NUMB=scary

Ok. First I will respond to Mr. Perkins's post on Aristotle's view of resource redistribution. Hypothetical, dreamy, perfect, Utopian situation: We lived in a world in which every adult is responsible enough (when going through tough times financially) to use the help of others constructively to get back on their feet. When your neighbor just lost his job, you loan him some money, he immediately begins searching for a new job, he eventually succeeds, and even if he lands a minimum-wage-paying fastfood job, 7$ an hour is better than nothing. He eventually does not need your help anymore, and then little by little, pays you back for your good neighborliness. OH, WHAT A WORLD! But, Aristotle, I'm sorry. There are just too many people with their hands open and waiting for Uncle Sam to "give a little," and the problem is, most of them forget step 2! THEY DO NOT LOOK FOR JOBS. THEY KEEP ON HAVING KIDS. THEY DO NOT CARE THAT RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS ARE PAYING FOR THEIR WRECKLESSNESS. (I understand that there are exceptions, but I'm simply talking about the majority) Until the day government stops being so lax, lenient, and self-destructive (in a well thought out, gradual program which REDUCES welfare, but does not end it in one swift step, of course!) I really do not think that our society can ascend to the level of morality, logic, and courtesy which Aristotle assumes in his proposition.

The second thing I want to say is that I am utterly embarrassed (rightfully or wrongfully so, I'm not sure) that, when reading the hunger articles, i was honestly, completely and absolutely, NUMB to every single word. I felt while reading them, that every number and statistic did nothing but make the paragraph pass more quickly, and I comprehended not a SINGLE stat. It's not as if I read an article on hunger every single day, so I cannot plead over-exposure as the cause of my insensitivity. I almost think that it is the effect of detachedness. I personally have never faced hunger, I personally eat well more than my fair share every meal, and nobody I personally know faces a situation unlike mine. Nonetheless, it is a problem. And, as we have seen from the articles and further posts on here, there are many ways to fight the problem. #1) Doing something is better than nothing. #2) after researching further on the economic efficiency of the different ways of helping, one should act accordingly, helping the hunger problem by using the method found to be most efficient economically/ most convenient. (whichever trait causes more participation) I do tend to agree that a lack of food is not the problem, but the distribution is. Whether sponsoring livestock to be grown or sending money to Haiti, help is needed. And as for having to pick which child lives, there is NO WAY on this earth that I would EVER be able to do it, but once again, i don't need to.

Like Victor said, resources are finite. But that does not mean we can just ignore the problem, saying that "hey, in a few centuries there won't be food anyway, so why bother now?" People do not live for centuries. Their lives are finite, too, and in this case, more finite than the resources fueling them. Therefore helping is both logical and moral, as long as we are perpetually trying to fix the CAUSE of the problem, and not just fix the immediate and current situation. adlskfj I mean I guess the point of ALLLLL of this is that we aren't actually there starving, picking out whether little joe or johnny lives, and so all we can really do is go off of what we got (potentially chillling, yet frighteningly uneffective--for me at least--articles), make a judgment (am i going to help or not?) and then act.