Heroism and Empathy: Not Just for Times of Crisis

“You’re an interesting species.  An interesting mix.  You’re capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares.  You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you’re not.  See, in all our searching, the only thing we’ve found that makes the emptiness bearable, is each other.”

                -“Contact”, 1997

Two years ago, shortly after the bombing of the Boston Marathon, I began writing an essay.  I was inspired by the remarkable stories of heroism coming out of such horror, as they often do, and I found myself wondering what it is that makes us act.  More importantly, why do we only act in times of crisis and hardship?  As often happens, my own life got in the way and the essay never got finished.  But with the damage wrought by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and with similar stories of heroism coming out, I find myself asking these questions once again.

There is an old saying that great men are not made but called, and I have always felt that it was true, at least to a degree.  We see this in the way heroes arise in times of crisis; people from all walks of life step up and do what must be done.  They go out of their way to help others, to ensure people are brought to safety.  They help people to get medical care and they donate necessities like food and water.  They put themselves in harm’s way to help people, running in burning buildings and flooded streets and waterways to save people.  For some, that is their job; they are first responders and we depend on them to help us.  But we see many who simply want to do anything they can, with some paying the ultimate price for their heroism.

In addition to courage on the ground, we also see people come together both locally and around the country.  In many of the major terror attacks, people started lining up to donate blood and gave to charities like the Red Cross.  After major natural disasters, people send food and supplies to the affected areas.  They make donations to charities that are helping out on the ground if they cannot help in some other way.  People open their wallets, hearts, and even homes because it is the right thing to do.

But why are we only willing to be so selfless in times of crisis?  Why is it that even the best of us are only inclined to help out in the worst of times?  Like most deeply philosophical questions, there are no simple, easy answers here.  But a look into our overall nature can shed some light.

Looking at our nature, into who we are as a species and into who we are culturally and societally, in fact result in two answers because there is more to the initial question.  First, we need to understand why it is so hard for us to come together as a people; second, we need to understand why it is so hard to maintain that unity.

The first part of this is something that has been discussed time and again, and it will continue being discussed until we finally learn the lesson.  Humans, by their very nature, tend to be stubborn and arrogant.  More often than not, our opinions and beliefs serve to divide us instead of unify us (the irony of this is that many belief systems inherently preach love, unity, and mutual respect, yet their practitioners choose to ignore or pervert those teachings).  Though we are sentient beings, we are still in many ways ruled by our baser instincts; we will do anything to help ourselves and those in our inner circle survive.  We are as territorial as any other creature, and we thrive on chaos and lust (I use this term loosely because our lust isn’t limited to romance or sex; rather, it is because we crave so many things we don’t have, particularly those things we cannot or should not have).  In short, we are, as I have often written, very much akin to teenagers, thinking we are immortal and that we know better than everyone else.

There is perhaps no better summation of this than a line spoken in the Christopher Nolan film Interstellar.  The film is centered on a mission to save the human race from extinction.  A crew is sent out to find habitable planets to take us to, or in the event that the people of earth died before their return, to start a colony using frozen embryos.  Shortly after waking Dr. Mann (played by Matt Damon) from hibernation, they learn that the plan was always to start a colony because they lacked the ability to get everyone off the planet.  The crew confronts Dr. Mann, who confirms that they had all been victims of an unforgivable lie from Dr. Brand’s father, the mastermind of the entire mission.  The following exchange takes place:

Mann: Your father had to find another way to save the human race from extinction.  Plan B.  A colony.
Brand: But why not tell people?  Why keep building those damn stations?
Mann: Because he knew how hard it would be to get people to work together to save the species instead of themselves.
Cooper: Bullshit.
Mann: You never would have come here unless you believed you were going to save them.  Evolution has yet to transcend that simple barrier.  We can care deeply- selflessly- about those we know, but that empathy rarely extends beyond our line of sight.

It is the line at the end of the exchange in which the truth is uttered; though we can care deeply, we have yet to evolve to a point where that caring extends beyond our circle of friends and family.  The fact that we are willing to do so much in times of crisis is proof positive that we have made strides towards overcoming this, but there is still a long way to go.

There has long been a debate over instincts and nature, and whether or not we can overcome them.  Our survival instincts have been honed by millions of years of evolution, and have essentially become a part of our very DNA; as such, many believe that it is impossible to overcome them.  But that belief ignores the basic tenants of evolution.  Living things evolve over millions of years, but the stimuli that trigger various evolutions are not uniform.  Most traits appear as genetic mutations, which are passed down from parent to offspring.  In many instances, those mutations have an advantage, such as a fur color that better matches the environment, something that could be advantageous for either predator or prey.  Those traits help creatures survive, meaning they are more likely to pass on their genetic material, which is what Darwin realized when he wrote of the survival of the fittest.

Just as genetic mutations can be advantageous, so too can certain instincts.  Many mammals are pack animals, and we are no exception; through millions of years of evolution, we survived by sticking together in groups.  They enabled us to hunt for food, and they served to protect us from becoming food for other predators.  Sticking together in small groups for safety and food has become a part of our nature, which is why it is so difficult for us to empathize with those outside our groups.  But as this instinct was honed for millions of years, so too can it be overcome; nature is powerful, but it is not immutable.  There is obviously no simple or easy method of overcoming our nature, but it can be done.  The fact that we exist at all is proof that nature and instincts can, and do, change.  Moreover, blaming our lack of empathy on our nature is no excuse because we are sentient beings with free will; we are capable of choosing our own paths and shaping who we are.  We are a combination of nature and nurture, meaning we can rise beyond our nature if we have the will to do so.

With an understanding of why we lack empathy, we can now begin to understand the second part of this, which is why we find it so difficult to maintain empathy.  The reason for this is inextricably intertwined with the reason we lack empathy, but it has been amplified greatly as our country has become increasingly polarized in recent years.  Because our primary concern is ourselves and those in our inner circle, we tend to view anyone else as competition; there is an old adage that says “if you’re not with me, you’re against me.”  This is, of course, ludicrous for intelligent beings with free will, but when you consider how must animals view anyone not in their group as competition, it has a grain of logic.  Unfortunately, it is precisely this thinking that has created the political quagmire we find ourselves in now.

One can hardly turn on the television now without seeing political sniping in some form.  Even non-news programming has become infected with politics.  Social media is saturated with it, and it seems to find its way into nearly every conversation.  With party politics now being the norm, things are worse than they have ever been.  Party politics is in fact driven by the belief that anyone who disagrees with you is the enemy, which is precisely why we are so divided now (this is why Washington plead against the creation of political parties in his farewell address).  With such division, empathy becomes nearly impossible to maintain because of our need to place blame and to discredit those we view as enemies.  In times of crisis, we can come together to help those in need, but the most partisan among us will inevitably begin pointing fingers. 

This finger pointing occurred in the aftermath of the three major hurricanes that have devastated parts of the United States this year.  In the weeks after Hurricane Harvey, as Texas struggled to dry out and get food and supplies to those in need, some on the left began pointing fingers at Senator Ted Cruz for being a hypocrite.  Cruz, along with nearly every other politician from Texas, had been pressuring the federal government to do more to help out, but many pointed out, quite correctly, that he worked to block such aid after Superstorm Sandy in 2012.  This criticism, while accurate, did nothing to help the situation at hand (though it is important for people to realize how often people like Cruz oppose things purely for the sake of party politics) because it was essentially just party politics.  On the other hand, criticism was abound after all three hurricanes for Trump’s bungled handling of them.  Trump, along with his supporters, roundly slammed all those who criticized his response, claiming as usual that people and news outlets were just making things up to discredit him.  The criticism of the Trump administration was every bit as accurate as that directed at Cruz, but it wasn’t playing politics; rather, it was pointing out a legitimate problem that needed to be addressed: Trump was virtually ignoring people going without food, water, or power after hurricanes.

This is the true problem that inevitably forces the unity we have after a catastrophe to fracture and dissolve.  People confuse party politics and legitimate criticisms, which leads to resentment and distrust.  We need to be able to criticize.  We need to be able to make sure we hold those in power accountable.  We should scrutinize everything they do.  But we shouldn’t do it for the sake of party politics, like Republicans did for the last eight years.  We should do it because it is right, because such things need to be done.  But we must also take caution to avoid criticism when it isn’t appropriate.  In times of crisis, unless criticism is directly related to the handling of the situation, it should likely be avoided; otherwise, it threatens to cause resentment and division.  The only thing that matters in a crisis is ensuring that any and all problems are properly addressed.

In the Star Trek universe, the compassionate nature of humanity is a recurring theme.  Alien cultures have difficulty understanding why it is that we are always so sympathetic to those in need.  Even Q, the omnipotent being, eventually comes to realize that he and his people could learn a great deal from us.  While Star Trek certainly overplayed things a bit, Roddenberry wasn’t wrong; we have an inherently strong sense of empathy.  That sense is inherent in all living beings, but because we also have intelligence and free will, we can choose how to react to it.  We can choose whether to indulge it or ignore it.

That choice is why we have such difficulty empathizing with each other now.  We have allowed ourselves to become mired by trivial differences and politics.  Our adherence to these things is what creates division; people disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing (however, few do this consciously; most do this subconsciously), which sows resentment.  Resentment in turn begets division, which begets hatred and animosity.  The pattern is incontrovertible, and it is why we keep having the same fights and arguments over and over again.  But we can break the cycle.  We can learn from these mistakes so that we can avoid them in the future.  We have the ability to change things if we actually want them to change.  Unfortunately, change cannot be forced; it must happen organically.  A person cannot be helped unless they want help, and the same is true of a society.

The question is, do we want to change, or do we want to keep letting ourselves be divided?  Most claim they want unity, but they don’t think twice about slamming those who disagree with them.   So long as we refuse to rely on our empathy, we will never be able to change.  We make our own nightmares, but we can also make our own utopia.  The power to become a unified society is in our hands.