My readers know that people are nothing but selfish animals with morality closer to moral nihilism than perfect total utilitarianism. What about when redistributed wealth (for example, the US government) can do little to save millions? Saving people from dying? People say no!
This all stems from our evolutionary equipment driven by nothing but selfish genes.
Saving millions of Jews from dying? It would enrage Americans
Homo sapiens have often demonstrated an extraordinary ability to compartmentalize human suffering. Historical events like the Holocaust serve as stark reminders of this indifference. Millions of Jews, along with other targeted groups, were systematically murdered under the Nazi regime. Yet, the global reaction at the time was disturbingly muted. The United States, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, did not wage war to save the Jews. While the atrocities were widely known, they were not the primary motivators for military intervention. Instead, geopolitical strategy, national security, and the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized the U.S. into action. Human lives, reduced to statistics, became collateral in the calculus of war.
While Franklin D. Roosevelt would have been glad to wage a reasonable war, people would starkly opposed it.
This is also notable because the Jewish clientelism in the US could have made POTUS to wage war on Germany and save the Jews.
You kill 3000, we cause 4,5 million people to die
This pattern is not unique to World War II. Fast-forward to the 21st century and the War on Terror. Following the September 11 attacks, the United States launched a series of military campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond. Ostensibly, these wars were fought to combat terrorism and ensure national security. However, the human cost was staggering. Civilian casualties in these regions numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and estimates of total deaths from these conflicts—including indirect effects like disease, displacement, and infrastructure collapse—reach up to 4.5 million. Yet, these figures failed to ignite widespread outrage or meaningful action from the public.
The U.S. presidents during this era faced limited options, constrained by political pressures, military-industrial interests, and a public more concerned with domestic stability than foreign casualties. For most Americans, the War on Terror was an abstract concept, far removed from their daily lives. The suffering of civilians in the Middle East was often portrayed as an unfortunate but necessary side effect of the fight against terrorism. This framing, combined with a lack of vivid coverage of the human toll, allowed the public to remain largely indifferent.
Politics, the super-rich and gross indifference
This is not to equate the Holocaust with the War on Terror directly but to highlight a recurring theme: human lives are often secondary to political, economic, or strategic goals. The dehumanization of victims – whether through propaganda, indifference, or sheer scale – allows such tragedies to unfold with limited resistance. People are reduced to abstract concepts, far removed from the everyday lives of decision-makers and the public.
This tendency reveals uncomfortable truths about Homo sapiens as a species. While capable of immense compassion on an individual level, humans often fail to translate this into collective action. Emotional detachment from distant suffering allows for the perpetuation of atrocities. Whether it’s the Jewish victims of the Holocaust or the civilian casualties of modern warfare, the same mechanism is at play. The human mind prioritizes what is immediate, personal, and emotionally resonant. Faceless masses on the other side of the world do not stir the same urgency.
Saving people from dying? Not in Rwandan genocide
History is replete with examples of this moral failing. During the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, the international community largely stood by as nearly a million people were slaughtered.
The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 exposed humanity’s darkest tendencies and the world’s failure to act. In just 100 days, nearly one million Tutsi and moderate Hutu were massacred by Hutu extremists, driven by ethnic hatred and political manipulation. Rooted in colonial history, divisions imposed by Belgian rule deepened resentment, setting the stage for violence after independence.
When the killings began, the international community largely turned away. Despite clear warnings and media reports, powerful nations avoided intervention, prioritizing their own interests. The United Nations, constrained by a limited mandate, withdrew peacekeepers, leaving civilians defenseless. The use of the word “genocide” was deliberately avoided to sidestep legal obligations under the Genocide Convention.
Rwanda was left to rebuild alone. Though it has made remarkable progress, the genocide remains a haunting reminder of the consequences of indifference. It underscores the need for global accountability and a commitment to act decisively to prevent future atrocities. “Never again” must become more than an empty promise.
Again, geopolitical interests took precedence over humanitarian concerns. The same could be said for countless other conflicts, from Bosnia to Yemen. The excuses vary – lack of resources, political complexities, or ignorance – but the result remains the same. Suffering continues, unchallenged by those with the power to intervene. Saving people from dying shows enormous indifference.
The 2 % of US GDP could make difference. No!
The plight of billions of people who lack access to basic necessities like clean water, food, and medical care is one of the greatest failures of modern civilization. In a world of technological marvels and unprecedented wealth, the existence of such widespread suffering is a glaring contradiction. Every year, millions die from preventable diseases, malnutrition, and a lack of clean water. Children are particularly vulnerable, with countless lives lost before they even have the chance to experience adulthood.
The statistics are staggering. Over 2 billion people lack access to safe drinking water, according to the World Health Organization. Hunger affects more than 700 million people globally, with hundreds of thousands dying annually from starvation and related illnesses. Meanwhile, nearly half the world’s population lacks access to essential medical services. This suffering is not an inevitability but a consequence of structural inequities and deliberate policy choices.
Just 2 % of GDP
Consider the role of the United States, a country whose GDP surpasses $26 trillion. The U.S. government currently spends about 0.17% of its GDP on international aid, far below what is needed to make a significant impact. If the U.S. were to allocate just 2% of its GDP – roughly $520 billion annually – to global humanitarian efforts, the outcomes could be transformative.
With $520 billion a year, clean water infrastructure could be expanded to reach every corner of the globe. Estimates suggest that providing universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation would cost approximately $150 billion over five years. A mere fraction of the 2% allocation could end the water crisis entirely.
In terms of hunger, the United Nations has calculated that ending world hunger would require an additional $330 billion annually. This figure aligns closely with the hypothetical U.S. contribution. Imagine a world where no child goes to bed hungry, where food insecurity is eradicated not just temporarily but permanently. With advanced agricultural technologies and global distribution networks, such a vision is within reach.
Lacking healthcare
Healthcare is another area where such funding could save millions of lives. Universal access to basic medical care in low- and middle-income countries would cost around $370 billion annually. This includes vaccinations, maternal healthcare, and treatments for preventable diseases like malaria and tuberculosis. By reallocating just a fraction of military or corporate subsidies, the U.S. could become a leader in global health, ensuring that no one dies for lack of treatment.
Critics might argue that such spending is unrealistic or unsustainable. However, consider the trillions spent on military operations and defense budgets – expenditures that often exacerbate global instability rather than resolve it. Redirecting just a small portion of these funds toward humanitarian causes would yield immeasurable benefits, not just for the recipients but for global stability and prosperity. Nations with healthier, better-educated populations are less likely to become breeding grounds for extremism or conflict.
Saving people from dying: Humanity lost
The moral argument is equally compelling. If the wealthiest nation on Earth cannot commit to alleviating preventable suffering, what does that say about our collective humanity? The resources exist, as do the technologies and the logistical capabilities. What is lacking is the political will and public demand to prioritize lives over profits, compassion over indifference.
History teaches us that transformative change is possible when societies choose to act. The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe after World War II, demonstrating the power of coordinated investment. A similar global initiative could address today’s most pressing humanitarian crises, ensuring that no one dies from lack of water, food, or medicine in the 21st century.
The potential impact of such a commitment cannot be overstated. Universal access to clean water could eliminate millions of deaths from waterborne diseases. Eradicating hunger would create generations of healthier, more productive individuals. Providing basic healthcare would save countless lives while reducing the economic burden of disease. The ripple effects would benefit not only the recipients but the entire global community, fostering stability, economic growth, and a sense of shared humanity.
Saving people from dying is not a utopian dream but a practical solution grounded in available resources and proven methods. The U.S. government has the means to lead such an initiative. The question is whether it has the will. Until humanity decides to prioritize life over political expediency, the suffering will continue, an indictment of a species capable of so much more.
You kill someone, it is bad. Not helping doesn’t mind
Humans evolved in small, primitive tribes where survival required tough decisions. Killing someone in the tribe was dangerous. It disrupted trust, provoked retaliation, and weakened group cohesion. Evolution punished such acts. The tribe needed cooperation, not chaos, so humans developed a deep aversion to direct harm.
Not helping, though, carried fewer consequences. Sharing resources with someone outside the immediate circle could drain what little the tribe had. Helping everyone indiscriminately risked personal survival. Evolution favored those who prioritized themselves, their kin, and their group. Indifference became a practical strategy. This explains why humans often feel less urgency about inaction than direct harm.
Tribal life also reinforced a strict ingroup-outgroup dynamic. Helping kin or allies made sense – it boosted the odds of shared genes surviving. Helping outsiders did not. Outgroups competed for resources and posed threats. Cruelty or indifference toward them wasn’t just tolerated; it was sometimes necessary. These instincts shaped human morality, making it tribal and selective.
We are animals
Today, humans still bear the legacy of those instincts. In a globalized world, this often looks like moral failure. People care deeply about immediate harm but feel detached from distant suffering. A neighbor’s pain provokes action, but millions starving elsewhere barely register. Evolution didn’t prepare humans to empathize with faceless masses. The brain prioritizes what feels personal and immediate.
This tribal mindset explains why direct killing feels so wrong while inaction often seems excusable. Not helping doesn’t break the deep-seated norms humans evolved to follow. Even now, humans behave as if resources remain scarce. They hoard wealth and hesitate to share, even when they have plenty.
But humans also have the power to rise above these instincts. Unlike their ancestors, people today can imagine abstract futures and build moral systems beyond survival strategies. Expanding empathy to include strangers and distant groups requires effort. It demands deliberate choices, education, and new cultural norms.
Humans inherited a practical cruelty from their tribal past. It helped them survive, but it no longer serves the modern world. Recognizing this truth allows people to confront it. With awareness and action, they can create a morality that fits the interconnected, abundant reality of today.
Saving people from dying: Not only selfish genes but IQ plays a role
The IQ of the general population plays a critical role in how effectively government money can be used to help others. Higher average IQ among common people benefits society in several ways when it comes to allocating resources for humanitarian efforts.
First, higher IQ enhances understanding. When people can grasp the complexity of global problems like hunger or healthcare shortages, they are more likely to support government spending aimed at solving these issues. They can connect their tax dollars to meaningful outcomes and see the long-term benefits of such investments, which increases public support.
Second, higher IQ improves decision-making. People with better cognitive abilities are less likely to fall for misinformation or emotional manipulation. They evaluate policies based on evidence rather than slogans, making them more likely to back programs that are genuinely effective. This ensures that governments are held accountable for how they allocate resources.
Science and data
Third, it fosters trust in science and data. A population with higher IQ is more likely to respect expert opinions and support evidence-based policies. Whether it’s funding vaccinations, building water infrastructure, or creating social safety nets, they are less swayed by ideological biases and more willing to embrace solutions grounded in research.
Fourth, higher IQ promotes long-term thinking. People who can consider future consequences are more likely to support investments in sustainable solutions, even if the benefits aren’t immediate. For example, they may favor funding renewable energy, education, or global aid, recognizing that these efforts reduce suffering and instability over time.
Fifth, a smarter population can better engage in civic action. They ask informed questions, demand transparency, and advocate for policies that prioritize helping others. This creates pressure on governments to spend money responsibly and focus on programs that deliver real results.
Lastly, higher IQ reduces resistance to redistribution. People who understand the economic and social benefits of reducing inequality are less likely to oppose taxation or public spending on humanitarian causes. They see how these investments strengthen societies and improve everyone’s quality of life, not just those in need.
Low-IQ people show less altruism
In contrast, a population with lower average IQ may struggle to grasp complex issues or long-term benefits. This can lead to skepticism, opposition, or apathy toward government programs aimed at helping others. Misinformation spreads more easily, and support for impactful policies weakens, allowing resources to be misallocated or wasted.
Ultimately, higher IQ among common people creates a foundation for a more compassionate and effective society. When the general population understands and supports the responsible use of government money, it becomes far easier to address global challenges and ensure that resources are used to save lives and improve conditions for all.
Conclusion
The recurring theme of human indifference to suffering reveals profound flaws in our species’ collective morality. From historical atrocities like the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide to ongoing global challenges like hunger and healthcare shortages, the evidence is clear: Homo sapiens, shaped by tribal instincts and selfish genes, prioritize personal and immediate concerns over distant suffering.
Evolutionary survival strategies favored selective compassion, making indifference to outgroup suffering an adaptive trait. This legacy lingers in modern societies, where abstract suffering often fails to elicit action. Even with the wealth, technology, and knowledge to alleviate preventable suffering, humanity consistently falls short. Whether it is the reluctance to commit a fraction of GDP to global aid or the limited outrage over millions of war casualties, the same pattern emerges—apathy triumphs over compassion.
However, the modern world offers tools to transcend these instincts. Expanding empathy through education, fostering trust in science, and promoting long-term thinking are achievable steps. Higher IQ populations tend to better grasp complex issues, support effective policies, and resist misinformation. This highlights the role of intelligence in fostering a more altruistic and effective society.
The challenge lies in recognizing these truths and committing to a moral evolution. Humanity has the capacity to rewrite its instincts, prioritizing global well-being over outdated survival strategies. Until then, the inaction that permits unnecessary suffering will remain a damning indictment of a species capable of much more. Saving people from dying is not a utopian dream – it is a test of our collective humanity. So far, we are failing.
Leave a Reply