I do feel for the third world countries, but I just can't compromise us, as the United States of America citizens to give up our luxuries for third world countries. According to Peter Singer in the essay Famine, Affluence and Morality. He states that we should give up some of our luxury spending. Relying on the only the necessities that we need to survive in the real world. Singer came up with the idea that if we could save eighty-dollars a year. You could save one life in a third world country.
             This is an idea that I disagree with. I don't believe that we should have to give up luxuries for third world countries. If it was a joint help cause, such as other countries joining the U.S. in saving third world lives. Having their responsibilities relying on the U.S. wouldn't teach themselves how to survive. I do give some sympathy towards them. It is hard to believe that their government keeps them from flourishing in life.
             What I don't think that Singer thinks about is what it would do to the American economy, that has to us a couple centuries to master. If it was a requirement for an American citizen to save a life in a third world country. The Business economy in the U.S. wouldn't be as successful as it today. That would be 160 dollars a married house hold. It is tough for some small businesses to survive today as is. That would also increase the unemployment rate. Which would be a never ending chain of businesses after businesses closing their doors. Due to loss of revenue. Down the road, which will take a very long time, but we will be in the same position that they are in.
             Lets say that singers idea does fly and people start to send over eighty-dollars. That makes more nourished humans that start reproducing more and more. Are we really fixing a problem that we thought we could. I believe that we would be doing circles on this problem that we thought we could fix. We would be living examples
             ...