Singer & Lindauer's philosophical argument for charitable giving

Peter Singer & Matthew Lindauer won a competition for the philosophical argument reading which causes people to donate more money to charity.

Their argument consists of a series of factual, not philosophical, propositions and concludes with two value judgments derivable from Utilitarianism.

Many people in poor countries suffer from a condition called trachoma. Trachoma is the major cause of preventable blindness in the world. Trachoma starts with bacteria that get in the eyes of children, especially children living in hot and dusty conditions where hygiene is poor. If not treated, a child with trachoma bacteria will begin to suffer from blurred vision and will gradually go blind, though this process may take many years. A very cheap treatment is available that cures the condition before blindness develops. As little as $25, donated to an effective agency, can prevent someone going blind later in life.
How much would you pay to prevent your own child becoming blind? Most of us would pay $25,000, $250,000, or even more, if we could afford it. The suffering of children in poor countries must matter more than one-thousandth as much as the suffering of our own child. That’s why it is good to support one of the effective agencies that are preventing blindness from trachoma, and need more donations to reach more people.

The problem here is that the 'factual' statements don't support Utilitarianism which does not distinguish between human beings no matter how they were produced or what purpose they will pursue in life.

Poor countries have too many poor people who are making babies who are going to be very very poor. That isn't a good thing. The right thing to do is to invest money so that rural girls get to move to factory dormitories and go on to have just one or two kids who will get good health care, nutrition, and education. Sadly, such investments will be profitable. Even if profits are repatriated, local Collective insurance and 'club good' provision boosts property values. A snobby vernacular middle class comes into existence. The more retarded of their scions end up as Professors of shite subjects clamoring for the overthrow of the entire Social System which spared them trachoma growing up.

It is not good to support virtue signalling cretins. "Effective Agencies' cook the books to make out that they are doing a billion dollars worth of good with just a 99 cent contribution. Why not simply sell indulgences? For just a thousand dollars down you can escape 9,999,999,999,999,999 billions of years in Hell with a red hot poker shoved up your bum.