During the recent preparatory meeting for the Mind and Life Institute’s conference on “Altruism and Compassion in Economics” (to be held in Zurich in April, see www.compassionineconomics.org), I had the chance to spend time with Daniel Batson, an eminent American psychologist, whom I had wanted to meet for many years.

Daniel Batson can be credited with proving that genuine altruism does indeed exist. This might seem obvious to many of you, but it is certainly not part of mainstream western psychology, in which the dominant view is that of universal egoism. According to the latter view, any seemingly altruistic behavior must have been driven by some kind of selfish motivation: “Scratch an altruist, and watch the hypocrite bleed.”
Indeed, some people adopt seemingly altruistic behavior motivated by the desire to get material or social rewards, to avoid material, social, and self-punishments (guilt for instance), to reduce the distress caused by witnessing others’ suffering, or simply because it “feels good.” However, there is also an alternative view, according to which both the motivation and behavior are genuinely altruistic.

Daniel Batson defines empathic concern as an other-oriented state of mind produced by intrinsically valuing others’ welfare and the perception of the other as in need. This kind of empathic concern results in an altruistic motivation, which is “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare.” This is the “empathy-altruism hypothesis” that Professor Bateson proposed.

Daniel Batson and his collaborator have conducted over thirty-five experiments that test the empathy-altruism hypothesis against the various egoistic alternatives mentioned above
The only reasonable conclusion of these experiments seems to be that the empathy-altruism hypothesis is true and that the human motivational repertoire is not limited to egoism (self-interest).

Imagine a ship that is sinking and needs all the available power to run the pumps to drain out the rising waters. The first-class passengers refuse to cooperate because they feel hot and want to use the air-conditioner and other electrical appliances. The second-class passengers spend all their time trying to be upgraded to first-class status. The boat sinks and the passengers drown having thought only of their comfort, instead of saving their lives.

Normally a captain would take the necessary measures to prevent the wreck and saves his crew and passengers. But on this ship, the passengers wanted to remain their own bosses.

The present approach to climate change and other pressing challenges of our times--disarmament, controlling the greed of unregulated free-market--is similar to that of tribes fighting over the ownership of a sinking ship, a burning forest, or a time bomb. At Copenhagen, they have gotten it to go their way, for now.

The heads of state behaved like chiefs of very big tribes. Some might be wiser than others, but they have little power over the other tribes and sometimes not even over their own tribe.

Transnational institutions can only tackle global issues. In a global world such as ours, heads of states should act more like provincial governors taking care of local affairs. They should defer to a transnational authority when the whole world is at stake. No one seems to be willing to work like that. Fine. Enjoy your last swim.

Recently, while preparing the “Mind and Life Institute” meeting that will be held next April (www.compassionineconomics.org), I had the opportunity to speak with the participants who will take part in this conference, including Ernst Fehr, the renowned Swiss economist. For classical economists, “the first principle of Economics is that every agent is actuated only by self-interest” (Francis Edgeworth, as quoted by Amartya Sen). However, according to Ernst Fehr, the fact that many individuals do act in a truly altruistic manner cannot be ignored. In light of this, how can altruism be made to have a greater influence within our societies?

Ernst Fehr’s research shows that if we place a group of individuals in a situation where mutual trust plays an important role—such as a cooperative game linked to solid financial results—then approximately 80% of the participants begin to work loyally together. Still, within a group, there are always a few hardened egoists. As the latter keep taking advantage of every opportunity that presents itself, to the detriment of the other participants, the altruists finally grow weary, and the rate of cooperation drops to 10%. 

However, if altruists are willing to set up an “altruistic punishment” system—to quote Ernst Fehr’s expression—by which egoists’ transgressions are penalized, albeit at a cost to altruists, the rate of cooperation goes from 80% to nearly 100%.

In the first situation, the group dynamic is sidetracked by the short-term benefits sought by egoists, as was the case during the recent financial crisis, for instance. In the second situation, although altruists cannot change egoists—which unfortunately remains a Utopian undertaking—they can establish a system in which egoists benefit by behaving as if they were altruists.

The lesson then is that it is up to clear-minded altruists to lay out the rules.

This image was taken during late afternoon, in Nepal, this fall. To balance the sky and the earth, and restore why the human eye sees (but what the captor does not register because of the limitation of it’s contrast range), I have used a graded neutral density filter of 3 stops (Singh Ray-Galen Rowell 3G).

To do so, it is best to set the exposure method in manual mode (to avoid the automatic exposure compensating the effect of the filter), measure the light on the foreground landscape and mask the sky with the filter.

(Canon Mark 3Ds, 24-70mm set at 27 mm, f. 8.0, 1/100sec, 160 ASA)

Leonardo da Vinci wrote in his notebooks: “The time will come when people like me will think of the murder of an animal just as they think today of the murder of a man.” And George Bernard Shaw said, “Animals are my friends, and I don’t eat my friends.” It’s not a matter of denying that there are differences in intelligence between animals and human beings, and that relatively speaking a human life is worth more than the life of an animal. But why should the right to live be the prerogative of humans alone?

All living beings want happiness and try to avoid suffering. To assume the right to kill animals by the billion all the year round (10 billions of them are killed yearly just in the USA), therefore, is no more than the law of the jungle. Just a few centuries ago, the trade in “black gold,” slaves from black Africa, was considered acceptable. These days, there’s still slavery in India, Pakistan, the Sudan; children are sold to work in factories or in the fields, and young girls for prostitution. But elsewhere, generally speaking, slavery is seen as an abomination.

What do people do when they’re exploited or oppressed? They get organized, form trade unions, protest and rebel. Animals are incapable of any of those things, so they’re exterminated. This ought to be completely rethought.

Recently during the course of only one day I heard these facts about the environment:
1) The Greenland glaciers are melting much faster than previously thought. This is because of the cumulated effects of the melting ice and the acceleration of the movement of the glaciers toward the sea. We know that the complete melting of the Greenland would cause a 7- meter rise in sea level.
2) The water level of Lake Titicaca in Peru decreased by 80 cm during the last six months.
3) A group of British engineers announced that even if all the engineers presently active in the world would devote themselves to developing renewable sources of energy their effort would not be enough to stop global warming.
Even though awareness about environmental issues has increased markedly, the public does seem ready to take the dramatic measures that would prevent a catastrophe of this unprecedented magnitude.
A Green British MP recently said on the BBC World Service (13/11/2009, News Hour): “The problem is that the debate about climate change is mostly conducted at an intellectual level by people who live in cities, where everything is artificial. They don’t actually experience the changes that are taking place in the “real world.” Billions of us now live in cities, divorced from the cycles of nature and are not in a position to experience what is going on. Whereas if you speak to indigenous communities from the rain forests or to poor people trying to grow food in Africa, they will tell you that climate change is drastic, that it is happening very quickly, and that it has large implications for nature and for human livelihood.”
In Copenhagen, one of the delegates from Nepal, Gyanendra Karki, corrected stated: “Climate change is not a political issue, but it has been highly politicized. Most affluent countries are not aware of what the people of the most vulnerable countries endure. They don’t know how they live and suffer,” and he concluded: “We are optimistic, yet we do not dare to hope.”
Economic crisis have immediate effects on the financial resources of poor and rich people. A lack of consideration about other people’s quality of life can affect a whole generation; but the neglect of environmental problems can cause irreparable damage to all living beings.
Those who do not as yet suffer directly from climate change or might be able to deal with it because they enjoy more wealth, must decide to make personal sacrifices without expecting personal advantages in return. It is in such circumstances that genuine altruism is put to the test.

For many years I used Nikon FM2 cameras, with fixed focus lenses, adjusting the settings manually. However, four years ago I started making use of the wonderful possibilities of high range digital cameras such as the Canon Ds Mark III, and the excellent zoom lenses of this same brand. Because the digital system is so versatile, it is possible to explore and experiment with much greater freedom, without fear of wasting kilometres of film.

During the last few years, there has been dramatic changes in the Himalayan glaciers. These two photographs of the Langtang Range were taken from the same place, the first one at the end of September 2006, and the second one in October 2009. These changes are related to reduced yearly snowfalls, combined with the accelerated melting of the glaciers.

An authentic spiritual path implies making great demands of oneself, but being very tolerant towards others. In most sects, however, people are very demanding of others, but flagrantly contravene the ideals they profess themselves. It only needs one person with a little bit of charisma who decides to exploit his or her influence, for people to gather around and become mentally and physically enslaved.

The fundamental difference is that sects are either pure fabrications, fraud and deceit, or based on a mishmash of disparate elements borrowing bit of various traditions that have no link to an authentic spiritual transmission and aren’t based on any authentic philosophical principle. They therefore can’t bring about any durable spiritual progress, and only engender confusion and disillusionment or, even worse, exploitation and suffering.

Meditation essentially means to train the mind. The purpose of meditation is to develop qualities such as loving-kindness and attention, as well as a correct understanding of reality. For 2500 years, Buddhists have used meditation to eliminate ignorance and mental toxins, that is to say destructive emotions, which are the principal causes of suffering.

Following the Buddhist path allows us to make full use of the knowledge and experience acquired by those who, like the Buddha, have awakened from the sleep of ignorance. However, the knowledge that comes from contemplative science, which is precisely what Buddhism is, is valuable for all people of any religion or culture without exception. We all have a mind, we are all prey to different emotions, and we all go through numerous forms of suffering.

Training allows us to transform the mind, to overcome destructive emotions, and to dispel suffering. The numerous and profound methods that Buddhism has developed over the centuries can be used and incorporated by anyone. What is needed is enthusiasm and perseverance. Meditation has a universal value: it would be a great pity to disregard the possibility of transforming our mind.