> This seems to rest on the premise that doing something is always better than doing nothing Not always, just often. Typically, smart people trying hard to he

> This seems to rest on the premise that doing something is always better than doing nothing Not always, just often. Typically, smart people trying hard to help end up helping. This is my point: you're saying "stop trying to help if you're not capable of totally solving the problem." Giving one piece of a super complicated puzzle is a legit contribution. Imagine I build "Uber for Food Banks." Instead of a physical food bank, you punch in that app "I need help this month" and someone delivers food to you for free. Imagine it takes off and triples the amount of food aid in the US. This technosolution completely, 100% ignores the "complex, social political, economic, cultural etc." components of food insecurity. It won't solve the problem. A valid critique is: "Because social services beyond food are serendipitously delivered through traditional food bank infra, you need to help sustain the traditional infra while expanding the delivery, even if the infra may look different (e.g., transform into medical clinics)." A bad critique is: "Because social services beyond food are serendipitously delivered through traditional food bank infra, you shouldn't build Uber for Food Banks." Rich people don't get to look at a problem and say "the only solution is a perfect solution." Help how you can, dude.