Generosity

Christmas time is almost here. It could be called, you’ll forgive my broken English, the “generosity month”. All people around the world increase their charitable donations. During this particular month we have the need of feeling good. Donations have that effect, generosity has that effect.

Sadly it doesn’t apply to everyone, many donate just to impress their girlfriends, to impress their friends, to obtain favours, even jobs. Whereas I’m convinced the overwhelmingly majority of us donate for a genuine sense of altruism, generosity. To help those in need and to make the world a better place. Positive feelings that encourage more giving.

The more you give based on objective reasons, the more the positive sensation increases. On the contrary donating based on personal reasons (e.g. in memory of a relative) decreases that positive sensation, wherefore it’s note genuine generosity anymore but serves our personal relief, our individual suffering. I envy those who devote their lives to helping others, or those who take high-payed jobs merely to have a disposable income they can donate: there aren’t many of them around. It’s genuine selflessness replacing philanthropy-style kindness.

Of course there are evident tax-deductions benefits and very effective free advertisement in case of high-profile, like Elon Musk. Related to much higher benefits for poor people receiving the money, though.

But emotions reinforce kindness. Only when emotion, passion and empathy are added to philanthropy we have, in my view, evidence of a powerful altruism. Which otherwise would only be a positive but unnatural, distant, moral abstraction.

Scientists have also demonstrated that when emotion is involved makes altruism healthier. Because generous, kind behaviour and genuine concern for others reduce the stress and anxiety levels. It’s a win-win situation reducing suffering in the world. Just make sure who you’re donating to, I personally don’t trust worldwide organizations, but it’s just my opinion. The more directly you donate, the better. E.g. to a well known local missionary who collect the money and use it himself in a poor Country where it’s needed without being wasted.

If the feeling isn’t unnatural to you, try to be involved, to understand where the money you’re donating will be mostly needed and turn your empathy in that direction: the difference will be immense. Do not reduce your generosity, your values, merely to a generic goal-oriented action. Open your heart. Because giving in itself expresses our values and that link must be embraced, we must align with it.

It’s almost Christmas. Do yourself a favour by doing it for others.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Climate change

What will our children think? That we are a smart species or not? Should you smoke in your home, what will you do to clean the air: open the windows or stop smoking? We should find a similar solution for our planet, the sooner, the better, shouldn’t we? Here we go COP21. Don’t expect too much from it, though. No silver bullet, until our attitude will change, at least. But the change could begin right in Paris: stronger commitments and a shared sense of urgency.

Actually it should have changed back in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but little has happened since then nor during the following meetings. Emissions of greenhouse gases have risen with droughts, sea level rise and atmospheric temperatures rise. One thing has changed: in Rio there were 150 nations, now they are 196. Another difference is that we call this one “our last hope”, which reminds me of “There’s still HOPE!”. And so let’s hope it could mark a turning point.

Nothing can be taken for granted: think about Kyoto and Copenhagen. Lobbies are very powerful, opposing any action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Let’s not mention entire groups of politicians denying the scientific statements on climate change: they must know something we don’t (and have very large wallets).

The point is that a global problem requires a global solution, to find a global solution everyone must agree on that solution, i.e. we already have the impossibility to solve the problem. Wherefore poor nations haven’t contributed to present levels of pollution and don’t even want to hear about stopping burning fossil fuels (like India), as richer nations has never done it themselves.

The same frictions between industrialized nations and developing countries were already seen in Copenhagen. And even among richer nations there are strong oppositions: e.g. think about Republicans in America. It’s also true that 170 countries out of 196 have submitted pledges this time. Although evaluating those pledges scientists have already calculated that temperature increases will reach more than 4 degrees by the end of this century (I’m talking about Celsius, or more than 6 d. Fahrenheit). May I remind you that the limit is considered to be 2 degrees Celsius? Maybe scientists will be wrong (I’m not convinced about my sarcasm). As a matter of fact there are contradictions among individual (individual) scientists too.

Let’s also hope another thing: that those pledges are only the beginning and not the end. It’s very difficult for me to have faith because there are no plans for monitoring and reporting on emissions. It’s like having a law with no police.

Do you know what I really rely on instead? Future technology (which is already constantly improving) and basic economics 101: China is already realizing that the costs and negative health/social impact of pollution related issues are superior that the benefits deriving from production of goods supported by fossil fuels’ energy. If China is at a turning point as it seems to be, America will be obliged to follow. Fingers crossed and eyes on Paris.

Back to my initial question: what will our children think about us? I’ll leave the answer to you.

….Always humble,

Angiolino