This is a story about how people came together to help a man in need, and there is nothing wrong about that. But I find it fascinating that a man without a car gets more of a social media and news presence than Boko Haram massacring the population of a small village, or the revamped malaria that is spreading across Africa. But why?

With the 21-mile Detroit native walker, people can relate to him and they think that they can make a difference. We have all been in that situation where we didn’t have the car, and we know it sucks. We can relate. Its an object that is prevalent if not down right ubiquitous in our society, and to see someone without this luxury, makes us feel for them.

In addition we want to feel like we are making a difference. Although we do have philanthropic intentions, subconsciously we want to feel like, as an individual, “I made a difference.” Whereas when you donate to a fund that helps with cancer research, or to help feed impoverished African children, we neither see the hype nor diligence that was displayed in the case of the 21-mile walker.

The combination of these two factors makes us as individuals more inclined to help those with similar and not as extreme problems. Our own ego is what is barring us from helping as much as we could for the larger problems we face as a society. This ego doesn’t have to be abolished, but has to morph into something that can promote this truly selfless form of philanthropy.

This is the problem with philanthropy today. We help where its convenient. Not out of ill will or the like, but rather a subconscious choice that we make that stems from ego-gratification. We want to feel good about ourselves. Helping someone where we can see the difference our efforts made is going to excite our internal reward system far more than making a minuscule contribution into a fund used to undertake large social change.

In addition, human empathy is extremely strong; sure we feel empathy when we see the state of affairs in Somalia (and the like), but its not nearly as strong as the human-to-human connection we feel when someone, for example, doesn’t have a car for work.

We need to somehow harness this empathy, and use it for large-scale social change.

My solution is an archaic take on how to solve large problems: divide and conquer. We can use empathy as a tool to help solve large scale problems by personalizing the nature of philanthropy itself. Lets take the example of hunger in Africa.

Ever since imperialism, the government in most of Africa has been unstable. It has been plagued with corruption and violence, but what else should we expect for those were the values on which imperial Africa was built (this is an issue that we’ll save for another time). Due to this instability, there isn’t rationing of food, or even the production of food, which leads to poverty and famine. The way we can help is by providing food, or more-so providing means for the natives to provide for themselves.

But this once again seems like it is a large fund created for general well being of people, which is once again impersonal. But if the organization were to, for example, send a picture of a child that it would help and establish means of contact to villages that have been helped by this effort, it will trigger the reward system in each individual who contributed. We see the change our donation has made on another individuals life, which is extremely powerful. This empathetic connection will lead to more and more donations as people feel good about this as they are helping those in need, and they feel good about themselves as their goodness of heart has lead to the drastic betterment of another individuals life.

Yes, all philanthropy is good, but because of the fast-paced world we live in today, we need to make sure we don’t stagnate, and still continue to up our game to fight the problems at hand.

If you enjoyed, please recommend and share!