Besides, solving hunger (and many other problems) requires not goodwill from rich people, but political and structural changes. Develop farming, make water and electricity and sewage accessible, give everyone access to a job, etc. Which is the poor countries' responsibility.
Yeah, that's pretty much my point as to the outside the monkeysphere thing. Not my in-group, not my problem. Other peoples in-groups should deal with their own problems. Nevermind the suffering involved, et al, or that the net influence on our species qua species is negative. Nationalism/regionalism isn't exactly a moral stance. Not necessarily immoral, but anything that dehumanizes (even mildly, by doing things such as separating responsibility) sections of our species walks a really fine line, albeit a very natural one.
Which isn't a positive thing, mind, that it's natural. It's a flaw in our species we need workarounds for, sooner or later. Or at least better workarounds than we currently have.
It's not so much that I think others should take care of themselves, as that I know we're not exactly going to be welcomed with open arms. After all, the last time my country (France) tried to take care of the rest of the world, we colonized half of it, and it didn't turn out very well. At all.
The biggest problem I see is that most of the time, when people who want to take care of others (especially strangers they have never met halfway across the globe) they have good intentions, but they see those others as some sort of helpless creatures who need them to jump to their rescue or they'll die. I would even go as far as to say that if you think you have a moral duty toward someone because you have an advantage over him (wether it's riches, or the burden of the white man, or anything else) then you see this someone as being inferior to you somehow. That's how colonization was envisioned, that's how the "starving african children" stereotype works, that's even how the first post I answered worked - it was a "if you don't help them, they'll die, and you're committing murder by negligence" reasoning, after all.
Also, that kind of help tends to placate the views of the helper onto the helped - the "I know what's good for you" attitude. All in all, that's why I see plain normal business as a much better alternative, because it makes you see those people as economic partners, it doesn't belittle them. It makes one see the people they help as their equal, and equally capable of taking care of themselves given the opportunity.
After that, yeah, there's a difference between the "ideal & honest" kind of business, and the current, "slavery have other names" kind of business ... but that's another discussion thread. (Which is why I don't answer the rest of your post - I agree with you on most part anyways).
For example, hunger. Giving food away for free to a country to help the hungry people there tends to make the country dependent on foreign aid - because by giving food for free, you've made yourself unbeatable competition to the local farmers, and you're slowly putting them out of business. Giving food away at a set price brings the same problem - you're pressing on the farmers' margin (the weakest part of the food chain, in a way) even as you make food affordable to a larger part of the population.
What if we give the food to the farmers on the condition that they sell it at a price not to exceed some value?
Well, it always brings the same problem. If you're a farmer, why work ? The NGO will hand you down something to sell anyways. Heck, even if the ONG sells food to the farmers so they can sell it at a higher price, it still means they'll make money as a middleman, not as a farmer. There are solutions, but all in all, it's always complicated.
This is such a fun thing to do.