&gt; There&#x27;s no point saying that bandaids can stop people bleeding and people who don&#x27;t want to use them are bad, if you don&#x27;t address why there are flesh wounds everywhere you look.<p>Yet poverty is improving globally ( <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;society&#x2F;2013&#x2F;mar&#x2F;17&#x2F;aid-trade-reduce-acute-poverty" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;society&#x2F;2013&#x2F;mar&#x2F;17&#x2F;aid-trade-red...</a> ). Given that, no one should be faulted for doing what they can to help locally.<p>&gt; Are bandaids better than nothing? They are. But there are still people trying to fix the flesh wounds. Does the author support them, or not?<p>It doesn&#x27;t matter. The author presented an idea that is important in its own right. I don&#x27;t think there&#x27;s any moral authority anyone can draw upon to say that he or she needs to do more. Anyone who thinks there is is proving the author&#x27;s point.