What annoys me is the dispersion of wealth in some of these third word countries. Take Ethiopia for example, when all those shots were viewed worldwide in the eighties/ninties, a lot of the richer side of ethiopia were shocked, they had no idea people were living like that in their own country. More needs to be done to pressurise the governments of these countries into looking after their own.

I could go out with a camera tomorrow and show shots of people in Britain living in terrible poverty, the problem is global, but the answer isn't always to keep asking the same people to shell out money and guilt tripping them into it.

i think the main reason these contries econimies aren't developing further even with our help, is because most of the money are giving us going back towards the money they owe the western world for helping them out in the past. we can't truly help them unless the debt is written off. i think we need to improve the way in which the western world are trying to help these developing countries.

We should help those less fortunate, yes, But we do not have to.

IMO, the problem of corruption is virtually universal in one form or another, right back to the organising of aid.
While I think any human who sees another in dire circumstances has an ideal duty to help them, life is far too complicated to be able to express a defining statement of how that actually works in the real world.
I liked the suggestion of a moratorium to repair our own societies, that would almost work I think, but I can't see it happening, far too many vested interests involved, at every level.
My attempts at logic have brought me to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the mess would be to abandon the use of money entirely.
That might sound Utopian, but think about it for a second. Money got us where we are, true. But the "price" is the world we now have, reeking, corrupt, dying almost, and millions upon millions suffer and die every century, individual hells upon earth, and sweeping across societies en masse.
Lots of us in the "West" live lives of relative comfort, and many do their best to help or alleviate the horrors, but how often does it work? Everything needed is "too expensive", and even when the money is found, it never really reaches the need in enough quantities to make a real difference.
On the other hand, we now have the technology to live in a sci-fi wonderland, it's only the "cost" that's holding it back. We have had the means and knowledge to produce enough basic food and services to all living humans for decades, it's only the "cost" holding us back.
We could mass-produce ANY basic or luxury item easily, it's only the "cost" holding us back.Obviously there are some exceptions with resources etc.
What is the driving force behind the mass destruction of our planet? Need? Or "profit"?
What is holding back the adoption of a great number of new things? The "cost"

A moral obligation no! I think many people --- but not enough--- sincerely want to help those in developing countries. It does not feel forced like a moral obligation.

However, if you don't care and need to believe you are morally obligated to help, good! Many of us are fortunate and it is a privilege to be able to give, because often giving feels better than receiving.

i don't have yet friends..

You seem to be of the opinion that people are in need in the third world out of lazyness,nothing could be farther from the truth! Let's take the drought ravaged continent of Africa as an example. For milennia the pre-industrial economies of Africa were perfectly in tune with the environment they occured in. Ecological difficulties sent many nations into debt trying to industrialise their economies! From whom did they borrow? The industrialised nations through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both are closely linked to the United States! When the debtor nations began to have difficlties repaying the loans and feeding the masses,the two afore mentioned organs of the capitalist economies demanded repayment! There was insuficient money to repay the debts to World Bank and IMF. So they demanded payment in resources,further impoverishing the already impoverished nations. As the ecological changes worsen,will the formerly prosperous capitalist nations even survive! After having found exporting capital to nations with work forces willing to work for less,more profitable than paying citizens of their own countries! And will any one be willing to help former neo colonial powers,to survive?

If we have a moral obligation to be charitable then we should be given the individual responsibility to decide when and where to be charitable. We shouldn't be coerced as we are when our tax dollars are sent overseas and are most likely being wasted by bureacracy and corruption.

I work with organized religion to provide what respite can be provided in countries like Haiti.

You're asking the wrong people. You need to ask world leaders or THE world leader this question. If you ask the public, most won't want to give up their wealth to some people they'll never meet in their life, and the little that would give up their wealth would not make a difference. You have to have something like global communism for it to work.