Does Giving Money to Poor People Really Help Them - Term Paper Example

Does giving money to poor people really help them? Various countries in the world have been faced by various challenges. As a result, each country engages in ways of overcoming such challenges for the betterment of the citizens. Some of the common challenges arise from poverty. A poor country is also most likely to have majority of the population at needs. In such countries, there are more poor people than there are the rich people (Hardin 778). In the world, the level of poverty has been used to classify a country as being poor or rich. Most of the developing countries have engaged in ways of overcoming the level of poverty. As a result, they have requested for financial aids from developed countries and other institutions such as World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Such help have managed some of the countries work towards getting out of poverty. However, other countries have mismanaged the fund from institutions and hence led to rising of even more challenges such as increased debt. Hence, it is clear that sometimes-financial assistance do not yield the necessary result. Giving money to poor people and country does not yield a result as it only leads to more poverty, overpopulation, and environmental degradation; policy change and better planning can only achieve the solution. Giving money to poor people will not help due to their ever-rising population of needy people [D]. In most of the poor people and countries, the underlying problems is not lack of money but rather an ever-rising population. The effect is an increase in the number of poor people. The increase also means the challenge of poverty is adequately passed to the next generations. Garrett Hardin, who is a professor note, most of the population in the poor nations has been doubling every thirty-five years more than twice as fast as the rich nations (Hardin 780) [C]. The effect means that offering financial support will lead to increased birth in poor nations. The increased population will mean that there will be increased competition of the resources available for the nations offering assistance. If the competition arises, it will mean that there will be a rise of the number of poor people [A]. This will go against the goals of offering money to reduce the number of poor people in different parts of the world. Hence, solution is not in offering money but in ensuring that there is adoption of policies that will help in reducing over-reproduction in poor countries. While offering money to the poor may help in addressing some of the challenges like emergencies, the solution lies in better planning [B]. Various forms of a humanitarian approach adopted by the rich nations have been shown to do more harms than good (Hardin 783). Some of the emergencies that occur to the poor people and nations can be overcome by adequate preparation in ways of tackling them. Some of the countries lack such form of plan. Whenever such countries are faced by emergencies, they are unable to tackle and most of the time end ups calling for help. Therefore, offering money will not be a solution to a country with a poor plan. Addressing the problems will be in encouraging such countries to adopt a comprehensive plan. As the author notes, "they may mend their ways, and learn to budget for infrequent but certain emergencies" (Hardin 783). Hence, the solution is in offering technical assistance such as machinery. For example, machines can be offered to poor countries to help in mechanization of agriculture and hence more food. The effort will help in reducing food shortages experienced by people in some of the poor countries. Although money can help in overcoming challenge faced by high population of poor people, poverty can be eliminated through proper control of the population [B]. The ever-increasing population strains the available food resource for any country. Most of the countries that are poor affected as the population keeps on exploding. As the author indicates, " because of the higher rate of population growth in poor countries of the world, 88 percent of today's children are born poor, and only 12 percent rich" (Hardin 784). Offering support to these countries will only aggravate their challenges, as it will boost population explosion. Therefore, these countries should not be given food aid so that crop failure and famines can help in controlling population growth (Hardin 784). The two factors will help in ensuring that the population between the poor and rich nations reaches a level of stability. The stability will help in ensuring that each country can be able to maintain its population and hence avoid overreliance on others. While giving money and food may tackle some of the challenges faced by the poor for a short term, technology support and advice will offer a lifetime solution. Such form of support and advice can help poor countries, and people boost their agriculture and other areas as a way of overcoming poverty. Some of the foundations have adopted this route and has achieved tremendous results. For example, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations have engaged in a number of projects that have managed to boost agriculture in a number of hungry nations (Hardin 785). Giving money to the poor will only help them solve temporary problems they face in their countries. If a poor person is given money to buy food, he will only get out of hunger for a few days [A]. However, giving the same person technical know how and advice will ensure he gets the skills to produce food that will sustain such a person for a long time. Hence, technical support will go a long way in offering lasting solution to some of the poor people and their countries of origin. Moreover, giving money to the poor will not help, as it will lead to more problems. Giving money to the poor will mean majority of the people around the world will afford affluent things. For example, empowering the population of the poor countries will mean they will be able to afford luxurious goods like cars. This will mean more harm to the surroundings. Rogoff, the Professor of economics notes "290 million U.S. citizens already cause almost one-forth of world carbon dioxide emission" (Rogoff 341). This means that increasing the population that afford affluent life will lead to more damages to the environment. This shows that offering monies to poor people will increase the problems it is supposed to eliminate. For example, support should be towards ensuring people live sustainably with the environment. If these goals are not met, then financial support should not take place. Although some argue that offering money to the poor does not help, there are those who believe offering money to the poor comes with immense benefits. The argument is that most of the money that belongs to people in rich countries is spent on things that have no influence on their lives. Singer, the author of The New York Times Magazine, notes that most of the people income in United States is spent on things that have no impact on their lives and health (Singer 1) [C]. The author, therefore, concludes that such money could have a lasting impact on children in the poor countries. If such money is donated to some of the poor countries, it could help in saving the life of a child (Singer 1). The author calls for donation of such monies to an organization that takes care of the vulnerable in the societies around the world. Peter Unger, a New York University philosopher, questions the moral of living affluent life while at the same time there are people suffering in parts of the world (Singer 1). He notes that such monies can be used to alleviate hunger, malnutrition, and dying from easily treatable ailments such as diarrhea (Singer 1). In these arguments, it is clear that offering financial assistance to organizations that occur around the world can be a way of guaranteeing a child of a bright future. Such child can access good and quality health care out of various donations received from different parts of the world. Other proponent notes that offering money to the poor can lead to some breakthrough due to technological and medical advancements [D]. The author notes that this will only be achieved through proper feeding and education (Rogoff 341). He notes that education in poor countries will lead geniuses that can help in increasing hydrogen powers (Rogoff 341). Moreover, the author notes education will be a boost as educating poor people may help in eliminating some of the diseases. As a result, the developments will help in taking care of the loss experienced by rich people as they spend their finances on poor people (Rogoff 341). However, my opinion is against the idea put forth by proponent of giving money to the poor. This is because for many decades money has been given to the poor people and countries. The money has been given to alleviate poverty in different areas of the world. Nevertheless, the world continues to witness increased number of poor people from countries that have been given money. Hence, such money given has been a waste. Therefore, the problems can addressed by solving underlying issues such as poor education, lack of proper planning, and poor technology. In conclusion, it is clear offering monies to the poor will not help so much. This is because it will lead to short time solution. This is due to increasing population, lack of a plan, lack of population control, and environmental population. The proponents argue that giving money to the poor will help in eliminating diseases and ignorance. However, it clears the problems outweighs the benefits of offering money to the poor. Therefore, more initiatives should be adopted inn ensuring that poverty is reduced around the world. Works Cited Hardin, Garrett. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” Rogoff, Kenneth. “A Development Nightmare.” Singer, Peter. “The Solutions to World Poverty.” The New York Times Magazine, 1999. Print Read More