Donating 900$ or even 1Bill for a TBC-fund is creating an object (welcome progs) that won't change the environment the poor live in, the struggle they have to fight to survive, the education they need to empower themselves etc... - so
tbc would not be an issue, the way, it is no issue in the rich countries.
How is eradicating tuberculosis not
changing the environment? How does defeating TB
change the struggle to survive, if you're one of the 36 million people worldwide who die of it each year?
Building a company that fuels the kind of economy that actually creates poverty and then donating the money that comes out of (metaphorically)
stealing it from the poor countries (by not allowing them to play with 'big business') makes no real-life attempt to
change the system. Sure, a billionaire can move more things and people than, let's say, Albert Schweizer, Mother Teresa or a medic who spents his vacation working 60 hours in a refugee camp. They also don't change the system
per se, but they show other ordinary people what every ordinary man can do,
if only they would like to. So, yes, it is the rather obscure, metaphysical way of
"sharing the disease" rather than being the illness.
It's obscure to the point I don't understand it at all. Fueling the economy creates poverty? Lots of IT companies are setting up shop in India, and this constitutes stealing from "poor countries?" Bill Gates going to Africa and digging a well with his bare
hands is somehow better than Bill Gates sending millions of dollars of well-digging and irrigation equipment to Africa?
Is the goal supposed to be equality
-- that everyone should be equally
sick -- rather than helping the poor to create wealth and helping the sick to become well?
How many billions have been spent for the 3rd world countries? What has happend in the last 50 years? Why is there no real progress? True, there is corruption, dictatorship, etc... but the economic troubles have their roots in the policies of powerful and rich
countries and corporations as much as in local failures.
Define "real progress." There are millions of people who are walking around today, who WON'T DIE because someone decided to spend billions on vaccines, for example. One example:
. They estimate they've averted
1.7 million future deaths
from vaccine-preventable diseases. If you're one of those 1.7 MILLION people who won't
, or even just one of the millions more who won't get sick
, I think you might call that progress. And that's just one organization.
Now, you can beat me because I stay vague and don't attempt to add a list of links about business and economic theory. But let's say, I was trying to suggest, that throwing money around is not a real ethical value, while doing something - as I said - with
your own hands is
. I am no christian, but I like this very deeply old-fashion christian thinking.
Here's some old-fashioned Christian thinking:
While [Jesus] was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.
"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.
The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. I tell you the truth, wherever the
gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
-- Mark 14:3-9
What I would say: Why are you bothering Bill Gates? He has done a beautiful thing. We're always going to have poor people, and you can go be Mother Teresa or work in a refugee camp any time you feel like it. But we will not always have Bill Gates.