You are helping, give him the money you tightwad
You are just enabling an unsustainable culture
I'm waiting to be judged on my "silliness" now.
Sometimes having more people producing helps feed the existing ones. Farmers use to have large families for working the crops.
The problem with not directly giving is that many charities are high cost management and very little gets into the hands of the poor.
Though something sounds wrong with, "go away and starve to death child because your life is only making the world a worse place for me."
Faced directly with them we probably wouldn't act that way.
Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
The easiest and most sensible way to fix this would be to adjust subsidies.
To help control crop prices, some farmers are actually paid by the gubmint to not plant. We should find farms that are subsidized to not grow, but instead give them that money to plant edible crops that are immediately passed on to the "poor". Since they are probably not consumers anywhere in the chain (except in the "free" section of it), it wouldn't be a disruption to use what those farms reap and immediately supply food to repair a need.
I do donate to St. Jude's because, like Lightning, that's one of the few charities I feel safe about the vast majority of proceeds actually making it to its stated destination.
I'm not willing to buy another Porsche for United Way's CFO.
I believe by law only 10% of donated money has to actually go to the cause.