“Regarding the post where we should look at matching the birth and death rates in majority countries prior to sending money to them, I am a little confused.”

Till - not just a little, but very confused indeed - I hope your addition of “prior” was not calculatingly deliberate.

Without receiving help in overcoming their excess fertility, there is no prospect of success in elevating the circumstances of those societies.

A number of organizations, that of Bill Ryerson prominent among them, have been working to do just that – against the tide of political intransigence in the the Vatican, the USA until this year, and past-and-continuing in Australia.

leigh, your arrogance and lack of humanity are breath taking.
30,000 CHILDREN die every day from poverty. Concentrate on the word CHILDREN. It's not just a number or a statistic; they are living breathing CHILDREN.
Explain to me how you earned the right to be in Australia. Explain to me, how you earned the right not to be one of those children.Explain to me, why you believe if you were one of those kids you would say: "oh well, I certainly wouldn't want to be a burden on more affluent people; I'll just die quietly, so as to avoid the danger of breeding more poor people".
The essence of Humanity is the ability to place yourself in someone else's shoes. The ability to empathise and sympathise.
You fail miserably.
And you are followed by someone who is worried about losing a tooth.
Most of those charitable institutions ask around $30. a month to save lives.
Do you really want those institutions to allow 100~130 kids to die, and spend that money on your bloody tooth?

Given the space available this isn't a bad article.
BN makes some useful points however the one flaw in their argument is that Singer is talking primarily about people as in individuals *not* about countries/political entities. Just because it's difficult or impossible to achieve the ultimate it doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Colinsett
There is a proven relationship between wealth/education and the need/drive to produce children e.g. when a tribesman was told that statistically only one of his five children will survive to adulthood and beyond he declare he must have more children then. His reasoning was spreading his care in his old age.

Grim
Some people invariably look for simple answers for complex questions using ideology to cover either their lack of life knowledge or self indulgent. Besides which it’s easier...comfortable to do otherwise would require effort and commitment.

Simple reason really,
Whitey is terrified of Blackie, Whitey takes from Blackie, Blackie won't go away! Don't look, turn your back, pretend they are not there and remember it's your's you took it and you're keeping it.
No need to look outside australia to find what Singer is talking about. Govt policy is a white anglo saxon christian Invader policy, and until there are major changes in our racist supremist attitude towards our own

I don't have much time for Singer, because I absolutely detest his subjective morality on issues like the value of an infant's life. Singer makes a mockery of the value of human life, and he effectively puts animals on an even pedestal with humans with his views on this subject. That's something I fundamentally reject.

However, on this subject I love his work. He makes a lot of good points, and I agree that wealthy nations and individuals simply don't do enough in the poverty issue. His comment about "We'd all help save a drowning child...." is particularly cutting. I was thinking the other day- imagine every Australian, European and North American citizen had one sponsor child each. That's wishful thinking obviously, but disregard that for a moment and consider that it's at least possible in the sense that on average, citizens of these countries COULD afford $10 a week that would cost, quite easily. And how many children would then have the chance for a basic education, food, and clean drinking water that they otherwise wouldn't have had? Several hundred million, up to a billion? It boggles the mind.

We could all easily make a difference, yet most don't. And education like this will raise awareness. That seems to be the fundamental point.

And for that, I commend Singer.

Trav,

I agree with the overall notion of richer nations giving support to those with less.

However, in practice, there are a plenty of caveats/problems.

For it to work, the richer nations have to be less dominant (in many dimensions) so as to give the less powerful countries breathing space (economic, etc) to expand into. For all sorts of reasons, the rich countries are not going to do this, and on balance they are right to do so.

When the average person on the street gives his money to charity, as soon as it's out of his sight, he has no control over it. It really boils down to pot luck as to what happens to it. If the NGOs don't take too large a slice of it for administration, or some warlord in the recipient country doesn't get his hands on the aid etc, then remotely giving aid works. But there are a lot of 'ifs' and a lot of palms to grease in many countries. Only a proportion of the aid gets to its intended target.

A truth in this debate is that aid is exactly that and no more. Fundamentally, the ones who can help disadvantaged countries the most are the people of those countries themselves. Once outside forces start imposing their will, for example, they distort the country and just make things worse for the people there. So, there is always an issue of timing and of being in sync with the natural forces in a country. Another constraint.

"We could all easily make a difference, yet most don't."

The problem with easily making a difference is that it's not making much difference at all. Putting it another way, it's only when people put some real effort in that differences start to be made. Let's face it, most of what people in the Western world do to help overseas nations is in the form of moral support. This is only picking the low-hanging fruit.