It’s easy to get upset watching the news. But why? It has nothing to do with you. It’s not real. It’s just a story occurring out there somewhere that is definitely slanted. You’ll never know the whole truth unless you reallly dig into the story.
Now and then we see articles with interesting headlines, such as
100 Million More People Will Be In Poverty By 2030
Without Action On Climate, World Bank Says
That appeared on Nov 8, 2015 in the Huffington Post. Laura Barron-Lopez wrote this wholly fictional article.
It didn’t take much digging to find out she was lying. The fatuous author had a link to a World Bank press release which said the exact opposite of her story. Here’s the World Bank headline:
World Bank Forecasts Global Poverty to Fall Below 10% for First Time; Major Hurdles Remain in Goal to End Poverty by 2030
So instead of poverty increasing due to cllimate change, the World Bank says poverty is decreasing and may even be ended by 2030. I know it’s not nice to call someone a liar. And maybe she meant well. I mean, we are all against climate change and poverty, so maybe we should just give her a pass. NO WAY!
People who ignore reality, make up stories to suit their political ends are just idiots who do nothing to advance solutions. Here’s more from the World Bank story:
The World Bank projects that global poverty will have fallen from 902 million people or 12.8 per cent of the global population in 2012 to 702 million people, or 9.6 per cent of the global population, this year.
World Bank president says in World Bank press release dated October 4, 2015:
“This is the best story in the world today — these projections show us that we are the first generation in human history that can end extreme poverty,’’ Kim said. “This new forecast of poverty falling into the single digits should give us new momentum and help us focus even more clearly on the most effective strategies to end extreme poverty. It will be extraordinarily hard, especially in a period of slower global growth, volatile financial markets, conflicts, high youth unemployment, and the growing impact of climate change. But it remains within our grasp, as long as our high aspirations are matched by country-led plans that help the still millions of people living in extreme poverty.”
I’ve experienced some stark poverty in my life and I want to end it, as I know you do. But I am getting more and more fed up with those who would destroy our ecosystems just to put a few more dollars in their pockets–even if they are poor.
In Kenya, poor villages live near wild animal reserves. I helped Kathekani and surrounding villages plan a cooperative poultry production enterprise to supply meat to the resorts at the biggest reserve, the Tsavo National Park.
On the weekends the cooperative president took me to visit the reserve to look at the elephants, zebras, giraffes and try to find a rhino. We spent all of one day driving around the rhino reserve and encountered a dozen or so rangers, but none of the endangered black rhino. I finallly called it quits so we could get out of the reserve before dark.
Another day we visited Mzima Springs which has a resident population of hippos. After I enjoyed watching the hippos, the president told me of his belief that the water from the spring was being wasted on the animals and should be diverted to help his villages irrigate their crops.
Later in the trip he convinced me his family was in dire need of food and got me to give him money. When I got back to Nairobi, I found out he is one of the richest men in his village.
Meadowcreek is a nonprofit organization and benefits from the same altruism which led me to help this cooperative and give money to a rich man. Many researchers contend that we all have an innate need to help others. They cite scads of supporting studies.
I’m not so sure that all societies instill altruism equally. I visited Malawi in Central Africa to do an assessment for a rural development project. There I found that all the hospitals were mostly staffed by nurses from Europe. They trained dozens of Malawians as nurses every year. The Malawians mostly left the country to take jobs in Europe and the US.
I still enjoy traveling to underdeveloped countries to help them improve themselves, but I think we might have taken altruism a little too far in the US and Europe.
In 1858, a German philosopher noted the need for a new term: empathy. An empathetic person is someone who can share another person’s feelings. If you tell an empathetic person that your heart is broken, she might touch her own heart and gaze at you sadly through moist eyes.
I wonder why it took so long for the term to be invented. Maybe because people have to have a lot of free time and be raised in a basically all-Christian society for empathy to arise.
Some of us do help others in need out of genuine concern for the well-being of the other person. If we feel the other’s pain or need, we will help the other, regardless of what we can gain from it. This directly contradicts the standard model of evolution, but seems to work for a variety of charities.
When I left my small town for college I did have a little too much of this empathy/altruism. I learned that some people will just take and take and take. As long as you are willing to give. So I try not to run myself ragged trying to help everyone I see anymore.
I think the nine parts Moses: one part Jesus approach works best. You may have heard of it. It combines turn the other cheek and eye for an eye. Say you are working to improve some situation. Everyone has something they can give, even those you are trying to help. If they are willing to give to help a joint effort, I gladly give. I even give willingly now and then when they don’t give. But if they consistently refuse to give, I do too. If if they change heart, I start giving again immediately. These simple rules have been shown time and time again to result in the highest levels of productivity in cooperative and competitive situations.
I try not to let my overdeveloped empathy/altruism get out of control. I wish everyone was altruistic, but I know some aren’t. Some folks are great at making you feel sorry for them or their cause. But they are in it for themselves. They take advantage of your altruism for their own selfish goals.
The same occurs with some minority groups. They take advantage of the altruism of the larger society by making us feel sorry or even guilty for them and their cause. Yet they aren’t interested in giving, but only taking. Time to apply the nine parts Moses approach.
Doing that with other people is tough enough. What’s really tough is applying it to natural ecosystems. Hippos are seldom going to be altruistic toward humans. Should we be empathetic/altruistic toward them? What about when their needs conflict with the needs and desires of people?
I wanted to tell the cooperative president that the Mzima spring water shouldn’t be diverted to crop fields while the hippos died of thirst. I didn’t. It’s pretty tough to be accused of putting animals above people.
But from a resilience perspective, humans can’t survive without a healthy ecosystem. We need other species to increase our own resilience. Do we really need the hippo, the rhino, the giraffe, the zebra? Or should they all be sacrificed so people can have more productive fields or more and more children.
It’s a tough question when you are trying to help some really poor people in Africa survive in a parched land and the animal reserve has plenty of fresh water. But I vote for the wild.