image, so they will gladly oblige them by giving them bumper stickers and naming things after them, especially if in so doing they get still MORE donors. That's just a good business model. It would only be wrong if they weren't actually using the money for what they said they were.

I wrote an essay about this years ago, here it is:

"Worldwide, many thousands of people actively work to improve the world by charitable methods. For these people, it’s all about getting results, and many will do whatever it takes to get that donation they’re after. The mechanisms by which many charities acquire more donations are numerous, and some of the many tools at their disposal are fringe benefits given to the benefactor. But if it gets results and improves society, by all means, employ these methods. So what if it undermines charity's supposed selflessness? The donations are still made, are they not? Furthermore, when has any charitable giving really been selfless? Whether to make oneself feel good inside about lending a hand, or to look good in front of others, an ulterior motive always exists. If it is a tax deduction, so be it.
In my experience, incentive tactics work beautifully. Nation Honor Society, an academic honor society for students, holds food drives in which all NHS members are required to participate. Though few would have otherwise given, because it is obligatory to remain a member, tons and tons of food reach the needy, and organizations working with NHS are overjoyed at the response every year. However, in truth, the response they see is due simply to negative reinforcement: donate or you're out of the club. But when it comes to sheer numbers of canned goods, how they were procured is of little importance.
Human nature and its perception as it differs amongst people plays a role here too. One camp seems to believe that, at least at one time, people donated out of the kindness of their hearts, completely altruistically. Unfortunately, this is not the nature of humanity. Complete selflessness is impossible; in every action a person takes, a selfish motive is present, whether the person is cognizant of this fact or not. Someone might give to public television and tell himself it was an altruistic gift when in reality he did it to silence the nagging voice in his head saying he really ought to have given by now, put there perhaps by fundraising campaigns from public television themselves. This is intrinsically selfish. Other examples are everywhere: Dropping coins in a Salvation Army bucket because of a bell-ringing Santa, giving cash in the offering plate at church because everyone sitting near you did. Inescapably, all acts are selfish. If other people benefit too, this is a just a happy coincidence. What this means is that there is no reason to abstain from offering tangible benefits to being in even more benefactors; the ethical line of selfish motive has already been crossed, and can never be uncrossed.
Removing the practices of incentive-based charity would be a huge detriment to society. Why negate all the progress made from money given from guilty wallets? The positive effect on the world is unchanged. The mere fact that charity is not based on altruism anymore does not mean that charity is destined to fail. Indeed, recognizing this will only help it succeed."

I've spent a semester in DC and it's not as bad as it's cut out to be. In its own way it's a bigger challenge than going direct to, say, Africa and trying to make a difference - every day you do indeed have to turn down lucrative opportunities funded by morally despicable people. Odds are you'll end up frustrated as hell with something you learn or see someone do every day.

But in the end you can do far more from a position of power than from any other. Only in Washington can you move a million dollars with the stroke of a pen. If you make it an honest effort to avoid the scum, learn your work inside and out, connect on a personal level with the legislators and media personae who populate it, and never give up, you can make a difference.

The downside is that you don't see it happen in your everyday work, and so it's even more important to get on board with the very nonprofits and corporations that you may or may not like. They sponsor the conferences, they pay the research and analysis companies, they literally write the legislation. You have to be 100% invested in that process to make a difference. But the difference you can make is enormous.

A lot of the work you do you won't get paid for. Even at the top, people who have paying clients and a full-time job come into the office at 8am and stay till 6, then go to meetings and parties and fundraisers and receptions to meet and talk to the people who move the city. They host them sometimes. They volunteer at Little League to meet the other powerful parents. They run for School Board.

But these people get things done. I know a woman whose history involves lobbying and marketing for PepsiCo, and one of her pet projects now is fighting obesity. She's taken the CEO of Weight Watchers to meet everyone from senators to the first lady, and now their school food initiative is now changing the lives of millions of kids who have no choice in the matter. It's a long process, but well worth it in the end. But you can't do it without a passion and a commitment: otherwise you just end up doing what pays.

It's a big game down there, and everyone knows it. But if you play it right you can really make life better for millions of people. And that's a big deal.

@rlumley:
"you can't describe a thought process as rational if you disagree with it's premises" what utter rubbish! Take x+x=y, you might give x a value of 1 and conclude that y=2 whereas I see the value of x as 2 and therefore y=4; we have both applied the same rational process but (reasonably) reached a different conclusion. You would have it that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational, I would call you arrogant but you would mistake it as a compliment.

The difference is in the premises, so let me give you mine:
- people are rational: what you might consider wrong (e.g. having more children) is likely to be the best choice that they can make given their knowledge and circumstances
- education & health care are making a difference (e.g. Botswana sex education programme)
- you cannot withhold aid until the whole population reaches the state of enlightenment that you require
- if something important isn't working, you don't give up, you keep looking for ways to make it better
- you cannot treat the different cultures of a whole continent as one; that is at best simplistic and at worst racist

Consider:
- the death rate in Kenya is 1/3rd that of South Africa. Why? Don't they have the same mystical and irrational culture? Or, is it that Kenya is the largest recipient of US aid in Africa? Or, what? I don't know. You must or you could not be so certain about your conclusion.
- the global infant mortality rate has reduced by 2/3rds in 50 years. Has global culture changed that much? Perhaps, or maybe it is something else. It doesn't matter, it shows that a significant change in health is possible over a relatively short period of time.

I am now baffled as the relevance of your statement on education. You say that your experience in inner city schools leads you to think that generally people are not interested in learning, but you also say that you were not comparing it to Africa's problems, or to avoid being labelled racist. So, I repeat my question: why did you mention this at all?

Let me bring you back to another unanswered question: what rational choices do YOU expect a starving child to make before YOU would give aid? Must they campaign for good governance? Hand in an AK47? Hold an election?

Last time you dodged this question with a vague statement about not expecting aid to stop so I emphasize that this is a question about what YOU expect a starving child to do.

"what utter rubbish! Take x+x=y, you might give x a value of 1 and conclude that y=2 whereas I see the value of x as 2 and therefore y=4; we have both applied the same rational process but (reasonably) reached a different conclusion."

Variables only exist in math. Variables do not exist in nature. We may not know what they are yet, but X can not be both one and two at the same time. Therefore, one of us is being rational, and the other is not. (Or x is three, and we're both wrong)

"the death rate in Kenya is 1/3rd that of South Africa. Why? Don't they have the same mystical and irrational culture? Or, is it that Kenya is the largest recipient of US aid in Africa? Or, what? I don't know. You must or you could not be so certain about your conclusion."

*sigh*. It's like you're not even trying to come up with a decent argument. I'm not contesting that aid lowers the death rate. Of course it does. If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. But if you let him starve, in order to fish, he has to learn to think for himself, not just parrot the actions of another. I contest that the last is the most moral. Education has changed from teaching people how to think to teaching people what to do. The former is great. The ladder is horrid.

"Let me bring you back to another unanswered question: what rational choices do YOU expect a starving child to make before YOU would give aid? Must they campaign for good governance? Hand in an AK47? Hold an election?"

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was writing to the cognitive level of a monkey. I don't know how you couldn't have gotten this from what I said, but I would want to see him doing something with the aid he has already been given before I give him more. (This is where micro-financing comes in, which, in my opinion, is the best solution to the problem.)

@rlumley: "Variables only exist in math." You are being obtuse. I used a mathematical form to illustrate how a rational process, applied to different values/experience/information can lead to different conclusions. If applied in nature the variable x would be akin to information, and would (given perfect knowledge) be the same, however the experience and values of individuals can still differ and thus they may reach different conclusions from the same information.

"But if you let him starve, in order to fish, he has to learn to think for himself, not just parrot the actions of another. I contest that the last is the most moral." It is more moral to leave someone to starve? That is sick.

"Education has changed from teaching people how to think to teaching people what to do." Has it? How do you know? And, if that is the problem, change the education back again. That is surely better than allowing someone to starve.

"I didn't realize I was writing to the cognitive level of a monkey" you are not and you know it; there is no need for abuse. You have advocated leaving people to starve as the most moral solution because it will lead to individuals either making rational choices (or dying). My hypothetical example challenged your proposal at its extremes. Microfinancing is good when applied well, and probably not used enough, but it can go wrong too*. Incidentally, how is the 5 year going to use micro-finance?

*if you get chance, have a listen to this programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005dxdt) about micro finance in Bangladesh; my take on it was that not everyone is a good person to engage in microfinance, try to spread it too far/too fast and you will draw in people who cannot manage it. A bit like sub-prime mortgages in America.

@rlumley "Variables do not exist in nature." How do you explain the Uncertainty Principle?

Also, is it too late to offer Thucy advise? What I want to know is, why do you think you have to go to Africa for the rest of your life? Moving to Africa for any amount of time is a huge life decision. Quite frankly, I"m not sure you're prepared to decide if you want to live there forever. I'd suggest you go, but not with the mentality that you have to stay there. I believe you can do good even if it's only a year, two, even three. Then, if you want, come back to the states and use that experience to promote change in DC.

" If applied in nature the variable x would be akin to information, and would (given perfect knowledge) be the same, however the experience and values of individuals can still differ and thus they may reach different conclusions from the same information."

Please read what I write. This is ridiculous. I'll speak very slowly for you. If. My. Information. Is. Wrong. Tell. Me. Why. It's. Wrong. Or. Stop. Wasting. My. Time!

"That is sick."

Good argument, bro.

"You are not and you know it; there is no need for abuse."

Says the guy who two paragraphs ago called me obtuse.

@ Abgemacht, who is the first person other than me to provide an intelligent comment in several posts:

Just because we don't know them doesn't mean that they're not fixed. Heisenberg's principle doesn't state that particles magically change velocity and position, but rather that the act of observing those positions fundamentally changes them.

Living overseas is addictive! I went to China, with my family, expecting to return home after three years. 16 years and three more countries later ... we expect to return to Blighty one day, perhaps next year, but no plans yet.

Living in other cultures, understanding different ways of doing business, has been a fantastic experience. I am sure that my kids, who have friends of every race and religion, have benefited enormously too.

Even if you hate the experience (and every posting has a bad time early on) you will at least have something to measure your own country against, and appreciate it's good points more.

@rlumley

If there are any physicists on, they're welcome to disagree, but to the best of my knowledge, quantum element have are in no fixed position until they are observed. The act of observation collapses the wave function, forcing a particle to exist in a certain place. Basically, the act of observation creates the reality you see.

@thucy -- Here is the PRIMARY problem with your essay: You assume that all charitable giving has some sort of positive outcome. I wholeheartedly disagree. Some giving does, if given to the right organization. As I have stated before, after watching people begging for Africa for decade after decade, and watching millions and millions and millions of aid, resources and LOST LIVES go to Africa, there doesn't seem to be a single dent in the problem there. So more giving will accomplish...what??

I note that many pages back you made some comment about - if YOU go to Africa, maybe your (sucker) relatives might just decide to give money to Africa...as if money and grunt labor will solve the problem today that money and grunt labor have failed to solve for 50 years...

That's why I think you are noble in your desire to do good, but incredibly naive and misguided. Then again, many feel-good causes are misguided, and are more about making the volunteer feel good than they are about objective, measurable results.

Before you go trouncing off the Africa, you have better have a damned good understanding of exactly what you want to see accomplished. What needs to be changed? What as-yet untried method will you be involved in so that good resources will not be wasted on methods that have proven over time to NOT be effective? make sure you are not throwing your life away to "feel" like you are accomplishing something.

You know who is helping Africa? Oprah Winfrey. She became stinking, utterly, filthy rich, and now has the resources to PRIVATELY direct her capital and resources into a project she can oversee to directly improve lives and measure that improvement.

There is a charity on there on the internet - I can't recall the name - that allows people to donate money on-line directly towards entrepreneurs in places like Africa. earlier in this forum somebody said the problem with capitalism in Africa is there is no capital. This charity provides money directly to Africans seeking to make their life better through business opportuntiy. There is no middle organization to skim money off the top - it is just money basically directly transferred to an individual. THAT is unique. THAT is effective.

OLPC? Useless for a starving kid. Oprah Winfrey building a school and community so that a kid has a roof over his head, then food in her belly BEFORE you try to thrust a computer in his or her lap - THAT is good work.

Going overseas to be grunt labor...I believe you are far too intelligent to waste your time as grunt labor. MAKE something of yourself and be patient - the problems of Africa have been there forever, and won't go away over night. MAKE something of yourself so that someday in the future you will have the means and experience to REALLY make a difference.

That's my advice from the heart, apart from the harsh rhetoric of debate from before.

@ Abgemacht:

Yeah, I'd invite a physicist to chime in - I don't know much about it. But I'd still contest that there aren't magic "variables" that just are arbitrarily whatever they want to be. If you observe the wave in the same way, it would collapse the same way every time, right? If that didn't happen, studying them would be useless.

Are you talking about Kiva.org krellin? The founder of Kiva gave a talk on microfinancing at my university.

Regarding quantum physics....since we dont' know the position or state of something until it is observed, we can not know if they have a fixed position or state if they are unobserved...But I believe abgemacht most accurately reflects current theory in that elements are not fixed until observed. The elements exist in a probability curve (wave function) - they are more likely to be in one place than another, but are not in any until observed. Makes no sense, but then again quantum "teleportation", spooky-action-at-a-distance, quantum entanglement...is all hokus pokus God stuff, but that doesn't mean it isn't true!

Yeah! kiva.org. THAT is a damned good idea! Gets the (fucking) UN out of the equation and other non-productive organizations that have been uselessly wasting tax dollars, donations, food and lives for decades. Give the people true OWNERSHIP of their success, and they might just put forth a little effort!

@rlumley: c'mon "obtuse" is very different to saying that I have the "cognitive level of a monkey". And the "speaking slowly" nonsense is ridiculous.

It seems that you have finally understood my point that when presented with the same information, peoples' prior experience and their values, affect their conclusions.

Now for the substance of the discussion:

Your four facts:
1) The population refuses to use condoms, because they think that it's a conspiracy to limit the African population. = some do not use them, for a variety of reasons, but various reports & surveys have shown increasing condom usage
2) Another popular (and sexist) myth is that using a condom diminishes the power of the man in society. = yes, but not everyone believes it and acts accordingly
3) They instead go to their witch doctors, who tell them that you can cure AIDS by having sex with a young child. = yes, some do
4) And there are leaders of African countries who claim that HIV does not cause AIDS but poverty. = yes, some have and triggered waves of publicity contradicting them
All have some truth but none are true for everyone in Africa.

My example of significantly different death rates in Kenya and South Africa shows that the circumstances in those countries are very different.

Education can make a difference: Thucy and I have both quoted the example of Botswana's successful anti-AIDS campaign. HIV infection rates are falling in several other countries too, something is causing that.

You have also accepted that aid can make a difference.

And yet, you want to treat the whole continent as if it were one, and leave them all to face starvation until they change their ways. By all means leave those who deliberately waste aid to their fate but it would be inhumane to abandon the others.

I'm done talking to you. It's like you're not even reading what I'm writing.

DO NOT TAKE THIS AS RACIST....But South Africa was a white, European culture until recent history changed that. Apartheid was a BAD thing, but the influx of "normal" African culture into South Africa has also been a bad thing for those people, bringing about more death, violence, disease, poverty than was there prior. This is NOT a white/black argument, but a CULTURAL argument...which, I believe, has been rlumley's and my point for a while now. If you give people resources that in order to be effective REQUIRE a change in behavior/culture and those people primarily refuse to change their behavior/culture, you are throwing good after bad. sure...there are instances of success. Hitler did a few good things, too...but overall I'd say his regime was a waste of time. As is throwing a ton of resources into a continent where your rate of return will be primarily NULL do to the massive extent of corruption. This, again, is why I like a program like kiva.org, where money (a little bit, at that!!) is put directly into an entrepenuers hands so that the INDIVIDUAL is now responsible for their own success, instead of success being guaged on how many tons of food Organization X gave out, meaning success is guaged by how many dependants lined up behind a truck load of food and did nothing for themselves.

"a waste of time"

lol. Understatement of the year.

The whole point of quantum physics is that you cannot predict the outcome of the measurement of an observable in the general case. The wave function, when squared, gives you the probabiltity density, meaning that you can know the probability that your measurement will turn out one way or another, but not predict the outcome of an individual measurement. Physics is NOT deterministic on a quantum level. Theories of hidden variables or even local hidden variables can be proven wrong by measurements according to Bell's Theorem. There are a number of possible explanations and interpretations of these problems, some of them are quite interesting and entertaining even for non-physicists. For example, the Many-Worlds theory would suggest that, when you measure a wave function as discussed above, it is not actually reduced to ONE (with a certain probability) of its eigenstates, but to ALL of them, so that each possible outcome of the measurement "creates" a new universe.

@rlumley: "I'm done talking to you", good. I had given up hope of changing your arrogant, ignorant and racist views.

@Krellin: do you really think that Zulus were sitting around in their kraals enjoying a pink gin discussing Shostakovich? Were the Bantu admiring the latest Dior fashion? Of course not, their own culture has been there all the time. There is no "influx".

Like you, I think approaches that reward responsibility, such as micro-finance, are better than just throwing sacks of millet from the back of a truck. Education is important, health care is important, good governance is important, employment opportunities are important. There are many things that can & should be done. But, as a final step, you may need to distribute food. Anything is better than rlumley's "let them starve until they come to their senses" approach.

Which comes back to my answer to Thucy's original post: go, see, learn what works/doesn't and you will be a better policy maker as a result.