The premise of the Real Problem is that people will generally attend to human suffering over all else if it's directly in front of them. By determining what to do when the options are in directly in front of us we can gauge what we would naturally do. While not always what our nature dictates is the right thing to do, in this case it aids as a powerful tool to remind ourselves of our priorities. As such, human suffering should be attended to over all else and this is what Real Charities do. There are however two exceptions.

First, attention and funds should not be directed away from someone of whom if it would be taken from could cause them to deteriorate into suffering.

Second, people should not give their attention and funds towards Real Charities if they are not able to. An environmental charity for example may not be equipped nor educated in a manner of attending to human suffering. They should continue the good work they do and if the charity directors and workers are able they should contribute some of their own private earnings to a Real Charity.

Withholding the funds from someone whose suffering is being alleviated and redirecting those funds to alleviate another person's suffering, removes alleviation from one who is already being alleviated (a surety) in an attempt to alleviate someone else's suffering which may or may not be successful (a non-surety).

Similarly, it seems that welfare to those not suffering but could fall into it if that welfare is withheld is just as likely to happen as giving welfare to one who is suffering in hopes that they will be lifted out of it. This problem can only be assessed when there is a way to assess who is less likely to suffer, the one who could fall into suffering if welfare is withheld or the one who may or may not be lifted out of suffering with welfare.

Their is greater certainty in continuing assistance for the person who is not suffering and would fall into it without such assistance then to give assistance to one who is suffering, because he who is not suffering is already where he should be whereas with he who is suffering, there is no certainty that the assistance will remedy the suffering at all.

It must also be taken into account that what one's level of suffering is, is not the same for another and the surveying of one's suffering is fraught with the problem of dishonesty, a more likely issue from one who is bewildered to begin with.

In almost all cases however, it could be said that the fatally suffering come before the non-fatally suffering. Practically, in all cases, it comes down to proper assessment.

What goes without saying is that when there is a limited pool of welfare, it should not be given to those who can work / don't need it, if it means not being given to those who legitimately can't work, do need it, and especially those who are suffering. The problem with giving money to those who don't work but can is that why should they work? They already have the money.

Yes and no. No for the people who are suffering and can't work because of it. Yes for the people who aren't suffering and it would be better for them to be in a place where they can give handouts instead of receiving them. Handouts cost money, or are money, and money comes from producing value (work).

The goal for both the person suffering and the person not is for them to eventually be in a position where they are producing value and not only taking it. In this way it could be said that Real Inc. is a business with a goal to get people involved in or starting their own business by removing suffering, providing necessities to those who don’t have it, and eventually providing the means to work in a business or starting their own.

First, there are simply people who are not aware of the Real Problem, there are those who don't care to make themselves aware, and there are those who prefer giving to the environment for any number of reasons. Therefore we have options for them to do so.

Second, it could be said that most environmentalists would turn from their environmental efforts to attend to a person suffering right in front of them, yet “most” still implies there are those who wouldn’t. As wrong as that may sound, for them they probably don’t see it that way.

Would you give a person who you think is doing the wrong thing a way to do what's right? Right, and we would too. That’s why we offer options to donate to the environment and other causes not related to human suffering.

Is a suffering environment a problem? Of course, but it’s not the Real Problem. It is not the nature of people in general to tend to an environmental effort over a suffering person if both were right in front of them. When a person is screaming for help in front of you, regardless of what you're doing, your legs start moving, and fast.

As well, we can save a person who can then save the environment but in all likelihood we can’t save the environment and expect it to save that person as fast as a person can. Saving a panda is nice but a panda isn’t going to learn how to wrap a wound anytime soon.

For many of us it seems wrong to attend to a tree or even an animal in front of us if an apparent suffering person is also in front of us. Yet even for people who wouldn't do so there should be the option to do some good even if it’s not the most optimal type. That’s why even though we do offer options to such people for them to contribute to the environment, we ourselves at Real Inc. prioritize contributions to humanity over the environment. This is apparent in the order of donation types in our Donation Selection list attached to all our products, our Donate page where donations to humanity come first, and lastly our default donation option “Where It’s Needed Most” will only be donated to the first few charitable acts listed in the Donation Selection list.

How to quantify charitable acts per unit of currency donated is a question for an experienced and trustworthy accountant. And a second opinion wouldn't hurt.

Many charities already know what amounts of charitable acts are being done per unit of currency donated, but the donors should also know. Not only does it make donors want to donate more because they know with confidence what they're money is accomplishing, they can also visualize it and and because of that become more immersed in it.

For companies, quantifiable donations per transaction (as shown in the Real Store) can drive more sales and therefore more donations by giving customers the power to visualize the good that’s actually being done from the purchases they make. It's nice to know that when I get something others who (in most cases need more) get something they need as well.

Instead of the usual and obscure “10% of profit is donated to charity” with no description of what’s actually being done, companies can tell their customers that “$1 per purchase is donated to x number of charitable acts.”

If charitable acts are not quantified then the acts themselves are not apparent and therefore cannot be known and appreciated at all. If charitable acts are quantified they're potential effect can be known before the donation is even given, and as said above this very knowledge incentivizes the donation to begin with.

If being real simply means to be apparent, then by definition "real charity" is a charity that is apparent by quantifying its impact. This means cutting out the ambiguous "x% donated to charity," and converting that into "$x does x amount of charitable acts." This makes charity real.

Overall, when charity is quantifiable its actionable, measurable, immersive, and overall more desirable.