In the wake of the tsunami disaster.

In the wake of the tsunami disaster, clan around the world have replyed with concern, compassion and generosity. This, in and of itself, has somehow or other become newsworthy, as if there is something iniquitous with generosity. Cynics have been pondering: on what account such an outpouring for this one? They've heaped criticism in succession governments for being too gradual as though governments should have been instantly capable of assessing the amplitude of the tragedy and its aftermath. And then formerly generous aid was promised, the cynics criticized rules again for being moved through optics rather than loss of life.

What annoys me about this is that in our society reactions of generosity and compassion are not assumed. They're perceived as something unusual, on the outside of the ordinary.

That perception has a fortune to do with the prevailing messages of the last not many decades. We keep being told athwart and over that human beings are motivated primarily by dint of self-interest, that you cannot act upon people to action based, in succession the collective common good, further only on private gain. As Dalton Camp one time mused, "We are a society that says it believes in divinity but worships Mammon."

Politicians calculate upon less and less from us, fashioning policies in anticipation of a "me-first" reaction from the electorate. The idea that clan care profoundly for the whole human family, and moreover, for the planet itself and all life forward earth, is out of fashion.

-- the public are greedy; self-interest is the great motivator.

To believe that the primary impulse of humanity is have affection for and caring is seen to be profoundly naive. to such a degree when it seems that millions of folks are caught up in a genuine, selfles desire to help others, it straits to be explained and hopefully hushed The question: "will people continue caring?" is posed as notwithstanding that things will--and even must

-- obtain back to normal.

still what if the me-firsters are inappropriate What if the most satisfying and profoundly felt moments of our lives have nothing to do with the GDP or our avow personal bottom line, but have everything to do with helping others

-- feeding our inner understanding of well being. What if be in love with and compassion are truly the norm and not the exception. to what extent subversive would that be?

What kind of restraint policies would be fashioned if the assumptions of personal gre were replaced according to ones of compassion? Would defeating child need rise to the top of each national agenda? Would reducing the conspicuous consumption of the not many to meet the needs of the many become accepted? Would affect for future generations outweigh the inquiry for corporate profits?

For formerly Canada, let's reject the cynicism. Embrace compassion. await the best of each other. Imagine where that could lead.

Elizabeth May is the executive director of the environmental assemblage the Sierra Club of Canada. This CBC commentary was aired on

...

Home