Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

so my wife just had a team in the relay for life team, a charity event where teams need to walk for 12 hrs from 7pm to 7am. each team raises money and submits an entry fee to get in and all proceeds (is there such a thing as 'ALL proceeds'??) go to cancer research.

now, i'm uncertain of the actual amount of money raised for cancer research last year but it must be in the 100s of millions of dollars and has likely been that for years and years. my question is this: is money the answer to wiping out not only cancer, but many other diseases as well? for something like malaria in zambia, i can understand -- money can purchase preventative tools. but for cancer, it just seems that there has been SO MUCH MONEY poured into it yet it still kills millions every year.

i've wondered the same thing regarding starvation in africa. so much money raised, but so few results. is the money not being used appropriately? can it really be that the BILLIONS of dollars sent to african nations simply isn't enough?

is money the answer to these types of globally threatening problems?

Yes

Yes.

I agree. Money is not getting to the places it needs to go a lot of times. I think there is a website or two out there that grades the infrastructure of charity organizations and tells you how "helpful" they are.

I would have to say that if someone gave me a billion dollars, I would have 2 billion after at least a decade. I think that instead of giving away all of this money, they should create jobs for people to actually earn money. Of course, there is nothing but corruption to be had no matter the approach and it will always be hard to get the monies where they are needed. (Case in point, Kim Jong il's nice investments into Swedish prostitutes. You'd think he would spend it on the starving people...but nooooo, he wants to spend it on his penis and bombs.)

Eventually money is the answer to just about everything.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Eventually money is the answer to just about everything.


Paul, John, George and Ringo said, money can't buy you love.

Originally posted by leonidas
so my wife just had a team in the relay for life team, a charity event where teams need to walk for 12 hrs from 7pm to 7am. each team raises money and submits an entry fee to get in and all proceeds (is there such a thing as 'ALL proceeds'??) go to cancer research.

now, i'm uncertain of the actual amount of money raised for cancer research last year but it must be in the 100s of millions of dollars and has likely been that for years and years. my question is this: is money the answer to wiping out not only cancer, but many other diseases as well? for something like malaria in zambia, i can understand -- money can purchase preventative tools. but for cancer, it just seems that there has been SO MUCH MONEY poured into it yet it still kills millions every year.

i've wondered the same thing regarding starvation in africa. so much money raised, but so few results. is the money not being used appropriately? can it really be that the BILLIONS of dollars sent to african nations simply isn't enough?

is money the answer to these types of globally threatening problems?

In short yes,

more money would solve the problem, better spending of money would certainly help in places like Africa as well. Don't know about cancer research, but I can imagine money could be spend more effectively there as well.

Still more money can never hurt.

Money can always help to make things a little easier.

I hate money. Corruption and crap, thats all. Much better systems could have been made, but once we got hooked on monetary system, we couldnt get away from it. Been thousands of years.


What...? Did you hear something? Not at all.

Originally posted by Grinning Goku
Money can always help to make things a little easier.


So... if you're plummeting to your death from a 15k foot free-fall, a few thousand extra dollars in your pocket will "make things a little easier"?

Originally posted by Robtard
So... if you're plummeting to your death from a 15k foot free-fall, a few thousand extra dollars in your pocket will "make things a little easier"?

No but a few million dollar bills to help soften your fall certainly will.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
I hate money. Corruption and crap, thats all. Much better systems could have been made, but once we got hooked on monetary system, we couldnt get away from it. Been thousands of years.


What...? Did you hear something? Not at all.

Without things like money the world just wouldn't work, we wouldn't be able to build or whatever. Trading goods directly for other goods would have stopped progress completely, a communistic system where everybody works and nobody gains or loses anything won't work either because well communism just doesn't work.

For all it's downsides money certainly helps the world.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
I hate money. Corruption and crap, thats all. Much better systems could have been made, but once we got hooked on monetary system, we couldnt get away from it. Been thousands of years.


What...? Did you hear something? Not at all.

Like what? The barter system? Who wants to haul around a flock of sheep to trade for a 42" plasma televison? Not I.

I thought I heard the faint whisper of a fart.

Originally posted by Fishy
No but a few million dollar bills to help soften your fall certainly will.

...inertia will still splatter you all over those millions.

Originally posted by Robtard
So... if you're plummeting to your death from a 15k foot free-fall, a few thousand extra dollars in your pocket will "make things a little easier"?

Stop being a dick.

Originally posted by Grinning Goku
Stop being a dick.

I have yet to begin my dickery.

P.S. Your "camel toe" avatar is sweet.

Originally posted by leonidas
so my wife just had a team in the relay for life team, a charity event where teams need to walk for 12 hrs from 7pm to 7am. each team raises money and submits an entry fee to get in and all proceeds (is there such a thing as 'ALL proceeds'??) go to cancer research.

now, i'm uncertain of the actual amount of money raised for cancer research last year but it must be in the 100s of millions of dollars and has likely been that for years and years. my question is this: is money the answer to wiping out not only cancer, but many other diseases as well? for something like malaria in zambia, i can understand -- money can purchase preventative tools. but for cancer, it just seems that there has been SO MUCH MONEY poured into it yet it still kills millions every year.

i've wondered the same thing regarding starvation in africa. so much money raised, but so few results. is the money not being used appropriately? can it really be that the BILLIONS of dollars sent to african nations simply isn't enough?

is money the answer to these types of globally threatening problems?

The more money there is, the more that's left over for cancer research, after everyone else is paid.

Originally posted by Robtard
Paul, John, George and Ringo said, money can't buy you love.

Money can buy you all the things that make people love you.

or you can just pay them to "make love with you" its a win win thing when it comes to money

so, what's the problem then? according to nearly everyone that posted so far, all we need to do is keep pumping money into these things and everything will be fine. so we what, just keep giving and eventually it is garanteed that these problems will go away?

billions and billions have ALREADY been given to such cause with . . . less than ideal results. i'm not offering any alternatives, but it just seems there must be a BETTER way to deal with these things. i know money is important, but, so far at least, it seems to NOT be the answer.

Originally posted by leonidas
so, what's the problem then? according to nearly everyone that posted so far, all we need to do is keep pumping money into these things and everything will be fine. so we what, just keep giving and eventually it is garanteed that these problems will go away?

billions and billions have ALREADY been given to such cause with . . . less than ideal results. i'm not offering any alternatives, but it just seems there must be a BETTER way to deal with these things. i know money is important, but, so far at least, it seems to NOT be the answer.

Well there certainly is a better way with Africa.

Problem is we like how Africa is doing, if we really wanted to help we (especially the EU) would open their borders and stop giving tax cuts and discounts to European farmers. This would heavily increase the amount of money in Africa and thus the entire continent.

Problem is, it would cost us money. Directly not just something we could spare but perhaps a lot more and jobs and what not and nobody is willing to sacrifice that. Not to mention that the money that is send goes to governments primarily, making us depend on them to the job when clearly they do not. They spend money on everything but never enough on one thing. The only thing that we could do to help the situation is to open the borders of the EU for trade and spend money in programs we decide and we run with locals.

Without political meaning to it, because politics in the end is what keeps them poor and us rich. A huge downside however would be that we would weaken ourselves to strengthen them. Not really a smart thing to do.

On matters of cancer I have no clue. I don't know anything about the research.

Originally posted by leonidas
so, what's the problem then? according to nearly everyone that posted so far, all we need to do is keep pumping money into these things and everything will be fine. so we what, just keep giving and eventually it is garanteed that these problems will go away?

billions and billions have ALREADY been given to such cause with . . . less than ideal results. i'm not offering any alternatives, but it just seems there must be a BETTER way to deal with these things. i know money is important, but, so far at least, it seems to NOT be the answer.

I don't think you read my post then.

More money is not the answer because of corruption.

At the beginning of my post when I wrote, "I agree", I was agreeing with the answer to the rhetorical question, "is more money the answer?" I was making my post before the other two posted theirs...I am at work and something came up so I had to pause for my....job.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think you read my post then.

More money is not the answer because of corruption.

Less money certainly wouldn't help, besides there is a limit to what the corrupt could take. So eventually more money will actually go to the right places.

Originally posted by leonidas
so, what's the problem then? according to nearly everyone that posted so far, all we need to do is keep pumping money into these things and everything will be fine. so we what, just keep giving and eventually it is garanteed that these problems will go away?

billions and billions have ALREADY been given to such cause with . . . less than ideal results. i'm not offering any alternatives, but it just seems there must be a BETTER way to deal with these things. i know money is important, but, so far at least, it seems to NOT be the answer.

What you have to do is pump money into the right things. Throwing money at a problem does nothing, giving the money to people who know what to do with it does.

Originally posted by Fishy
Less money certainly wouldn't help, besides there is a limit to what the corrupt could take. So eventually more money will actually go to the right places.

That is not a true generalization. More money=more corruption. Instead of increasing money, task forces need to be assigned to track the funds "cradle to grave". After the task force presents their assessments, then re-appropriation should occur.

Unfortunately, in some instances, military action would need to be implemented to remove corrupt parties. Military action may then causes more problems and therefore more funding. That in turn causes more corruption. Sometimes, there is not "immediate" solution in this type of situation.

In just about every situation, the people have to win it for themselves.

They have to be able to adapt to a modern world. Humans have done it for thousands of generations. That does not mean funding and aid has to stop, it just means in addition to all of that, things need to be done to get the people supporting themselves. There are programs being implemented that do that already but I do not think enough are being implemented. Everyone wants a hand out but not everyone wants to work for it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What you have to do is pump money into the right things. Throwing money at a problem does nothing, giving the money to people who know what to do with it does.

Ummm, yes this is closer to what I was trying to get at.

Originally posted by Fishy
Less money certainly wouldn't help, besides there is a limit to what the corrupt could take. So eventually more money will actually go to the right places.


"limit to what the corrupt could take" thought I'm sure it's finite, I wouldn't bet on the notion. Greed, can have no limits.

Throwing money at problems isn't always the best answer, take certain American issues/problems as an example, that logic has been used and failed many times.

In cases of scientific research in any field, money is always needed.
Yes, people are killed a lot due to cancer, does that mean that the research isn't doing anything? Of course not, don't be a fvcking cretin. You should be much more worried about money that's poured into weapons purchases, war funds etc.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Eventually money is the answer to just about everything.

ditto

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
In cases of scientific research in any field, money is always needed.
Yes, people are killed a lot due to cancer, does that mean that the research isn't doing anything? Of course not, don't be a fvcking cretin. You should be much more worried about money that's poured into weapons purchases, war funds etc.



way to stay on topic. read the posts. i never said the money wasn't doing any good -- i said despite the vast amounts that are poured into these things annually, it hasn't been successful in combating these issues. i merely asked if anyone had an opinion why and what other steps could be taken to reach the respective goals. and off-hand, i don't recall raising money for war funds or weapons, but thanks. and i'll watch out for that . . . cretin thing.

Less restrictions on research and research funding. More encouragement of science as a profession.

money solves everything.

Pray to god. He shall save you.

As long as your money is going where you think it's going and not to overheads and staff, advertising, personal, and other things. Better to do research on a company or foundations to check this info out before giving. Much money is spent or should I say wasted and not getting to where it should be going.

Originally posted by Fishy
You can buy whores for money though...

Not always. Can money ressurect our loved ones? Can money change the terrible past? .........Can money get George Bush to understand more coherently?

If the question is, "What should we all be sending Mindship?"...

...then, yes.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
money solves everything.

Let me guess, you have no money.

Money is just like alot of things. Its not the money itself that makes things better but how you use it.

I dont think moeny means everything but obvoulsy if you are dirt broke that doesnt help. I just dont think you need to be filthy rich to be happy.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Not always. Can money ressurect our loved ones? Can money change the terrible past? .........Can money get George Bush to understand more coherently?


i agree..money is just a thing that can easily be gone..you can never compare it with love, memories,happiness and family....

If Only

I hope we can get him to understand without money. that make america a more proper place



true...but money can buy a chair in which you can get memories from

Originally posted by Fawne
true...but money can buy a chair in which you can get memories from

Chair?...Why a chair? Why not a door knob?

The problem with charity things is a small percent gets to those who need it. Look at the band aid thing for those strarving in africa, the governments bought weapons and whisky with the money and started invading each other.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Chair?...Why a chair? Why not a door knob?



because I Said it was to be a chair ..besides..what memories could emulate from a door knob?

Originally posted by ~LunaLoveG~
because I Said it was to be a chair ..besides..what memories could emulate from a door knob?

My point was to understand your point. You conveyed your point in the above reply so now my point is obsolete. tee hee

Originally posted by dadudemon
My point was to understand your point. You conveyed your point in the above reply so now my point is obsolete. tee hee

*signal the life lesson of the day music*

Originally posted by leonidas
so my wife just had a team in the relay for life team, a charity event where teams need to walk for 12 hrs from 7pm to 7am. each team raises money and submits an entry fee to get in and all proceeds (is there such a thing as 'ALL proceeds'??) go to cancer research.

now, i'm uncertain of the actual amount of money raised for cancer research last year but it must be in the 100s of millions of dollars and has likely been that for years and years. my question is this: is money the answer to wiping out not only cancer, but many other diseases as well? for something like malaria in zambia, i can understand -- money can purchase preventative tools. but for cancer, it just seems that there has been SO MUCH MONEY poured into it yet it still kills millions every year.

i've wondered the same thing regarding starvation in africa. so much money raised, but so few results. is the money not being used appropriately? can it really be that the BILLIONS of dollars sent to african nations simply isn't enough?

is money the answer to these types of globally threatening problems? Yes, as long as there is enough to get the job done.

Too much money can cause problems.

money can be consider as one of the solutions in global threatening but it will always be depends on individual... we should have discipline and cooperation to solve this kind of problems...

What are you talking about? You can buy memory with money.

http://www.newegg.com/Store/Category.aspx?Category=17&name=Memory

Yes! It is the answer

Originally posted by leonidas
i've wondered the same thing regarding starvation in africa. so much money raised, but so few results. is the money not being used appropriately? can it really be that the BILLIONS of dollars sent to african nations simply isn't enough?

is money the answer to these types of globally threatening problems?

Well, in my opinion, money is not the one and only answer to those globally threatening problems we're facing. Yes, money still plays part, but it's not everything we need to solve the problems. We do need money to help those starve in Africa, to do cancer research etc. But beyond that each of us need to own the so-called self awareness and heart for one another. Cancer and the other diseases could at least be eliminated if we start to realize the danger of what we consume early on for I assumed much of the diseases are caused by our way of life. Don't drink alcohol too much, don't take drug, don't eat unhealthy food, stay healthy by doing some exercise. It's unfortunate that the high tech has made most people in the universe get lazy, they really depend their life on the technology and then become unwilling to move. Take a look at your surrounding, everything is instant, junk food are here and there, and so does with fat. People live an unnatural life, that what makes people sick. It's sad to see those rich spending their money for things that would make them sick. It's time for us to start appreciating our life by living a healthy life and share what we have with others in need by spending our money appropriately for something appropriate too of course.

Well pretty much everything you eat in this day and age creates cancer, that's the downside with mass production. Which is something we really need if we want to keep feeding ourselves.



The alternative however is far worse, people might get really fat now. But the world before TV and before the Computer were far worse in practically everything so in total numbers computers still save more people then other things like TV's and computer games kill.



Agreed, but that's a personal choice and I'm not going to force people to do stuff. On the other hand you could always invest billions into technology that makes you thin and healthy no matter what you eat and that actually makes fast food healthy, without enough money it could probably be done.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
money solves everything.

hardly

Originally posted by C. C. Cowgirl
Yes! It is the answer

and how