How Do You Create a World of Altruists?

Jeremy Rifkin gave a great talk (with stimulating animated accompaniment) a few months ago on the need to strengthen empathy among human beings on a global scale. Rikfin's  motivation to study the development of empathy -- or what the Scottish Enlightenment philosophers called "sympathy" and which we could also call altruism -- seems to be based on two ideas. First, empathy is a fundamental aspect of human nature and we can only flourish emotionally if we are able to express it rather than repress it. Second, identifying with others' well-being can promote cooperation. Only if humans can extend our empathy to the point where we identify with people around the world, Rifkin asserts, will we be able to work together to "save our species and save our planet."

In my master's dissertation, I am currently exploring this issue of how empathic or altruistic values develop in a society. (Basically I think altruistic values are spread through the power of example: what begins as a small group of altruistic individuals working for the common good grows into a social movement as others are inspired to emulate them. Here's a visual analogy.) Rifkin approaches this question in part by looking into the historical nitty-gritty of when and how people's circles of empathy have widened. (An interesting corrollary would be to look at why people's empathy has often contracted, with groups becoming more antagonistic than they were before.)

One particular observation caught my imagination: communications revolutions (and also, he suggests, the expansion of global markets) have historically tended to lead to expanded circles of empathy. Our ancestors used to identify only with their family or tribe, but as writing and printing developed people later began to imagine themselves as members of much larger groups such as religions and nations.

Why should communications technology matter for the growth of empathy? Here a few hypotheses. (And I would love to get your feedback in the comments section. Which one - or combination - seems most plausible? What other hypotheses would you propose?)

1. Let's start with the most obvious. Having more contact with and information about people in distant regions humanizes them in our eyes. We are more likely to see people as being like us if we know more about them and so we care more about their suffering. (Rikfin cites the digital media which quickly made people around the world aware of the suffering of Haitians after the recent earthquake, and moved many to send aid or even travel to Haiti to volunteer.)

2. Greater communication (and trade) leads to greater interdependence which makes the practical and moral imperative for empathy and cooperation all the more obvious and compelling.

3. Faster, easier, more accessible modes of communication make it easier for altruists to get their message out to other altruists. Rifkin's talk on empathy - posted on youtube and viewed by over 300,000 people as of this writing - is an example in itself of how communications technology can help spread empathy. (Of course, nastier values can be spread this way too. But since altruists by definition want to benefit others, there is reason to hope they would be more motivated than their rivals to get their message out. It's just a hope though.)

4. Greater communication fosters shared knowledge which, as Michael Chwe has argued, is crucial to cooperation. (Yes, I have referenced Chwe's theory in three posts in a row now. No, I will not apologize -- the man has useful ideas.) If my tribe wants to become more empathic, and we know your tribe does too, and we know you know we know, etc., then becoming more empathic and cooperative is less risky than without such common knowledge. (If we don't know what your tribe is thinking, we might fear that being friendly will leave us vulnerable to getting double-crossed.)

If we can figure out why empathy has grown in the past, we just might be able to figure out how to expand it further in the future.