okay, i think it's my turn for a topic, and it seems like we're done with the macabre-ness, so here's what i've got:
I won’t pretend that this post isn’t influenced by the san diego wildfires. I was struck by the orderliness of the evacuations and the dedication of volunteers to aid evacuees and fire victims – at one point qualcomm stadium (the main evacuation location) asked that no more food donations be brought there, as they had more than enough and were having to throw away uneaten hot food after mealtimes. several people made the comparison between that and the superdome. there were no killings at qualcomm, no robberies that anyone heard of, no waiting four days for someone else to bring water. unorganized people organized themselves to the point where there was a makeshift hospital at the stadium. volunteer doctors and nurses ran basic triage and were in communication with ambulances for anyone in an emergency. other patients were taken to donated cots or donated chairs and given treatment with donated medical supplies. a young man called a local radio station to announce that he and his friend had brewed up 14 gallons of coffee and would be serving it at section b2 of the stadium. a family with 4 children was interviewed on the news – the father said that the kids were being entertained by games, tv, even a clown! many, many people and organizations announced via radio that they were able to house people and/or animals (i.e. “I have three acres of fenced in grass on my ranch that is available for any large animals that have been evacuated. Please call…”). so I’m thinking about all this and wondering what prompts people to do these things? to go so far out of their way to help those in need?
I took part in a debate once in a psychology class regarding pure altruism: does it really exist. for context, this was at byu, so there were religious elements involved in the discussion. the “there is such a thing as a purely altruistic act” side’s main argument involved examples of people providing church service (proselytizing, etc.). my side argued that those people who proselyte (at least purportedly) believe that they will be rewarded in heaven for such acts, and thus are not likely to do the service without at least considering the reward. I didn’t believe that true altruism existed for a long time, but both the outpouring of help from the san diego community, and (I’m sure this is odd, but whatever!) the recent you-tube battle of kruger - among lions, a croc, and a herd of water buffalo (watch it at www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM) have shaken that lack of belief. the buffalo attacking lions made me consider instinctive protection of the young of a species, which could be construed as altruism to an extent, if one considers altruism to be defined as “action taken without hope of personal gain”. personal – as in to each individual buffalo. the species as a whole would benefit, but not each buffalo. in the same line of thinking, there are humans who make extraordinary efforts to protect children.
but not all the san diegans receiving help were children.
so, did people help out just so they could meet the governor? to put on their resume? because they were bored? I know that there are several reasons, but thinking about them makes me want to retry the debate: is there such a thing as a purely altruistic act? what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I like this.
I just read a book of meditations by Mother Teresa. After the death of Diana and Mother Teresa shortly thereafter it always is that the popular culture remembers more fondly the celebrity of the 2.
Is it not altruistic to serve the poor because of a belief in a higher power, because it is the right thing to do, to serve those who need? The servant only has faith that the reward will come in heaven, they are not doing it probably for personal gain, as they only believe something will be in the end, there is no certainly, muchless a certainty that what they merit will ever be in equal comparison to what they gave, such as mother teresa.
sure altruism can exist in spurts. It feels good to do the right thing, to put someone else before oneself. I don't think it is so amazing to do one or two kind acts. But show a life dedicated to that, well that is amazing.
Its hard not to notice the stark contrast of what happened with Katrina, I remember the governor and mayor reporting from helicopters reporting what they were seeing...and the horror stories of what happened in the superdome. What a horrible mess that was. I am curious to know why there is this crazy stark contrast between these two disasters. Why is that?
i don't follow. how are future blessings not personal gain? if one truly believes that service on earth will result in some kind of reward in the afterlife, how can that not be seen as a benefit? serve, get blessings; don't serve, don't get blessings... and i do condition this on belief - if one doesn't believe in an afterlife they wouldn't be affected at all by such a claim.
and then you say that "it feels good" to do something nice. feeling good is, at least to some extent, a personal gain. do people do nice things sometimes when it won't make them feel good, when it won't do anything at all for their benefit?
and regarding the difference between qualcomm and the superdome...
i attribute the difference to three points (among, i am sure many others):
1) san diego houses many military families. those on military bases, especially overseas, learn to depend on each other for support. i am a firsthand witness to how great it is to be welcomed into a community with an escort to lodging and a hot meal. i believe that the influence from so many military families in the area has spilled over and caused some non-military people to behave in a similar manner.
2) san diego is the most suburban city i have ever seen. "downtown" san diego is relatively small, considering the size of the population - most san diegans live in suburb after suburb after suburb... neighborhoods foster a much closer community connection than city blocks. i believe this also influenced the sense of community and caring that was evident after the fires.
3) a much smaller percentage of san diegans are on welfare than new orleansians. san diegans are more entrepenurial - go out and get it, rather than welfare people - someone else get it for me. i think that self-empowerment made people take care of their own issues first, and then the confidence from that accomplishment helped them to want to help others as well.
and that goes back to the altruism question...
Well, let's also remember that the Superdome was in the heart of the disaster area, and that there was no population left in the city to help those out who went there. The building was flooding, and there were insufficient supplies for those who stayed there. There also weren't any murders in the Superdome during Katrina. When a large number of the people who were staying in the Superdome were evacuated to the Astrodome here in Houston, there was a lot of altruism similar to that Linda described in San Diego. So I don't really think it has to do with the people, per se, but just the situations of each evacuation. I'll post my opinions on community in a couple hours in my own post.
Qualified reciprocal altruism is the everyday stuff that communities are made of. But the idea of "pure" altruism is problematic: in order for the relationship between the altruist and the receiver of said altruism to be free of the taint of self-interested economic calculation, it would have to be essentially random or meaningless (free of reciprocity). If there's no reciprocity (if no one can put it on their resume) then the feedback process by which metastable complexity emerges (growth) is thwarted. Which means, I think, that pure altruism is less socially useful than limited reciprocal altruism.
Or maybe not. I'm just surfing here.
Sorry, maybe "valuable" is a better term than "useful."
Post a Comment