A Fallacy Of Charity

Of course, crisises caused by environmental catastrophes should be financially mended as quickly as possible with donations from as many people as possible, whenever necessary. But…

Why ask poor people to give to poor people, at any rate. In 2012, 72% of all charitable donations registered in the UK came from individuals who earned less than 28,000 that year. The rich people are the ones who should be giving to charity. It’s only right. 

There are a few famous donors of billions, but it could be said that that particular generous few have only done what is fair. Any individual can only spend so much money on themselves and their beneficiaries so, with the surplus funds lying around, investment and company creation is all that is left (only garnering more or less funds) without turning to giving to charity.

Any Trillionaire who gives less than 20% of one’s bank balance to charity is undeniably just a bad human being.

If everyone in the top 10 Richest Billionaires list (by Forbes) donated 25% of their collective worth, more than 110 Billion Dollars would be injected into the feeding of people, saving lives and solving serious problems.

Trillionaires are notoriously hard to find rankings on... I wonder why that is...

Consistently seeing poverty on advertisements will numb many people to the pain and disgust of the situation, allowing more people to laugh more comfortably beside it.

And another thing…

Scientific research is like a fountain that has some of its water unreachable in a quantum rift.

In the past 30 years of science being paid for by charity, despite endless experiments and discovery, the scientific community hasn't made many real practical leaps in real terms of preserving life and solving humanity's problems. Mathematical and computing developments have benefited capitalistic concerns but where are the cures, the ‘energys’ and the food. Yes, we are getting closer to each goal every day - but practically are we?

We all know that, in terms of the cultivation and securing of life, it is best to prevent as well as cure. Instead of solely targeting remedies to undesirable (maybe the wrong word) results, infrastructure must be built, sustainable and properly supplied organizations must be established and debts should be repaid.

I hear stories of huge donations being used to build schools and hospitals in rural parts of Africa that are left completed without teachers, books, doctors or medicine.

All of this ‘utopia- talk’ is undeniably possible considering our capabilities as an advanced humanity; every child is actually (undeniably) able to be fed, protected and healthy but these things just aren’t happening or being secured. Why not? Two possible reasons I won’t delve into for now (out of strain) are economic ownership and population control.

Even though we've been giving money to charity for decades, apart from successful reparations of a few situations, the world is still a mess, with problems that have existed for centuries and people are dying when they shouldn't be.

The fallacy of charity is this: poor people are not needed in the equation, there are enough billionaires and trillionaires to solve all of the world's financial problems. As long as we accept the alternative, these causes will never be diminished.