This is one of those things where the knee jerk reaction is to think it's one of the best thing to do, but most people forget how the world works. All species populations have a carrying capacity and humans are not an exception. You can only feed people at the rate you produce food. In fact some species, such as deer, completely overshoot their carrying capacity to the point where the whole population will starve because all the food is just gone. Things like wolves keep the population in check
When people donate to "starving children" even if that food actually feeds anybody and isn't stolen by some 3rd world dictator on the way these populations aren't starving because some huge crisis happened and set them back. Most of the time it's because of severe overpopulation due to things like lack of womens rights. Saving these people from starving isn't really saving anyone. All you're doing is expanding the carrying capacity, which means these populations will expand outside of that new carrying capacity and once again be starving. This new population will be completely 100% dependent on foreign aid since that's how it was "saved".
Now instead of having 10,000 starving you have 20, 50, or 100,000 starving that is also completely dependent on you to keep donating. What happens when you cut them off? It might not be your choice. With the US being 13 trillion in debt and the practices causing the first recession to happen not stopping or in Europe a giant organization which trashes the economy of almost every nation involved being unable to keep donating seems like a very likely possibility. And the population is so huge now that the resources might be completely dried up, and you might get something similar to what happens to the deer population like I mentioned earlier.
Anyways, this was something I thought up a while ago and never got around to posting.