[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To expand further.

Sending money to starving people in foriegn countries is merely treating a symptom and not the disease. The reason the people are starving and don't have good medical care has more to do with the system of the government under which they live.

Saving one person is a useless gesture, as the system that created the starving person, will undoubtedly create more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic is terrible. Just because others will inevitably die doesn't mean that you don't save the ones you can. It's not like this is an all-or-none situation. If you save one person out of a thousand, yes 999 of them will die. But you did save one. How is that a wasted effort? It's not like the rest of the population has to be alive for the one saved person to remain alive.
I agree with you about donation "treating the symptom and not the disease." However, that doesn't mean that you don't save lives where you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you have done nothing to confront the problem that made that child poor, malnourished, and sick in the first place.

Also in most cases you really have not guaranteed that the person that you "saved", will not end up in a simaliar predicament, a few months down the road.

All you have done is make yourself feel good.

The reason these people are hungry and have bad medical care, has little to do with the availabilty of food and medicine.