Should we bother spending our time in 3rd world countries?

[Stephen]

We have organizations like the Peace Corps, the Red Cross, Journalists without Borders, etc that go into 3rd world countries and risk their lives trying to improve the situation there.

Considering how easy it is for a foreign government to toss someone in jail or make someone disappear, should people bother spending their time going to 3rd world countries to help out?

[CPEdgin]

Yes, its worthwhile, because its those human connections between people that make a difference, that makes people more than just a newspaper headlines.

When people of differing nations can speak directly to each other in person w/o government filters, work together with each other, its worth it.

Besides nothing worth doing is without risk or difficulty but it does not means we have to spend a load of taxpayer money on it. I think outfits like Doctors w/o Borders, or the Peace Corp do a fine job.

[Stephen]

I'm sure that in some cases this is good, primarily if you go in a group and have an established relationship with the country you're going to, however I have heard of so many cases where people either get in trouble with local governments or the people themselves.

I've never been to another country, but I'd imagine that I'd be very selective of where I go. I'm not so sure I'm interested in heading to some 3rd world country that has far more corruption than our own where I could potentially be thrown in jail or even killed. In fact, there is so much to see in this country, so many people to help, why should I take the extra risks of traveling outside the country for such things when we have similar situations here at home?

[The Passenger]

Like what CPEdgin said, organizations like the Peace Corps work wonders in helping people and establishing human connections, however sometimes foreign aid can have a detrimental impact, like, lets say, the UN sends food to countries with oppressive regimes or sectarian violence, usually the food ends up in the wrong hands, and the money wasted 

[Stephen]

I hope he doesn't mind, but Arthur Cain made a good comment on Facebook that I'd like to post here:

Doug Casey makes the case that charity/foreign aid distorts local markets in the recipient countries, and removes the incentive for the local population to work or innovate.
Sending grain to failed states makes local grain production unprofitable, so the farmers use the land for more profitable, but less sustainable things like cotton/tobacco or drugs.

[SportsterMark]

NGO's that operate on their own budget rather than at the expense of the taxpayers are fine, and I wholeheartedly support the missions that many of them undertake (Doctors Without Borders, as mentioned above, immediately springs to mind). These groups serve a valuable purpose and because they operate on their own budget are free from unnecessary political influence from the state while fulfilling their mission. Some groups may also have a hidden agenda, that when operating may in fact be a detriment to the local populace (religious evangelicals who proselytize as their primary activity come to mind) and if are funded by the government they may easily be perceived as operating at the behest of the government and may even overtly represent themselves that way making deniability of their 'orders' difficult, at the very least.
It is of tantamount importance that Americans, as citizens and residents of the world, come into contact with other cultures as a benefit to both the US and the other culture. Far too few Americans speak any language other than English and the cultural isolation this brings about, not to mention the limit to thinking (as it is extremely hard to create a concept in one's mind that cannot be verbalized by most people) is a strong handicap we as a country have as we move deeper into the 21st century and do so without as many direct connections to other cultural groups as other cultural groups have among themselves.