Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too have seen the Facebook chain letter about how we could end world poverty for only $XX billion. But yes, let's definitely not fund malaria relief in the meantime.
Besides the unwarranted and unhelpful snark, you also took the weaker interpretation of my comment so you can defend your point of view. Neither are good signs for your argument. I said "less value" not "no value". In general there's less value in providing fragmented help in small chunks to individual people than there is in providing help via a large coordinated effort to entire populations. Even if the total is th…
Value is subjective, you're just expressing the preference that there is less value to you.
> In general there's less value in providing fragmented help in small chunks to individual people than there is in providing help via a large coordinated effort to entire populations.
Only in the aggregate if less help is delivered. If the same amount of help gets there then the value is potentially the same, or more (or less).
> Even if the total is the same, the fact that it just trickled in and it lacked coordination can only hurt.
This is not true, the individual nature allows for more flexibility in meeting everyone's actual needs. "one size fits all" usually doesn't.
> And you won't effectively put out a big fire no matter how many cups of water you individually dump on it.
This is an inapt metaphor, probably because its physically false.
> Fittingly even the example you chose is bad simply because "malaria relief" still involves quite the coordinated effort, not the least financial, not individual people independently sending small help to a single other person.
Actually there are people sending malaria nets over there, the coordination problems you speak of are already solved.