On January 12, in a country distant from most of our homes, hundreds of thousands of lives were tragically disrupted by an earthquake. In a matter of minutes, buildings collapsed, trapping thousands under the rubble. Within hours, television networks around the world began reporting the first sobering details of the quake, broadcasting images of people we have never met struggling to merely survive. Anchors and pundits rightly decried the suffering of foreign souls.
Despite Haiti’s distance from our shores and the apparent lack of interaction with the majority of Americans, our government and populace quickly and efficiently went to the aid of the Caribbean nation: Seven naval ships were mobilized, 100 million dollars were pledged, and two former presidents joined Obama in rallying America to come to Haiti’s aid. Though most Americans have never set foot in Haiti, their dollars and prayers are arriving in a downpour. The men and women all over the world, and in the United States in particular, have taken it upon themselves to care for Haiti. This is puzzling.
Why is it that despite most Americans’ distance (physical and relational) from Haiti, they are more than willing to open their wallets to help its citizens recover? Why, when life at home has plenty of its own difficulties and expenses, should anyone make sacrifices for people who will never be able to personally thank them or benefit them in return? Surely it isn’t merely because of some celebrity’s involvement or Obama’s rhetoric. What could be the impetus?
Perhaps as humans we possess something that is too valuable to see being destroyed—some trait that is set apart and treasured by people of every nationality and creed. In instances such as this earthquake, when we all witness the brutal abuse of individuals who share this spark of humanity, our collective response is to desire to preserve, and to heal whatever damage has been done. No matter the cost, the situation must be stopped and rectified, and the dignity of the victims must be resurrected by any and all means. Thus we see heartfelt and awe-inspiring responses like the past weeks, when people act in such a way that presents the world with uncompromised cherishing of the human spirit.
Though such an explanation may seem like a given, the reasons for altruism remain hotly debated. I disagree with those academics like Adrian Bell who claim that altruism is in fact just an attempt to preserve human genetic diversity. They argue that because of the evolutionary benefits of caring for other members of a species, it would only make sense that humans would want to assist other humans in need. Though I am no geneticist, the prospect of a gene encouraging this sort of behavior for people we’ve never encountered appears to credit genes with the ability to abstractly consider foreign gene pools. Put in more blatant Darwinian language, the continued survival of the Haitian people does not benefit the average human in an evolutionary sense. In fact, one could just as easily argue that in evolutionary terms, it may be more relatively advantageous to preserve ourselves and ignore competing communities.
Other explanations of altruism may look to political and economic causes. I find these even less applicable to the Haitian situation. From a political standpoint, a recovered Haiti does not obviously benefit the United States. Whether the government there is strong or weak, Haiti will not make a large difference in political life in America. Economically, the case is even weaker. Before the earthquake, Haiti was by no means a significant trade partner with America, and its recovery probably wouldn’t lead to any noticeable economic advantage. The fact that our assistance as a nation will actually be an economic strain compellingly disputes the idea that we will benefit somehow. President Obama’s pledge of $100 million in aid is not an investment—it’s a gift for the struggling Haitian people.
I believe the motivation has nothing to do with what the Haitian people can do for us, or even what we can do for them. Instead, it’s about a unique aspect of humanity at stake. When that exceptional quality is violated, whether near or far, in enemies or friends, something of critical and universal value is tampered with. The only natural reaction is to desire to end the suffering, even if it requires sacrifice on our part. What we have seen over the past weeks has not been a reaction to a loss of a gene pool, a trading partner, or a political ally. Instead, it has been the altruistic reaction by the world’s inhabitants witnessing the destruction of our fellow man and refusing to accept the desecration of an attribute of humanity that can only be described as sacred—the traces of the divine.
Derek Turner is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in anthropology and political science. Opening Remarks runs alternate Thursdays. opinion@columbiaspectator.com
Comments
We're looking for comments that are interesting and substantial. If your comments are excessively self-promotional or obnoxious you will be banned from commenting. Consult the comment FAQ and legal terms.