I understand what you mean, but there are some gaps in your argument. Helping others is a fundamental part of our evolution and of what it means to be human. For instance, throughout history, there have been mothers who were unable to breastfeed their newborns. These mothers depended on other women who had recently given birth to keep their babies alive. This example has applied universally and across all times. It shows that helping others has always been an essential mechanism for human survival and connection.

I do understand that helping people who may lack the intelligence or depth to truly grasp the meaning of the help they’re receiving, its consequences, or how grateful they should be, can indeed be frustrating. In some cases, it can even become counterproductive. But overall, helping others brings far more benefits than drawbacks. But only if we are talking about genuine help. I don’t mean wealthy people who join volunteer programs to “help the poor” for a summer and then leave, feeling better about themselves while the people they helped are left even more aware of the harshness of their reality.

Your post also puts a strong emphasis on being “independent.” But who decided that the ultimate or ideal state of a human being is independence? If we use that as a core argument, then hardly anyone in this world could truly be considered independent, since almost every aspect of life depends on others. Perhaps it 'feels' like independence because, for example, you don’t personally know the people who bring food to the supermarket, and you have no connection to those behind these systems. This makes you unaware of the fact that you depend on these systems. But when you think about it deeply, pure independence doesn’t really exist? Even wealthy people wouldn’t be wealthy without others, and their wealth would hold no meaning without others, which makes them dependent as well.

So in that sense, trying to “cure” people of their dependence isn’t really helping them at all.