3 ms·
You're making two claims here that I think are interesting: 1) PETA paying someone's water bills (or SXSW paying homeless folks) is harmful in the long term, b
by patmcc 4y ago
You're making two claims here that I think are interesting:
1) PETA paying someone's water bills (or SXSW paying homeless folks) is harmful in the long term, because it makes society fixing the overall issue less likely.
2) That harm is greater then the harm of their water being cut off (or not having that $20).
To the first, I'd say we're clearly not solving these issues whether or not we let PETA pay water bills. To the second, I suspect having running water today matters to people a lot more than some theoretical fix in x years.
- bryanrasmussen 4y agoI think these claims go against the way progress normally happens, organizations arising to distribute money to fix problems in the short term often are a precursor of a larger legislative fix. If nobody is trying to fix a problem, nobody organizing around fixing a problem, why would the system think the problem was at all important?