Unions Shut Down Hostess

[Metsfanmax]

okay, I want to ask something else.

How much food can you get for $1.25 in China? Laos? Somalia? Guatemala?

I used to make the assumption you did, PS: when people quoted numbers about how many people were living on less than $1/day, I knew that one US dollar would purchase a lot more in those nations than it would in the US. When I learned that this assumption was incorrect, and that the estimate of > 1 billion was based on purchasing power parity, I was stunned. It is quite seriously true that for 1.3 billion people around the world, their daily subsistence is based on what you could buy for $1.25 in an American supermarket. You can't buy a lot for that amount of money in such a supermarket. As I pointed out, a two liter bottle of soda costs more than that. Another way to think about it is to take what $1.25 would buy in the US, and convert that to whatever amount of local currency units would buy the same amount of food. The end result is the same. It's explicitly not based on exchange rates, which is what you are thinking of.

I'm such an American that I can hardly even imagine what it's like to live that way, and I've never visited an undeveloped nation that could help me see for myself. It's honestly hard for me to process, given how much relative wealth exists around me. I just know it's bad.

[Phatscotty]

Can you post a source for that?

[thegreekdog]

Oops, forgot everything is based on "to each according to their needs" and wouldn't understand Americans helping out their neighbors that they see with their own eyes and have skin in the same game, and expect the help to be redistributed to strangers on the other side of the planet who's government is probably hostile to our own and we are just feeding their soldiers.....

It is indeed human nature to feel more kinship for those around them, who they are close to and possibly see on a regular basis. But that does not justify a moral stance where people are dying of preventable problems and we can be the ones to prevent them, and instead we do nothing. If people are dying and living in extreme poverty, even if they are halfway around the world, should we not help? Should we let this awful state continue because we cannot see them? I don't know how one can justify this. If there were Americans living like those in sub-Saharan Africa, you would have a strong argument. But Americans have a much higher standard of living than those in undeveloped nations, even the Americans under our poverty level. From a moral perspective, I would argue we need to solve world hunger and world poverty as a foremost priority. That is not necessarily exclusive with also helping out those in America, obviously, nor should it be. It would be senseless for a government to abandon its citizens. But doing both would require a significant rethinking of how our government collects and spends money, and it is not a change that can happen quickly.

Yes, you suggested meat be taken away. I'm sure that will happen someday under an advanced planning program through Obamacare, because banning meat would save the government millions on treating heart disease

Actually, it may very well happen someday, but because of the very same food shortages we are talking about and not by choice. See, for example, this article.

I knew it! I think if we solved world hunger, there would instantly be a billion more mouths to feed by the end of the first year. I do see your points partially, and they are good points, but I think the main factor is that access to and production of food is the main driver of population growth.

Well, that is true in the sense that as long as we are able to keep producing more food, there will be no natural incentive for global population growth to decline. But the people who run the numbers on this seem to come to the conclusion that population growth is going to continue and eventually outstrip food production increases (in fact, this may already be happening -- the Guardian article talks about this a little bit). In other words, it looks like people are going to continue to have babies even if there's not enough food to put in their mouths. I mean, isn't this what has already happened? We couldn't have gotten to the situation we're in without unchecked population growth. In fact, we may very well have been in a Malthusian scenario if the Green Revolution had not occurred. That held off the issue for a few decades, but population growth hasn't slowed, and we're going to face the problem again in the coming decades.

Since taking steps to end world hunger would end suffering that is occurring now and at least has a chance of slowing population growth (based on the argument I made about how developed nations have lower fertility rates in general), I believe it to be the morally correct choice.

Have you donated time or money to ending world hunger?

I would consider donating 5% of my annual income for one year if certain assurances were made. I'm of the same opinion as Dukasaur in that underdevleoped countries would probably not be able to do much with my 5% (through no fault of their own).

[Metsfanmax]

Can you post a source for that?

Yes sir. Here is a low level description of how it works (click the first link):

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNA ... 65,00.html

Here's a direct quote from the article, which describes how the World Bank calculates its numbers:

Purchasing power parity conversion eliminates both these inconsistencies. PPP is defined as the numbers of units of a country’s currency needed to buy in the country the same amounts of goods and services as, say, one US dollar would buy in the United States. They are computed on the basis of data collected in benchmark surveys, which are undertaken usually every five years but sometimes even longer. Statistically, PPPs are expenditure-weighted averages of relative prices of a vast number of goods and services on which people spend their incomes. By eliminating price differences, PPPs yield comparisons based on real quantities of goods and services. As the PPPs are adjusted over time (between surveys) by relative rates of inflation, they also track movements in real quantities over time.

Since one dollar converted at the PPP rate would buy the same amounts of goods and services in every country, it has been possible for the World Bank to estimate the number of people in the world living under “ a dollar a day” or “two dollars a day” . It is not possible to make such estimates on the basis of exchange rate converted values since a US dollar converted at exchange rate does not typically buy the same amounts of goods and services in every country.

I'm sure you understand the concept of PPP, so there's no need to read the rest of the article (I didn't).

And here is a press release of the World Bank's 2010 numbers:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNA ... 82,00.html

[Metsfanmax]

Have you donated time or money to ending world hunger?

No. I have a finite amount of money to donate to charitable causes (and not a lot of it either, since I'm still just a grad student), so I have to prioritize what I think is the most good I can do with my donation. Therefore I have chosen instead to donate money to efforts that directly save lives. For example, one of the leading causes (if not the most prominent) right now, is distributing bed nets to people at risk from malaria. A single net costs only a few dollars and protects against malaria, which is a deadly disease especially in Africa (malaria still kills more than half a million people per year).

Now, the research and the general consensus is that the most effective way most Americans can help is donations of money. It really is hard to donate personal time to help people on a different continent. I think that some day I would like to visit Africa and do so, but it won't happen any time soon.

I would consider donating 5% of my annual income for one year if certain assurances were made. I'm of the same opinion as Dukasaur in that underdevleoped countries would probably not be able to do much with my 5% (through no fault of their own).

This is of course a valid concern. I recommend looking into http://www.GiveWell.org. Their main job is to evaluate the efficacy of various charitable organizations, and determine which ones are the most cost effective in terms of donations. Periodically they update their list of recommended top charities, and the two they list have been selected both on the basis of need (obviously there are a lot of effective charities out there, but not all of them need money as their top priority) and on how well they have proven that their work actually does use people's donations effectively. I believe that you would be doing a significant amount of good if you even just donated your 5% to their top charity. But don't take my word for it -- look at their analysis!

They also research plenty of other organizations, so you can see what they have to say about a particular cause you are interested in, and how effective your donation would be.

[Phatscotty]

Oops, forgot everything is based on "to each according to their needs" and wouldn't understand Americans helping out their neighbors that they see with their own eyes and have skin in the same game, and expect the help to be redistributed to strangers on the other side of the planet who's government is probably hostile to our own and we are just feeding their soldiers.....

It is indeed human nature to feel more kinship for those around them, who they are close to and possibly see on a regular basis. But that does not justify a moral stance where people are dying of preventable problems and we can be the ones to prevent them, and instead we do nothing. If people are dying and living in extreme poverty, even if they are halfway around the world, should we not help? Should we let this awful state continue because we cannot see them? I don't know how one can justify this. If there were Americans living like those in sub-Saharan Africa, you would have a strong argument. But Americans have a much higher standard of living than those in undeveloped nations, even the Americans under our poverty level. From a moral perspective, I would argue we need to solve world hunger and world poverty as a foremost priority. That is not necessarily exclusive with also helping out those in America, obviously, nor should it be. It would be senseless for a government to abandon its citizens. But doing both would require a significant rethinking of how our government collects and spends money, and it is not a change that can happen quickly.

Yes, you suggested meat be taken away. I'm sure that will happen someday under an advanced planning program through Obamacare, because banning meat would save the government millions on treating heart disease

Actually, it may very well happen someday, but because of the very same food shortages we are talking about and not by choice. See, for example, this article.

I knew it! I think if we solved world hunger, there would instantly be a billion more mouths to feed by the end of the first year. I do see your points partially, and they are good points, but I think the main factor is that access to and production of food is the main driver of population growth.

Well, that is true in the sense that as long as we are able to keep producing more food, there will be no natural incentive for global population growth to decline. But the people who run the numbers on this seem to come to the conclusion that population growth is going to continue and eventually outstrip food production increases (in fact, this may already be happening -- the Guardian article talks about this a little bit). In other words, it looks like people are going to continue to have babies even if there's not enough food to put in their mouths. I mean, isn't this what has already happened? We couldn't have gotten to the situation we're in without unchecked population growth. In fact, we may very well have been in a Malthusian scenario if the Green Revolution had not occurred. That held off the issue for a few decades, but population growth hasn't slowed, and we're going to face the problem again in the coming decades.

Since taking steps to end world hunger would end suffering that is occurring now and at least has a chance of slowing population growth (based on the argument I made about how developed nations have lower fertility rates in general), I believe it to be the morally correct choice.

Have you donated time or money to ending world hunger?

I would consider donating 5% of my annual income for one year if certain assurances were made. I'm of the same opinion as Dukasaur in that underdevleoped countries would probably not be able to do much with my 5% (through no fault of their own).

We already know the union members from Hostess are not willing to donate 5%.... If they won't take a 5% paycut to save their own livlihoods and their familes, I don't think they are going to give 5% to a stranger on the other side of the planet

[chang50]

okay, I want to ask something else.

How much food can you get for $1.25 in China? Laos? Somalia? Guatemala?

I live in Thailand,next door to Laos which I have visited,I can tell you supermarket prices are similiar to the UK.Where food is cheaper is from street vendors and eating out in cafes and restaurants.What I can absolutely testify to from first hand experience is that there is no real poverty in the Western developed world compared to the third world.What there is,is relative poverty,which can be distressing and cause some hardship but no one should suffer from malnutrition...

[Phatscotty]

okay, I want to ask something else.

How much food can you get for $1.25 in China? Laos? Somalia? Guatemala?

I used to make the assumption you did, PS: when people quoted numbers about how many people were living on less than $1/day, I knew that one US dollar would purchase a lot more in those nations than it would in the US. When I learned that this assumption was incorrect, and that the estimate of > 1 billion was based on purchasing power parity, I was stunned. It is quite seriously true that for 1.3 billion people around the world, their daily subsistence is based on what you could buy for $1.25 in an American supermarket. You can't buy a lot for that amount of money in such a supermarket. As I pointed out, a two liter bottle of soda costs more than that. Another way to think about it is to take what $1.25 would buy in the US, and convert that to whatever amount of local currency units would buy the same amount of food. The end result is the same. It's explicitly not based on exchange rates, which is what you are thinking of.

I'm such an American that I can hardly even imagine what it's like to live that way, and I've never visited an undeveloped nation that could help me see for myself. It's honestly hard for me to process, given how much relative wealth exists around me. I just know it's bad.

:cough cough:

source....

[patches70]

I'm not too sure why anybody is blaming much of anyone else, the business died is all. It happens. Lots of factors cause these things to happen, labor costs being one of them. Yeah, it's the Union's fault, it's the changing tastes of the consumers, it's the business cycle and many other things all combining to bring an end to the company. It's like blaming the clouds for raining out your picnic. I suppose you could do that, but it serves no purpose.

On Ebay, seriously, you can find people trying to sell twinkies for outrageous sums of money. A testament to how stupid people are and how little many understand the bankruptcy process. Here, someone is thinks they can sell a single twinkie for $8,000-



That's one of the more crazy things, most are selling (or trying to) for-

three boxes of SEALED Hostess Chocodiles for $89.95 (16 sold so far, LOL)
Rest assured, twinkies will still be sold, just not by Hostess is all.

It's this same misunderstanding that led to the bailout for the auto industry, the mistaken belief that what was being produced by those bankrupt companies would no longer be produced at all. Instead, people believed all the worse lies and so contract law was turned upside down on the basis of mistaken understanding.


Hostess is going out of business and a bunch of people are going to lose their jobs. Meh. It's called Life.

[Army of GOD]

Isn't Hostess just going to sell the rights to the Twinkie to some other brand?

[Phatscotty]

I'm not too sure why anybody is blaming much of anyone else, the business died is all. It happens. Lots of factors cause these things to happen, labor costs being one of them. Yeah, it's the Union's fault, it's the changing tastes of the consumers, it's the business cycle and many other things all combining to bring an end to the company. It's like blaming the clouds for raining out your picnic. I suppose you could do that, but it serves no purpose.

On Ebay, seriously, you can find people trying to sell twinkies for outrageous sums of money. A testament to how stupid people are and how little many understand the bankruptcy process. Here, someone is thinks they can sell a single twinkie for $8,000-



That's one of the more crazy things, most are selling (or trying to) for-

three boxes of SEALED Hostess Chocodiles for $89.95 (16 sold so far, LOL)
Rest assured, twinkies will still be sold, just not by Hostess is all.

It's this same misunderstanding that led to the bailout for the auto industry, the mistaken belief that what was being produced by those bankrupt companies would no longer be produced at all. Instead, people believed all the worse lies and so contract law was turned upside down on the basis of mistaken understanding.


Hostess is going out of business and a bunch of people are going to lose their jobs. Meh. It's called Life.

I just want to explore the reasons the union members walked off the job.

[patches70]

I just want to explore the reasons the union members walked off the job.

I have no idea, I'd guess because they weren't making enough money. Now they're making nothing, but it's all good. Now each person can explore other options in life, instead of trying to rely on a dead company.

"Let the dead bury the dead"

Isn't Hostess just going to sell the rights to the Twinkie to some other brand?

Yes! Anything of value will be liquidated. I'd bet a nickel to a doughnut that Grupo Bimbo will get many of the various trademarks of Hostess. They tried to buy the company outright back in 2006, after all.

[Phatscotty]

I just want to explore the reasons the union members walked off the job.

I have no idea, I'd guess because they weren't making enough money. Now they're making nothing, but it's all good. Now each person can explore other options in life, instead of trying to rely on a dead company.

"Let the dead bury the dead"

Isn't Hostess just going to sell the rights to the Twinkie to some other brand?

Yes! Anything of value will be liquidated. I'd bet a nickel to a doughnut that Grupo Bimbo will get many of the various trademarks of Hostess. They tried to buy the company outright back in 2006, after all.

I can't help but wonder if 99 weeks of unemployment benefits has something to do with it. They will probably take a 20% cut, but I bet that's okay with some of them, if not many of them

[patches70]

I can't help but wonder if 99 weeks of unemployment benefits has something to do with it. They will probably take a 20% cut, but I bet that's okay with some of them, if not many of them

More power to 'em I say. A deal is a deal, right? That's the law. So what if it's like an ever engorging fat bastard who if he has but another 'waffa' thin mint he'll explode? This sucker is coming down eventually, this'll just be another straw on the camel's back. One day, it'll be one too many straws, then things'll get...interesting.

This, Hostess going out of business, is not interesting at all.
Just sayin' is all. When the forces at work make it so a company is no longer profitable, that's it, shows over. Nothing can change that, not unions, Congress, good intentions or anything else. And it's never any one thing that causes these things either.

As Devito's character said in "Other People's Money"-

Amen. And amen. And amen. You have to forgive me. I'm not familiar with the local custom. Where I come from, you always say "Amen" after you hear a prayer. Because that's what you just heard - a prayer. Where I come from, that particular prayer is called "The Prayer for the Dead." You just heard The Prayer for the Dead, my fellow stockholders, and you didn't say, "Amen." This company is dead. I didn't kill it. Don't blame me. It was dead when I got here. It's too late for prayers.

[Phatscotty]

[MeDeFe]

okay, I want to ask something else.

How much food can you get for $1.25 in China? Laos? Somalia? Guatemala?

I used to make the assumption you did, PS: when people quoted numbers about how many people were living on less than $1/day, I knew that one US dollar would purchase a lot more in those nations than it would in the US. When I learned that this assumption was incorrect, and that the estimate of > 1 billion was based on purchasing power parity, I was stunned. It is quite seriously true that for 1.3 billion people around the world, their daily subsistence is based on what you could buy for $1.25 in an American supermarket. You can't buy a lot for that amount of money in such a supermarket. As I pointed out, a two liter bottle of soda costs more than that. Another way to think about it is to take what $1.25 would buy in the US, and convert that to whatever amount of local currency units would buy the same amount of food. The end result is the same. It's explicitly not based on exchange rates, which is what you are thinking of.

I'm such an American that I can hardly even imagine what it's like to live that way, and I've never visited an undeveloped nation that could help me see for myself. It's honestly hard for me to process, given how much relative wealth exists around me. I just know it's bad.

:cough cough:

source....

He already provided it... Look up a few posts.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=181339&start=60#p3959465

[AAFitz]

Im sure the management of the company, had nothing to do with its demise.

Definitely blame the workers, who were going in every day, and just trying to make a living, and organizing to do it.

I agree in this case, they perhaps didn't understand the situation, but to suggest workers were responsible, and not the management that obviously ran the company, is as short-sighted as many of the night-strikes...

[AAFitz]

I just want to explore the reasons the union members walked off the job.

I for one suggest you go there and interview them personally.

And I fucking beg you...please bring a cameraman....with a splash-guard.

[thegreekdog]

Have you donated time or money to ending world hunger?

No. I have a finite amount of money to donate to charitable causes (and not a lot of it either, since I'm still just a grad student), so I have to prioritize what I think is the most good I can do with my donation. Therefore I have chosen instead to donate money to efforts that directly save lives. For example, one of the leading causes (if not the most prominent) right now, is distributing bed nets to people at risk from malaria. A single net costs only a few dollars and protects against malaria, which is a deadly disease especially in Africa (malaria still kills more than half a million people per year).

Now, the research and the general consensus is that the most effective way most Americans can help is donations of money. It really is hard to donate personal time to help people on a different continent. I think that some day I would like to visit Africa and do so, but it won't happen any time soon.

I would consider donating 5% of my annual income for one year if certain assurances were made. I'm of the same opinion as Dukasaur in that underdevleoped countries would probably not be able to do much with my 5% (through no fault of their own).

This is of course a valid concern. I recommend looking into http://www.GiveWell.org. Their main job is to evaluate the efficacy of various charitable organizations, and determine which ones are the most cost effective in terms of donations. Periodically they update their list of recommended top charities, and the two they list have been selected both on the basis of need (obviously there are a lot of effective charities out there, but not all of them need money as their top priority) and on how well they have proven that their work actually does use people's donations effectively. I believe that you would be doing a significant amount of good if you even just donated your 5% to their top charity. But don't take my word for it -- look at their analysis!

They also research plenty of other organizations, so you can see what they have to say about a particular cause you are interested in, and how effective your donation would be.

I have never donated to non-US charities before. I probably won't do it until there is more security associated with such donations. There are enough people in the immediate area where I live who need help.

As to your own situation, it appears you've made a similar value judgment to most Americans as to how your dollars and time are best spent, so I would say your critiques are misplaced. Most people don't like getting reprimanded by someone who does not practice what he/she preaches. This is not a criticism per se, just something you should think about. I get more angry with someone like Warren Buffett, who preaches about the rich paying more taxes, and yet who does not pay more taxes himself (or pay his poor secretary more money).

[jimboston]

No one that I know of demands access to Twinkies like people demand access to alcohol (except for Woody Harrelson's character in Zombieland). Most people buy Twinkies because they're easy to buy in a grocery store, and cheap, not because they particularly love Twinkies. If you banned Twinkies, my bet is there would be no public outrage and consequent Twinkie black market.

Twinkies were selling on EBay yesterday after the announcement for double their normal store price.

There's been a rush on these things and hoarding. There IS a "black market".

[jimboston]

AWESOME!

[jimboston]

okay, I want to ask something else.

How much food can you get for $1.25 in China? Laos? Somalia? Guatemala?

I used to make the assumption you did, PS: when people quoted numbers about how many people were living on less than $1/day, I knew that one US dollar would purchase a lot more in those nations than it would in the US. When I learned that this assumption was incorrect, and that the estimate of > 1 billion was based on purchasing power parity, I was stunned. It is quite seriously true that for 1.3 billion people around the world, their daily subsistence is based on what you could buy for $1.25 in an American supermarket. You can't buy a lot for that amount of money in such a supermarket. As I pointed out, a two liter bottle of soda costs more than that. Another way to think about it is to take what $1.25 would buy in the US, and convert that to whatever amount of local currency units would buy the same amount of food. The end result is the same. It's explicitly not based on exchange rates, which is what you are thinking of.

I'm such an American that I can hardly even imagine what it's like to live that way, and I've never visited an undeveloped nation that could help me see for myself. It's honestly hard for me to process, given how much relative wealth exists around me. I just know it's bad.

$1.25 ... is that per person or per family?

If you're thrifty you can make $1.25 go a long way. I'm not saying you wouldn't be hunger... you would. You'd not have a very healthy diet... you'd be missing a lot of essential vitamins and minerals... but you would load of up 'cheap calories'.

I never came close to $1.25... but in college I "lived on" probably $5 a day for long stretches.

[GreecePwns]

$1.25 in an American supermarket gets you nothing. Absolutely nothing. Maybe one banana OR a pack of gum OR a water bottle and that's it.

I love that Phatscotty actually used the word "donated" to describe a pay cut, which would have been used to once again raise the CEO's salary several times over (as has been done in the past at this company). I don't blame the union for standing up to this.

[Metsfanmax]

I have never donated to non-US charities before. I probably won't do it until there is more security associated with such donations. There are enough people in the immediate area where I live who need help.

As I said, I think the moral argument is clear for helping people in southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. If you want to help both groups, good for you. But I can't help feeling that someone in Africa should not get less of my money than someone in America just because they didn't have the fortune of being born in the USA.

As to your own situation, it appears you've made a similar value judgment to most Americans as to how your dollars and time are best spent, so I would say your critiques are misplaced. Most people don't like getting reprimanded by someone who does not practice what he/she preaches. This is not a criticism per se, just something you should think about.

I said that I do give money to people in need in Africa; I just said that the area I donate my money to is not the cause of eradicating world hunger, per se, but saving lives against disease and other harmful effects. Giving food aid is generally thought to be a bad idea; it does not give developing villages any ability to become self-sustaining. Therefore it is generally accepted wisdom that the best way to help is either through donations to help people reduce poverty, or through aid that helps communities build sustainable crop growing, etc. The Millennium Villages Project is attempting to do just this on a large scale in Africa. Microloans are also one of the big ways people contribute nowadays, and this can indirectly help with the world hunger problem, too.

I think it would be a great thing if people joined me in doing so. You don't have to pick the same cause as me; there's many areas people can help. I'm happy to give advice or ideas if people do want to help but don't know where to start.

I get more angry with someone like Warren Buffett, who preaches about the rich paying more taxes, and yet who does not pay more taxes himself (or pay his poor secretary more money).

Say what you will about Warren Buffett; the man pledged over $30 billion to charitable causes. If every person had the investment skill he did, and then used their incredible earnings to combat world poverty, we'd end this problem in no time.

$1.25 ... is that per person or per family?

It is per person.

If you're thrifty you can make $1.25 go a long way. I'm not saying you wouldn't be hunger... you would. You'd not have a very healthy diet... you'd be missing a lot of essential vitamins and minerals... but you would load of up 'cheap calories'.

It is true that you could basically buy some rice or something, and you'd have to make it last. But the fact that many people can survive that way doesn't mean that they should; it leads to malnutrition, which causes its own problems. It's certainly not a good plan to live that way for years at a time.

[Night Strike]

Yes, it is possible through one of two routes. One is by personal donation. For example, if the top 10% of America donated a modest amount of their income to international aid efforts, America could singlehandledly be responsible for achieving the UN's Millennium Development Goals, which basically aim to eradicate poverty and hunger on the global scale. I'll spare you the details unless you're interested, but it could be done with a progressive scale starting at 5% of income for those earning more than $100,000 per year. The rest of America would not even have to donate, although they could (and should).

Another is by switching to vegetarian diets on the large scale. Annually, the world feeds hundreds of billions of tons of grain to feed animals that we later eat. But the process is incredibly inefficient. For cows, for example, we get fewer than a 10% return in food compared to what we put in (in terms of pounds of food produced). If most of the developed world stopped eating meat, there would be enough food left over to end world hunger. I'm not exaggerating.

Yep, it's no longer good enough for the "evil rich 'merikans" to pay 40% of income to federal government, 10% to state government, and a bunch of other taxes and fees on every thing else. They now must pay money directly to the UN in order to "feed" other people. What ever happened to people working to better their OWN lives and the lives of their families? When will people be able to work for themselves instead of the government? It was mentioned already in this thread that when people don't get enough money for their time, they'll quit doing that job because they're wasting their time. Don't be naive enough to think that the exact same thing won't happen with those people who are spending the vast majority of their time working for the government instead of themselves.

Have you donated time or money to ending world hunger?

No. I have a finite amount of money to donate to charitable causes (and not a lot of it either, since I'm still just a grad student), so I have to prioritize what I think is the most good I can do with my donation. Therefore I have chosen instead to donate money to efforts that directly save lives. For example, one of the leading causes (if not the most prominent) right now, is distributing bed nets to people at risk from malaria. A single net costs only a few dollars and protects against malaria, which is a deadly disease especially in Africa (malaria still kills more than half a million people per year).

Malaria was about to be eradicated until the environmentalist demanded that they stop. Environmentalists chose to save birds over humans.