A recent study shed light on why it feels good to give.
The study - led by Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) - was designed to discover how and where altruism originates in the brain. It used functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, to visualize the brain activity in about 20 people who were study participants.
These 20 played computer games, using pool of dollars ($128 each) that they could choose to distribute to a variety of charities linked to controversial issues, such as abortion and the death penalty. Or they could oppose donation. Or they could receive a payoff, adding money to the pot. Sometimes, the decision to donate or oppose was costly, calling for subjects to take money out of the pot.
As it turned out, whether they were donating or taking a payoff, subjects displayed a similar pattern of brain activity. Both types of decisions were associated with heightened activity in parts of the midbrain. What’s fascinating is that this part of the brain is also known to be involved in primal desires (think of food or sex) and the satisfaction of them.
In other words, according to this evidence, giving is not simply a heightened moral faculty. Instead, it has an anatomical basis in the part of the brain that also relates to selfish longings and rewards.
And that’s good news in a world with 6.6 billion people.
Read the study abstract: Human fronto–mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation
Press release about the study from NIH: Inner Workings of the Magnanimous Mind
Washington Post article about the study: If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural
Thank you to Lawrence OP for the stained glass image.
if only we could convince more of humanity to give into the good side of the force rather than the dark side.this is a very interesting study.
Perhaps something has gone awry with regard to the untethered big business growth activities sponsored everywhere by the leaders in my not-so-great generation. Bereft of the will to acknowledge much less accept Earth’s limitations and human limits, the leading elders have chosen to pursue a course of unrestrained economic globalization. Their action plan takes as much as possible of whatever the Earth has to offer now and, simultaneously, lays claim to ‘rights’ to the endless accumulation of personal wealth as well as to the unbridled per capita consumption of the planet’s finite natural resources.
The future of our children and coming generations is apparently not so serious a concern of the leaders in my selfishness-centered generation. Afterall, according to one of the world’s most powerful politicians, We’ll all be dead” soon.
Sam, yes. I think most people are good.
And, Steve, I don’t know why our leaders are not acting in a way to promote true sustainability, but I suspect that - at some point - they will. Earth does indeed have limitations. I pray for their wisdom at the upcoming G8 summit.
Deborah
I believe that most people usually believe that what they do is good. Like the old saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” We just aren’t very good at predicting the consequences of our actions and we are very good at justifying almost anything that works for our individual benefit.
Good point. Yet somehow the human race has muddled through, over the centuries …
Thanks to all for commenting here. Silence is forbidding; science, on the other hand, is a great and sufficient gift of God, I believe.
Speaking out loudly and clearly for the best avaiable, good science is sure to provide what is necessary to help us “muddle through,” just as we always have.
Steve, I’m a fan of science, too, as you know.
Western science, as we know it, is only a few centuries old, however. And of course humanity existed long before our type of science came into being. Altruism - goodwill toward one’s fellow human - our human trait of cooperativeness - all these might actually outweigh science in their importance to the human race.
Thoughts on this?
I’m not very good at math, but I think Science + Human Cooperation = Sustainability.
I’ve heard over and over again that sustainability relies on cooperation and recognizing the common good. Science can only help us if we all agree to work towards the common goal of saving the whole planet.
It sounds idealistic but it’s also pretty necessary.
If indeed altruism is hard-wired into our brains, it must be there for a reason.
Cooperate … or else!
Seems pretty imperative with so many people on the planet.
Thanks Deborah for your comments. Yes, a few thoughts do come to mind.
Science is a relatively new gift, as you suggest. This gift from God is needed in our time because it could be more vital now than ever before to the preservation of human and environmental health.
Cooperativeness is a wondrous human attribute. I am for the unbridled expression of as much altruism as is possible in 2007. Who knows, perhaps global cooperation could mean that goodwill would be extended widely to include our many brothers and sisters in the human community; that biodiversity would be sensibly protected from extirpation; that human beings would fairly and equitably share our abundant storehouse of available resources; and that humanity would find its balance with nature……all of which would result in human beings discovering a viable way out of what looks to me like a predicament, one that looms ominously before humanity on the far horizon. By virtue of these ubiquitous cooperative activities, it would become readily evident to our children that we preserve more than destroy; enhance more than diminish, share much more than consume, and give back many times more than we take from the Earth. The dissipation of Earth’s finite resources and the pernicious degradation of the planet’s frangible ecosystem services that our children are witnessing today would immediately cease.
What I trying to say here is this: perhaps cooperation is like a “law of nature” in that we choose either to live well by cooperating with one another or to suffer certain dire consequences resulting from endless, unbridled competition for dominion over one another, other life and the Earth.
For example, competition embedded in economic globalization activities would give way to a new economic model that plainly reminds people of the economy of the natural world itself. Such a model would be organized by deploying the trait of cooperation. The current global economy with its seemingly endless, unrestrained and unsustainable economic growth activities would be replaced by bounded sustainable development enterprises based upon cooperation and on production capabilities getting better without getting bigger.
If human beings were to become as capable of providing financial incentives for cooperative behavior in the new economy as we are at incenting competition now, then the future will be secure for coming generations, I believe.
These poorly and tentatively expressed ideas need much work. Even so, your invitation to share them pleases me.
As ever,
Steve
Thank you Steve.
The best exploration of these sorts of ideas that I know are on the website of the Great Transition Initiative. I hope all those who are interested will go there and read some of the articles in GTI’s new paper series.
Deborah
That means everyone should give and help other people, even if just for that person’s own selfish satisfaction of the natural human desire to give. Be selfish and donate, it’s tax deductible!
western science is just that.it stems from the greek society and can falter at any time due to religeous zelot behavior. freethinking can be defined as american deviltry.the human trait to cooperativeness is limited to anglo morality. try and investigate a crime in an urban setting or better yet ask lindsays generation of their thoughts of the world at large and you will find (in my opinion) that the world we have recently created allows to many enablers and excuses for why someone should feel entitled to act out. the quest for reliable knowledge dies with us. the future only holdssomeone presenting an excuse for their behavior rather than responsibility.that is until they have children and only then will they care.but at the same time i think this i believe that humanity wants and needs to be good.i see it every day.i believe the media shows us, and rather quickly in the first gripping 3 min. the bad sensational things they can. but if they were to show the good things of the last 4 hours that we all see at some point they would acummulate to 45 mins of airable video(if they were taped)
7/8/2007
Thinking of the balance that two and a half feet of humus and what is on it is a an exaggeration. Is what comes to the surface?, a problem. Not helping, but to wonder what a position without exaggeration, or without problems would be like. Experiencing how accuracy and timing with clarity are so essential, makes things sensitive. Technology is connecting thinkers with real knowledge with greater speed and needing to communicate is a layment for learners. Before attending virtual school, small talk was never so important.
Thank you,
Guy
I always think how different we might be if our governments made Volunteerism an obligation: “Every citizen has to donate their time to the community” something like 5 hours per month minimum, or participate as a volunteer in a charity throughout the year.
Some countries have laws that force their citizens to continue with Military Service every year (Switzerland, for example), other countries make it an obligation to Vote (Mexico, for example).
The Land of the Free should pass laws for citizens to volunteer, to make this Planet a better place for generations to come.
The shift from egoistic intent to the altruistic approach is becoming today’s reality to the point that websites like http://www.altruisticpleasures.com pop up all over the Internet. It seems that our collective consciousness is finding a new source of pleasure through actions designed to better Humanity. This shift offers a great hope for the better Future, IMHO.