Compassion and Capacity
Reaching far and near
I think we can all agree. There’s too much misery and injustice in the world for one human brain to handle. Thanks to the sophistication of technology, we can now learn about any and all of it with the touch of a button. Those of us over the age of 40 remember when world news was not so easy to access and came to us via a dial or a broadsheet newspaper delivered directly to the front door. It covered a limited range of events, people, and places. Then, it was something to talk about with family and friends, accompanied by hand-wringing and shaking of heads before we maybe sent a few dollars to help and moved on. It was, in other words, somewhat digestible.
Today we are exposed to a global 24-hour news cycle available (often unavoidable) no matter where we are or what we’re doing. We see inhumanities, natural disasters, battlegrounds, and the very worst of both man and nature. It can be overwhelming and make us feel helpless. So much need and so few ways for us as individuals to respond. The scope of suffering is beyond our capacity to help.
But humans were not designed to tackle the volume of tragedy and suffering we’re now exposed to on a daily basis. Our brains evolved to respond to situations we can realistically picture. We are (generally) a helpful species with a bounty of compassion that reaches far beyond personal and family environments. But along with our empathy, evolution delivered limits and boundaries.
The volume and scope of news we receive in a single day – most often accompanied by vivid images – is more than our brains were built to handle. Experts use terms like psychological numbing, empathy burnout, and compassion fade to describe our reactions to distant tragedies that involve large numbers of people. It’s not a new concept. In 1947 Joseph Stalin reportedly said, “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of millions is a statistic.”
I was curious about his claim and dug around for an explanation of why this response was adaptively favorable for the human race. Of course, researchers in several disciplines, from neuroscience to psychology and anthropology, have tackled the question and offered opinions.
An emotional disconnect from mega tragedies – like floods and earthquakes in distant locations – is well documented – as is our compassionate and generous response to a single child in danger and need. Behavioral scientists say we react more rapidly to individual tragedies and that, as the numbers of victims increase, compassion (and action) fade.
Researchers have also found a couple of tactics that impact decisions about donating to large disasters. Images of masses suffering a tragedy garner far fewer donations than a photo of a single victim of the same event. Still, we are wired to help people in need. It’s part of how we came to dominate the planet with both our good and bad decisions.
It’s easy to understand how hominids eventually emerged triumphant over time – instead of, say, dinosaurs and mastodons. At some time in the Lithic past, our distant relatives enhanced their group survival by helping each other. That developing instinct was limited in scope – a family, tribe, group – while similarly compassionate actions likely didn’t apply much outside that immediate realm. In fact, assisting outliers posed a risk to the core group. If Rog (precursor to Roger) of the Umph Clan went to the aid of Vlad (today’s Vladimir) from the Pah Clan and Rog was killed, his death would deprive the Umph Clan of a key source of survival. No more hunting or gathering or caretaking for his core tribe of early hominids. Massive compassion could have prevented us from getting to the point of creating TikTok or Twitter. Our species might still be clubbing Castoroides (eight-foot-long beavers) instead. The human brain was designed to promote survival within the parameters of critical relationships.
So, for most of us, not responding to events that don’t directly threaten us and ours is hardwired. Of course, as the smartest species on the planet, we can self-examine our reactions and choose (or not choose) to respond with active compassion – like sending a donation somewhere on the other side of the globe. Knowing this, people whose job it is to raise emergency funds are changing a few tactics. Among them is picturing an individual disaster victim rather than suffering masses and not overusing numbers that are far too big for comprehension – statistics don’t ring the bell of sympathy because most of us can’t visualize thousands of people and billions of dollars.
We’ve got six million years of evolution behind us – adaptations that helped us survive and dominate life on Earth. And along with the programming that protects us, we also inherited the ability to self-reflect and make choices not so native to our ancient species. And many people choose to do just that. They are driven by compassion and become global heroes – volunteering time, labor, money, and dedication to a cause. We cannot all step up in such intimate ways. We’re fully booked with families and obligations, and we may not have the financial resources.
I admit, I can feel guilty and sad for not responding to distant tragedies. But, we are not powerless to do good and positive acts close to home. Intentional acts of humanity: Help a neighbor, offer a kindness. Make that grumpy clerk at the supermarket smile. Counter the overwhelmingly negative by creating a positive moment for yourself and someone else. Small acts reassure us that we are neither helpless nor guilty - just human.
Thanks as always for spending your valuable time with me. I hope life is treating you gently. I’d love to hear your thoughts and ideas – contact me at darby@darbypatterson.com.
Please check out my Monumental Bronze Project HERE
And my 4.5+ Star reviewed Mystery book - The Song of Jackass Creek HERE