Charity: Water - Please help donate!
 

I am sure many of you are aware of the water crisis many face around the world. Over 663 million people in the world live without clean water. I have started an on-line campaign on Charity: Water and was hoping that you guys could help by donating. Any amount will help. I am trying to raise $1000 in the next 50 days. I got the ball rolling by giving $75. Here is the link to my campaign:

https://donate.charitywater.org/samu...leasedonatenow

Thanks for looking and please share!

Probably counter-productive. There are already more people in many places than the local environment can sustain. Drilling more wells will only deplete those meager resources faster. Maybe birth control would work better - treat the disease instead of the symptoms.

Thanks for that but wells are not the only way they are offering clean water through Charity Water. There are water purification systems, biosand filters, gravity fed systems, rainwater catchments, piped systems and spring protections. Simply stating they should offer people birth control isn't going to help the current people in need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you help the "current people in need" you are only making things worse for the following generations. This is not a short-term problem that can be fixed by throwing money (or wells or filters) at it. The only real solution is to reduce the demand for resources. The only way to do that is to reduce the population. If not done by Man, Mother Nature will take care of it (and she's one mean bitch).

So what you're suggesting is we stop all aid, let the people in need die out so we can reduce the need for resources. Brilliant idea, thanks for the input :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I am suggesting is that the problem be fixed in a way that will adversely affect the fewest number of people possible. Yes, my solution would mean that some people die but your solution will do nothing but exacerbate the problem - you will save a few now but doom many others in the future.

The situation will work itself out one way or the other. If we humans don't handle the situation now (reduce demand for limited resources) the environment will do it later - and with much direr consequences (famine, pestilence, and lots of other nasty stuff, see Bible for details).

Charity: Water - Please help donate!
 

I'm sure you'd draw the same conclusions if it were the other way around. Providing sources of water where there isn't dooms future generations. Awesome, noted! Thanks man, learning a lot here :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sounds like a scam

Look at the site before you pass judgement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My conclusions don't really matter. The fact is that any area has limited resources and can only support so many people. Some areas have fewer resources than others and can only support a very limited number of people. If you exceed the limit, bad things happen - doesn't matter what you or I think/say/do, all we can do is postpone the inevitable and that just makes things much worse in the long run. Those sources of water are very limited and all your solution is doing is allowing more and more people to exhaust that resource.

There are other solutions other than letting people die out. You don't see a reduction of usage as a solution; you would rather that everyone in first world countries not lose their standard of living. For instance, the average golf course wastes over 312,000 gallons of water a day. Or you have these massive corporations using up the wells in developing countries but let's not stop them or see that as a solution, those people over there dying out will have to do. There are so many ways we can reduce and send aid over there but no let the people die out lol. You're right; it doesn't matter what you and I say, this conversation is pointless. I am going to continue doing what I am doing, and you will continue doing what you're doing. Thanks for the talk :)

It's a philosophical debate, and a personal one at that.

My thinking is more along the lines of help starts at home. How many people need help in Ontario, Canada, the North America? I'd rather not see our own population neglected as opposed to pumping more and more into foreign aid.

Sure, there are lots of people globally that need food, shelter, water; but there are right at home too. Teach them how to fish, then reach out to the others.

I think your heart is in the right place, but maybe look a little closer to home to see what can be done for your neighbours.

You raise an excellent point. It is a personal one, and I knew posting this would raise a debate, but I am not alone in thinking that there is something that we can do. This particular company has helped countries within North America as well, not just foreign countries. I don't think we can merely focus on home. Supporting locally and abroad is ideal. I believe it goes without saying that we're more privileged and have better opportunities in Canada and the U.S. than most. Believe it or not, I do local work as well. I donate, fundraise and help out at Sick Kids Hospital as well here in Toronto.

:iagree:

I looked through their financials in 2015, and didn't see anything going to Flint, MI and this charity is based in NYC. Granted, it's been a long day and I only skimmed their 2015 Audit, but it raised some questions. I'll look at it again this evening, but I don't understand why their funds (meant to be spent helping people) are being invested in the market. Why would you expose your operating / donation capital to market fluctuations, especially in a time as volatile as the last year.

Helping Africa is a bottomless pit. Any good you do will be undone by local governments / warlords in those areas. If you want to do the most good for your buck, give within your community.

Regarding Flint, check out: http://blog.charitywater.org/post/14...flint-michigan

They don't just help in Africa, they help in other continents as well

Exactly, they did not help in MI. They claimed they did not have the expertise or resources, when a semi loaded with cases of bottled water would have been a start, easily accomplished and relatively inexpensive. At times, first world activists seem to get a special boost from helping the impoverished third world at the expense of the ones right under their noses. I'm not necessarily throwing rocks at them (yet). There's just things that don't make sense. Some of the accounting doesn't look right at first glance. I've got to give it another shot when I'm not exhausted.

Another example besides the market investments mentioned above - Their storage space for water and equipment is donated, but they spent almost $750k in rent in 2015. Granted, it is in NYC, but if your target areas are half the world away why set up headquarters in one of the most expensive places in North America?

Charity: Water - Please help donate!
 

Every charity has certain goals and different regions which they work in. Realistically speaking, the majority of the charities that help 3rd world countries are run by first world activist. Without them, nothing would really get achieved and things would be worse than it is now.



The money that is spent on rent, etc. is paid for by donating investors and not donations like the one I posted. All donations go directly to water.

They're pooling donations and investing them in the market. That just feels weird. I'll read the rest of the financials later.

pay no attention to that person, they post many asinine comments.

good luck with your charity.

I appreciate it, thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd be more than happy to see one of those solutions. So far, the solutions you have offered up will only make more people die down the road.

So, you're a mind-reader, too?
A reduction of use here is not going to affect how much water is available over there. A reduction in use over there is the only real, long-term solution.
My standard of living will not be lowered by a futile attempt to "rescue" a few people. However, that of future generations will be when even more people are in the same situation because of misguided "help."

What's your point? Either those golf courses are in areas of the world that have plenty of water or they are moving their areas in the same direction as the places you want to "save."

Stopping such practices sounds to me to be a major step in the right direction. My whole point has been that consumption must be reduced. Not sure why anyone would be against it. Oh, wait. Your remark was poorly done sarcasm, wasn't it? ;)

People dying is part of Nature. If nobody died, we'd all be in the same situation - all resources would be quickly depleted. When any species overpopulates an area, there will be a die off to maintain balance - it may not be pretty but that's just the way it is.

Please enlighten us as to what those ways are. Apparently you don't see birth control as a viable solution. Just what is?

It doesn't matter only if if we don't attack the root cause of the problem. I'm sure you mean well but your solution will only make things worse. If the load on the ecosystem is not reduced, all other "fixes" are just bandaids; and poor ones at that. The best way to help them is to show them how to help themselves.