I don't see why. Making those trips is likely not very relaxing- just because it doesn't involve hard manual labour doesn't mean that constantly moving from city to city and politely gladhanding hundreds of people in a day isn't work.
But you're right, nothing good comes out of charity work, it's all just a bunch of rich people eating caviar. Glad your exhaustive investigation into the topic was successful.
>But you're right, nothing good comes out of charity work, it's all just a bunch of rich people eating caviar. Glad your exhaustive investigation into the topic was successful.
Oh, I did investigated it exhaustively, and yes, nothing comes out of charity work.
It's just a way for people to feel good and situations to perpetuate.
The only work that matters and improves things is doing structural improvents and proving infrastructure.
Charity just make people dependent.
Not to mention that, in say Africa, it is estimated (by charity workers themselves) that the vast majority of charity money go to official's pockets.
Complete rubbish. Royals, and other celebs bring publicity. That bring money. Money solved problems. Take a silly frog charity. Money increases and more frogs are saved. Structure and infrastructure doesn't help frogs much. Sorry people feel good about that.
Honestly, I don't believe you investigated anything beyond reading some bias newspaper. I also think you confuse small local charities and massive charitable attempts to solve world wide poverty. Two very different things. But if you investigated, you would know that, right?
Usually people get involved in charity for ego reasons, and dependence is a problem, but I believe that quietly doing a good deed now and then is fine.
That's why it's just "sit".
Same for the charity work -- that's just what idle rich people do to pass their time, drink champagne and see each other over expensive food.