Should rich and prosperous countries aid the poor ones?

We are one of the top members of humanitarian aid lists although we are not a rich country.

Should rich and prosperous countries aid the poor ones?
  • Yes, people who are in needs must be helped.
    Vote A
  • Not at all, everyone is responsible of his own country.
    Vote B
  • Only the ones who are in critical condition (like Yemen)
    Vote C
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|1
1664

Most Helpful Guys

  • I would not help them in a financial way, but I would help them with knowledge for their survival (basic education, how to grow crops properly, how to manage a city...). The implementation of policies deriving form this knowledge would be their responsibility.

    2|1
    0|0
  • My answer isn't in the poll but i voted Not at all since it comes closest.
    Any nation's primary goal is to provide for there citizens, if they then have something to spare they can give it to aid in the third world. However i do not think this should be done by the government but by the individuals of a nation who wish to give to charity and of them there are quite a lot.

    A governament's sole purpose is to achieve things in a central way that would otherwise be difficult to do for the citizens themselves. Things like road planning and building, law enforcement and defense. And that is where it should end in my opinion.

    1|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Girls

  • Not in the way it is done. By giving them food, clothes, etc you only fix the problem temporarly. They must learn how to sustain themselves. So we should help them learn that, not to give them free stuff. Investing in those countries and giving them jobs and education is a start.

    2|1
    0|0
  • While it seems altruistic to send assistance— financial, manpower, etc.— to developing nations, countries ought to be independent, in the grand scheme of things. Developed countries should not be held responsible for sustaining and catering to the necessities of non-citizens in the long run.

    Mismanagement of resources is one plausible reason why there is a plethora of developing countries that receive 'aid' (particularly financial in nature) on a perpetual basis, yet seem to barely manifest incremental growth.

    Corruption is a form of mismanagement; sending 'aid' should be kept to a minimum, particularly if the bureaucracy governing a certain sovereign state is susceptible to corruption.

    1|0
    0|0

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Guys Said 62

  • I think rich countries should be strongly encouraged to help the poor one. Not because of them owning other countries things, but because it's a kind thing to do and can improve many people's lives. Rich countries can do other things too other than giving money. Sometimes there aren't any guarantee the money goes to the right place and some corrupted dictators may steal it, therefor independent organizations may be a good thing too and rich countries attempting to help in other ways too.

    Rich countries can for instance provide sexual education, contraception and other kinds of education so more people can get a good job and fewer poor people gets too many children that they can't take care of. Many third worlds have a population problem where the poorest gets too many children.

    2|0
    0|0
  • should we? yes
    must we? no

    1|0
    0|0
  • I think it's a nice idea, and one that should definitely be considered, however you have to think about it practically. Just because you have a lot of money doesn't mean you can spare it on other countries. It's important to ensure yourn own country and your own economy is stable before trying to aid others, because if your countries economy collapses, then how are you going to help anyone? Being in charge of a country is a lot harder than I think people realise, and there's a lot of aspects of it that people don't consider and probably don't realise are part of ruling a country. It's not as simple as "we have lots of money lets go and give all the poor countries fresh water and food". The money needs to come from somewhere, and it's a pretty expensive project. However, it is one worth investing in so I think that yes, countries that are able should defiantely try and help if they are able, but I think it's more important to ensure the stabability of your own country first and foremost. After all, it's no use throwing a dingy with a puncture to a drowning man.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Most rich countries have been giving aid to poor countries for generations, but it shouldn't be an obligation. The poor countries are poor largely because they don't practice population control. They keep having one child after another until their resources and living space is used up, then they have to either fight wars amongst each other, or they have massive caravan migrations to rich countries.

    1|5
    1|0
  • Sounds harsh but no countries shouldn’t. That doesn’t mean that organizations like the Peace Corp, Red Cross or other private (through donations) couldn’t help. Keep in mind the US is probably the richest country in the world so the argument could be made that we should help EVERY other country. Globalism doesn’t work. We can’t go down that road.

    1|2
    0|0
  • No. Now that is not to say they shouldn't want to, but they are under no obligation to do so (just as your not obligated to give me money just because you have more then I do, hypothetically speaking). However as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Take the charities that do the buy one give one. They sound great, you buy a pair of shoes and they then give a pair to a child in Africa, great right? Well, that's one less pair of shoes bought in that city, that means one less person being paid, one less pair of shoes being made and the resources that are needed to make them reduced which itself pulls money away from the ones who make the raw materials and the ones who run the factories that make the shoes and the ones who sell the shoes. But it also means less money going to the people who maintain the machines at the factory, it could mean the eventual closing of the store which means the person who owns the property now loses money etc. It creates a chain reaction. So while charity is good and desirable, we cannot be charitable to the point of destroying the very people we wish to help. That's why Nelson Mandala said, "give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a life time.", those tiny little charities are all well in good but they don't solve the real issue, in fact they can exacerbate the issues even further. So if your going to be charitable, you must first figure out what is going to have the most good, its great that you give say medical aid but what happens after the medicine is used up? The raw sewage and polluted waters are still their, the problem hasn't been resolved so it ultimately is like putting a band aid on a bullet hole, it makes you feel like you did something when you really didn't. If we want to fix the problem we would actually be better off going to the governments and apply pressure on them to fix their corrupt systems while helping rebuild infrastructure (but using their labor, helping train them to do it so you also increase their chances of earning money etc.) and things like that.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I voted yes, because I do think the people who are in need should be helped. However, I don't think that governments should mandate charity. Nor do I think world organizations like the UN or the EU should mandate charity. The most effective charity is always charity that comes from individuals. And when they see the product of their charity being effective and helpful, they are inspired to give more. But governments are terrible at it, and often create more problems then they started with

    2|1
    0|0
  • Yes, and it should be done in such a way to foster a successful economy in said countries so they can develop and lead to mutually beneficial partnerships and alliances with the countries who helped them.
    Sadly not many of the first world countries are capable of doing this the good way.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I don't think there should be any obligation to do so, but I think that aid and investment in the right places is a good thing.

    I don't think enough people understand the root causes of poverty in most of those countries being poor communications and infrastructure, plus the fact that many of them are dependent on primary produce exports, the real cost of which has been falling since World War 2.

    1|0
    0|0
  • for every dollar invested in africa three dollars are taken back. we in the west have raped these nations for hundreds of years and now crops are failing due to the global climate change we caused so its not too unhumanitarian to suggest we help sort out the mess we cause is it?

    2|0
    0|0
    • 4d

      Due to British imperialism, that’s half the reason these countries are i such a state.

    • Show All
    • 4d

      @Pink934 i dont think as individuals we need to beat ourselves up over it but we should certainly not object to some of our taxes going overseas to help out our fellow man in need

    • 4d

      True. At least that way it goes to a greater good rather than funding lazy people to sit on their fat butts all day.

  • I'm not going to say "no," but I think we should help the poor within our own country first before extending the helping hand to other countries.
    And yes it should be at the cost of the greedy rich who have way more money than they need.

    1|1
    0|0
  • We're helping them for years. When I was a kid, there was already food collects at school for poor countries. And even with that, they never got out of the shit.
    Truth is, if we keep giving them everything, they'll never try to get it by themselves, but just wait for us to give them stuff.

    1|2
    0|0
  • No. The "given aid" does not help them. It only expands the root problem.

    1|3
    0|0
  • Depending, if resources can be freed to help, and everyone wants too, I think its good idea, but I think geography should have a lot to dk with it too, like for instance Australia provides aid to Asian countries, I guess international companies do work around the world too, but because we are in Asia, we should focus most of our attention here.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Of course wealthy countries should help in times of need, like during natural disasters.

    But I think its the wrong way, to support them over decades. It keeps them in a state of dependency, with no chance to better their lifes on their own.

    1|1
    0|0
  • The def should, BUT, You dont know about any rich people, that how they got rich, Not saying that all of the rich people are corrupt and became rich by doing bad things and stealing from others, but there are a lot of rich people like that, if someone became rich by doing hard work day and night, then you dont have any right to tell him/her to aid anyone

    1|0
    0|0
  • I voted yes, but I'd like to clarify.
    I don't think airlifting sacks of "grain" to starving kids is actually helping them. We are light years beyond eating "grain"... These kids need nutrition, yes, but more importantly, they need stability.

    We should build aquaponic systems, deploy atmospheric water generation, solar towers, etc. Give them light, water and renewable healthy food sources. In most conditions, if you remove the starvation/thirst problems from a society, stability will return.

    Also, if you're going with solar towers (work well in places like central Africa), then you can use electric vehicles, mitigating the need for expensive fuel. Viola. Stability.

    2|0
    0|0
  • What needs to happen is the people in charge need to do something. We aid African countries yet they still have dictators as leaders. You need to install governments who will help the poor. Not maniacs like racist Donald Trump.

    1|0
    0|1
  • yes if there is no political interference because of war or indifference. training should be given also, so this won't happen again. but the U. N. doesn t have the balls to stand up to these to bit dictators without U. S. backing.

    2|0
    0|0
  • Nations should not. If individuals wish to aid those in poor nations, they should donate their own money by private means.

    2|0
    0|0
  • Of course they should... no one should be left to starve
    However how can you be a millionaire if someone out there isn’t starving to death right? Money is not unlimited, there is a finite amount and that gets passed around... the rich board it, so it never goes back to the poor

    That’s how the rich stay rich... they are literally rich because someone else is poor and dying for no food, literally

    0|0
    0|0
  • Coming in from a semi-poor country - We only deserve help if there are calamities (ie: Storm, Tsunami, major Volcanic eruptions) since we don't have the sophisticated equipment to deal with those or to fight terrorism (we have ISIS wannabes down south and some communist rebels up north so yeah)

    If I could speak on behalf on this county, PLEASE DO NOT SEND MONETARY AID. It goes to corrupt politicians.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Maybe once in a while, but if we constantly bail out countries who cannot provide for themselves we're only prolonging their suffering rather than letting natural selection run its course by allowing them to die out.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No. Maybe help with some form of education but that’s it. What happens when you always help someone? They become used to it to the point that they can’t help them self and always expecting people to help them. its always better to give them tools so they can prosper.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I think we should. It is not in my power to do so but we should strive to have all parts of the world never go hungry

    1|0
    0|0
  • What do you mean? We're activity at fault for them being miserable xD we wouldn't have such a good live if we would not make them suffer in the first place.

    1|0
    0|0
  • A lot of the problems of failed nations are due to the people in those nations. Corruption, crime and tribalism can't be easily overcome by outside forces. Stupid traditions like high birthrates just make problems worse.

    0|1
    0|0
  • People from those rich countries should help if they wan't to, but not the actual government as they tend to take advantage of those countries for the personal gain of the wealthy.

    1|0
    0|0
  • While I do think that everyone is responsible for their own countries and no one should be compelled to pay for helping those who are in need, I still have absolutely NO issue with those who want to voluntarily provide the help. So, give all the aid you want to give but don't force-tell me who to aid and what not..

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes, but first and foremost, they should end their imperialist wars of aggression and the neo-colonial plunder of their ressources that's actually causing the widespread poverty in these countries.

    Rich countries get rich off of the wealth of the poor countries. Simply end that cycle.

    0|0
    0|1
  • Show more from Guys
    32

What Girls Said 14

  • Yes. It's the right thing to do. Think about it for yourself. If your people were starved to death and didn't have proper medical resources would you rather let it be or appreciate someone stepping in to help improve the health in your country

    2|0
    0|0
  • We should show them how to help themselves, they shouldn't depend on us. they should learn how to survive properly with what they have so that they can built a fonctionel community by thenselve.

    how do we do that?

    School!

    1|0
    0|0
  • People who are rich and have lots of money are not obligated to spend it with the poor. They can spend it how they like and on what they want. Would it be generous to help out and use their connections to help those in need yes it would. But the fact of it is they shouldn't be forced to, because then it would be not out of their heart.

    The governments however holds a lot back and if it actually worked in the favor of the people we wouldn't have some of the issues we have and would be able to aid and create alliances with other countries. This is mainly the US, I can't speak for other countries.

    Bottom line people with money tend to be greedy with it.

    1|0
    0|0
  • As much as I love helping people I think they should help but they definitely aren’t obligated to. It’s not our fault some other country likes to see its people starving.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I don't think they should be forced to help, but it's definitely encouraged.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Should they? Yes, it's the right thing to do. Will they? No.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Yes that why you get people from world trying escape what happens in there countries.

    0|0
    0|0
  • i would like too see my beautiful people of Zimbabwe get all the help offered #switchbackonzim <3

    0|0
    0|0
  • Um yes always, why is this a question? Should be a statement

    0|0
    0|1
  • They aren’t obligated to

    0|1
    0|0
  • Arabs are rich a lot lol

    0|0
    0|0
  • Of course!
    Humans should help each other.

    0|0
    0|2
  • yeah, i think so

    0|0
    0|0
  • No, absolutely not

    0|0
    0|0

Recommended myTakes

Loading...