It's up to all of us

It is impossible to address in one article all the concerns raised in the opening plea to pollies. So let me say a few words about a subject that has received no publicity during this election campaign: foreign aid.

Here our culture encourages us to believe in the myth of our exceptional generosity rather than to recognise the less flattering reality. We are constantly being told that "Australians are among the most generous people in the world". However, once one actually examines the evidence, it is difficult to regard such a claim as much of an achievement to be proud of, either individually or as a nation.

The reality is that, individually, only about 35.6% of taxpayers make any tax-deductible donations to charities and on average they give only 0.32% of their taxable income. As a nation, we currently allocate 0.32% of our GNP to foreign aid, with the threat of that being reduced to 0.22% after the May budget.

And this in one of the wealthiest countries in the world!

According to Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report 2015 Australia's asset wealth per adult is consistently in the top three in terms of world average. It has been estimated that an individual living alone in Australia solely on the aged pension is still – all things considered - in the world's wealthiest 12%, while a person with a tax-deductible income of $42,000 is in the top 5%, and anyone earning over $90,000 is in the top 1%.

By any standards and irrespective of the method of calculation, it is clear that we are individually and as a nation extraordinarily wealthy. And relative to our wealth, we actually give very little indeed to charity.

It needs also to be acknowledged that most of what we do give in both money and volunteering is, while valuable and important, largely self-serving. It is not directed to alleviating the extreme suffering of the majority of our fellow human beings who live outside our own community.

We see footage of world poverty on the news and in charity advertising all the time but somehow we find ways to disavow the reality of it and our deepest feelings about it. In doing so, we create a dislocation in our inner world. To deal with the anxiety of that loss of integrity, we have to fool ourselves that we don't really need to worry about this problem and the prevailing culture of uncare subtly supports us in this.

The dominant culture allows us to dismiss global poverty as "somebody else's problem"; to believe that we are under no moral obligation to come to the aid of "others"; that the victims are somehow responsible for their own misfortune; that we are in no way implicated in the system that produces such global injustice; and that we cannot be sure that the money we give to overseas charities is getting to the right people or doing any good.

In this way, the culture of uncare prevents us from acknowledging the simple truth of the matter – that there are people just like us who desperately need our help; that our basic impulseis to care and to help if we can; that nearly all of us really can afford to give much more than we currently do (yes, we might have to do without a few luxuries); and that we all need to share more of our incredible good fortune, because it is the right thing to do. After all, isn't that what we tell our kids?

I would invite readers to watch Peter Singer's or Beth Barnes' TEDX talks about Effective Altruism on Youtube, or read my earlier article Pippa's Dilemma: the Moral Demands of Affluence, or consult the websites of The Life You Can Save, Giving What We Can, Give Well and the recently formed Effective Altruism Australia. These clearly demonstrate how our actions, both individually and collectively, can make a very significant difference to the lives of others.

This is also obviously the case with all the other inter-related matters of major concern. It applies especially to climate change, which should be regarded as a first order priority.It is clear that if we don't change our direction, we will all end up where we are heading!

Which brings us back to that opening 'cri de coeur'. Here is a voice of sanity. It identifies some important concerns, owns the feelings, accepts responsibility for being part of the solution as well as part of the problem, reclaims a sense of personal integrity and agency, resolves to take personal action and seeks a community of kindred spirits. The cynics will probably respond to it as a futile gesture. Ghandi offers a different vision. Which view prevails is in the balance and is really up to each and every one of us.