Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Modern charities continually fail to meet the needs of the poorest sections of the international community. Instead of modernising their approach, they engage in a game of gesture charity, where if they manage to alleviate a little bit of poverty for the few they can rest happy knowing they tried, never mind the negligible lasting impact of their efforts. Given advances in assisted reproduction (IVF & IUI), and a consensus among scientists (actual, not social) that genes are overwhelmingly responsible for character traits (e.g. intelligence at 80-95%), and a consensus among people that analyse trends that particular character traits are reliable determinants for wellbeing, could a charitable service that offers women from the poorest communities donor sperm and unconditional financial assistance while the child is dependent be more effective in alleviating poverty that the conventional, "well we tried" methods?

    The only obvious drawback I can see is whether enough money could be gathered to support the scheme on a scale large enough to have a positive impact, but I think people would be more open to voluntary foreign aid when its constructive impact is substantiated.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ParasiteRex)
    Given advances in assisted reproduction (IVF & IUI), and a consensus among scientists (actual, not social) that genes are overwhelmingly responsible for character traits (e.g. intelligence at 80-95%)
    Do you have any sources on this? Because I find it pretty hard to believe.

    (Original post by ParasiteRex)
    could a charitable service that offers women from the poorest communities donor sperm and unconditional financial assistance while the child is dependent be more effective in alleviating poverty that the conventional, "well we tried" methods?
    I think this in itself is very irresponsible, if you can't afford to have kids you shouldn't. The government should not be spending tax payers money in getting women pregnant and then funding their children when there are many more underprivileged people the money would be better spent on. The money could be spent on charities set up by the government with regulations and monitoring their progress.


    (Original post by ParasiteRex)
    Modern charities continually fail to meet the needs of the poorest sections of the international community. Instead of modernising their approach, they engage in a game of gesture charity, where if they manage to alleviate a little bit of poverty for the few they can rest happy knowing they tried, never mind the negligible lasting impact of their efforts.
    I agree with you totally here, charitable actions, unfortunately, are too often for selfish reasons (basically trying to look good to other people). This leads to half-arsed attempts while giving the impression that the problem is under control. I think the government should be able to directly regulate charities to ensure they are actually doing the most they can
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.