Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Compassion vs Wisdom Re: Charity
Chrysalid
Veteran
A more conservative person I work with was ranting away yesterday as per usual, most of the time I ignore what he says, but somehow the subject moved to a topic that was quite interesting to me, giving money to charity - specifically charities like WaterAid.
His argument was that while giving money to people in Africa is an act born from good intentions, in the end it causes more suffering.
He argued that the reason people in certain places in Africa needed charities like WaterAid or events like BandAid was because they had overpopulated areas of the world that simply couldn't support them, there aren't the water sources nor the arable land for growing food required to sustain a large human population. By giving them money/food/supplies we may temporarily improve their lives, but in the long-term we are actually harming them by facilitating their settlement of unsuitable land. Instead, he suggested that the people should either re-locate to regions better suited to human settlement, or be allowed to stabilise their population to a level that the land they are already on can sustain.
He dismissed my arguments to the contrary as coming from a purely emotional perspective. And to be honest, I am having trouble finding fault in his reasoning. I mean, ultimately he's right, the population does need stabilising to suit the environment through birth control etc, and the same argument can be made for places all over the world. There is obvious wisdom in what he says but it is utterly devoid of sympathy or compassion for the people in their current situation.
What are your thoughts on this?
His argument was that while giving money to people in Africa is an act born from good intentions, in the end it causes more suffering.
He argued that the reason people in certain places in Africa needed charities like WaterAid or events like BandAid was because they had overpopulated areas of the world that simply couldn't support them, there aren't the water sources nor the arable land for growing food required to sustain a large human population. By giving them money/food/supplies we may temporarily improve their lives, but in the long-term we are actually harming them by facilitating their settlement of unsuitable land. Instead, he suggested that the people should either re-locate to regions better suited to human settlement, or be allowed to stabilise their population to a level that the land they are already on can sustain.
He dismissed my arguments to the contrary as coming from a purely emotional perspective. And to be honest, I am having trouble finding fault in his reasoning. I mean, ultimately he's right, the population does need stabilising to suit the environment through birth control etc, and the same argument can be made for places all over the world. There is obvious wisdom in what he says but it is utterly devoid of sympathy or compassion for the people in their current situation.
What are your thoughts on this?
0
Comments
You could also tell him that in the short run some people get food and water and that there are also efforts to make birth control and family planning more widespread. Perhaps he could donate to the latter and someone else can donate to a cause dear to them.
Nevertheless, we in the West carry a heavy responsibility for the rape of Africa, not just in the past but also today in imposing cash crops and low prices for labour and resources. We can think of the damage done by Shell in Nigeria and just one among many examples.
Additionally, as you, dear Chrysalid, live as do I in the UK, we have a number of extremely effective charities which address our own disinherited. I would recommend the Vicar's Fund of Saint Martin's in the Fields which has helped thousands over the years and is about the launch its 9th decade of appeals on Radio 4. Your curmudgeonly colleague can rant about that when he, too, has lived on the streets for a while!
My thoughts are that this is not an 'either/or' situation.
You cannot have Compassion without Wisdom.
And it's perfectly ok to have the view that the population does need stabilising to suit the environment through birth control etc, and the same argument can be made for places all over the world. But you can still develop and cultivate compassion for those born and stuck in those circumstances.
They didn't ask for this.
Education programmes are in place with regard to birth control and environmental issues.
But people in third world countries have been popping kids out like peas as a life insurance.
The life expectancy of the young is short, and life is hazardous. They always thought they had to have at least six children to guarantee at least two to adulthood.
Now that the West and associated charities are improving conditions by "teaching a man to fish" large families are not so necessary. but it's a hard lesson to teach, especially as many of the charities there are religiously-founded, and procreation, and 'going forth and multiplying' is the message therein.
The Pope, remember, condemns the use of contraception.
And just how do you fight a population growth that's out of hand, without resorting to contraception.....?
it's a difficult situation to balance, of course it is.
But why should compassion get in the way of Wisdom?
Look at it this way -
we are taught that a hardened criminal deserves justice, and the full weight of the law to exert a punishment according to the social legislation in place.
but as a human being, he merits compassion as much as any other being.
It's the same in this situation.
we may disagree with what's going on out there - but that's no cause to be conditional with our compassion.
Wisdom and compassion are as the two wings of a dove. One wing cannot function without the other.
in symmetry and balance, the bird can soar.
I don't really see how his solution to the problem of just letting people get sick and die (depopulation) causes less suffering...do you?
I think in the end both of your actions don't solve a problem but at least your actions are compassionate.
Give of yourself unceasingly.
Whatever form the giving takes,
If the giving come from the selfless source
The benefit is incalculable.
盈 fill; full, overflowing; surplus
淵 gulf, abyss, deep
兮 exclamatory particle
It's amazing how the properly chosen words can take all the humanity out of a statement. Your "facilitating their settlement of unsuitable land" is another way of saying, "helping them survive for another day in a drought stricken land". They're not "settling", they're already there and trying to survive another day. And "relocate"? Where are these people supposed to relocate to? Land better suited to human settlement is, you know, already settled by humans who won't appreciate a million refuges showing up and asking for a place to live. It's called permanent refuge status. All this is already taking place.
And the kicker is "allowed to stabilize their population". That's a fancy way of saying allow most of them to starve and die of disease. Not so acceptable a statement when real words are used, is it?
His statement is exactly like you said, devoid of compassion. The words are carefully chosen to avoid refering to an individual. People starve to death, but populations "stabilize".
The answer is, it's not an either/or sort of thing. It's not help those suffering today instead of solving long term problems. It's help those suffering today, while doing what we can to also solve the long term problems.
Oh, and my answer would probably be, "Great! While you work on solving the long term hunger problem, I'll work on helping the people who are hungry today!"
The idea of 'resettlement' has been the solution of the powerful over centuries. In our own history, we have reduced the North American nations to penury thereby and created the Israel/Palestine conundrum. Any such suggestion is not only lacking in compassion, it is positively demonic.
I could not agree more with you, Cinorjer: "help those suffering today, while doing what we can to also solve the long term problems." As so many of the long-term problems are structural and the result of the 'developed' countries' greed for resources, and will require us to reduce our own consumption, the way ahead is likely to be pretty hard.