I would let them die because it is in my nature and I believe most others too look closer to home. If I rate a family member as being the most important to me (reasonable), I would obviously donate far more money to save them than to someone I had never met. This works in a sliding scale. A friend will get more money than a friend of a friend etc. Sadly for the poor dying African child I am too far removed from them emotionally to give as much. now if I went over to Africa and befriended a dying child then it is safe to say I would donate more. it isn't a question of me wanting the money over someones elses life. If i followed Davids logic on this I would have no money to the detrement of my own survival chances and that of my family. Add into it the fact that nature dictates that I would rather protect those gentically close to me than those further removed then it makes perfect sense. The money issue is largely irrelevent and David is just using it as an indicator of how much I care, not how rich I want to be.