I think what gets to me with these kinds of things is not so much the scale of the issue, but the denial of it as a problem or the acceptance of it as something unavoidable. Even for people that have cared at some point, the difficulty in finding a solution on a personal or even societal level, leads them to have to conclude that it's not so big a problem after all. Like googling articles that confirm that drinking wine or eating chocolate is actually healthy, because your inability to give up the habit makes you feel bad.
A constant active awareness of the immense suffering and inequality around the world isn't healthy, but the opposite of convincing yourself that it's not a problem at all makes any sliver of a solution less likely. The purest ideology allows us to believe that since problems can only truly be solved in one way (market forces, liberal democracy) that suffering or death occurring under the mandate of such forces are 'natural' and unpreventable. In fact, to take direct action to solve things like poverty outside of these forces, is to challenge the natural order. And like some kind of trolley problem morality, direct interference now makes you responsible for the situation, whereas the deliberate neglect before was more wholesome and good, as you adhered to the natural laws. This is why China's Xinjiang policies are unforgivable, being direct actions, while hundreds of millions of starving Indians under deliberate neglect is not, even though the suffering and death born from the later is incalculably greater- even assuming the worst possible accusations against China are true.
I think the full acceptance of the situation of the world, and the realisation that you are personally unable to fix it no matter how hard you dry, either leads people down a path of denial or self sacrifice (think eco-terrorism or devoting yourself to work in a hospital in the exploited world.)
My personal cope is to follow an ideal of living a life such that if everyone in my position did the same, it would see the improvements to the world that I hope for come to be. This is towing the line between action and inaction, of denial and self sacrifice, but it's the only way I can think to live a relatively 'normal' life while recognising the vast suffering adjacent to it. Though I am not sure if it's the right thing to do.
The way I personally think about the line between denial and self-sacrifice is to recognize that I'm a person too. I also deserve the safety and happiness that I ache to provide for others, and I'm just as much a part of the system as they are. I try to think of myself as a single cell in the massively complex organism that is human society. If I burn out and die it helps no one. I have to maintain my own life if I want to keep helping and steering the direction we're moving in. And when I honestly evaluate what I have the power to change in my own life, I have the most absolute power over myself - far more influence than I have even over people who are very close to me.
It's not a moral question of selfishness vs. self-sacrifice as much as it is simply practical and accurate to factor my own interests into my aspirations to help the world. It'd be beautiful if I had no needs or desires or feelings or weaknesses or limitations and I could disappear into service for others, but I wouldn't be a human being anymore. I'd be a god. And I won't make plans that rely on some hubris of me being divine when staring at a human world that is anything but. Everything is shit, and I'm in the shit too.
I think what gets to me with these kinds of things is not so much the scale of the issue, but the denial of it as a problem or the acceptance of it as something unavoidable. Even for people that have cared at some point, the difficulty in finding a solution on a personal or even societal level, leads them to have to conclude that it's not so big a problem after all. Like googling articles that confirm that drinking wine or eating chocolate is actually healthy, because your inability to give up the habit makes you feel bad.
A constant active awareness of the immense suffering and inequality around the world isn't healthy, but the opposite of convincing yourself that it's not a problem at all makes any sliver of a solution less likely. The purest ideology allows us to believe that since problems can only truly be solved in one way (market forces, liberal democracy) that suffering or death occurring under the mandate of such forces are 'natural' and unpreventable. In fact, to take direct action to solve things like poverty outside of these forces, is to challenge the natural order. And like some kind of trolley problem morality, direct interference now makes you responsible for the situation, whereas the deliberate neglect before was more wholesome and good, as you adhered to the natural laws. This is why China's Xinjiang policies are unforgivable, being direct actions, while hundreds of millions of starving Indians under deliberate neglect is not, even though the suffering and death born from the later is incalculably greater- even assuming the worst possible accusations against China are true.
I think the full acceptance of the situation of the world, and the realisation that you are personally unable to fix it no matter how hard you dry, either leads people down a path of denial or self sacrifice (think eco-terrorism or devoting yourself to work in a hospital in the exploited world.) My personal cope is to follow an ideal of living a life such that if everyone in my position did the same, it would see the improvements to the world that I hope for come to be. This is towing the line between action and inaction, of denial and self sacrifice, but it's the only way I can think to live a relatively 'normal' life while recognising the vast suffering adjacent to it. Though I am not sure if it's the right thing to do.
The way I personally think about the line between denial and self-sacrifice is to recognize that I'm a person too. I also deserve the safety and happiness that I ache to provide for others, and I'm just as much a part of the system as they are. I try to think of myself as a single cell in the massively complex organism that is human society. If I burn out and die it helps no one. I have to maintain my own life if I want to keep helping and steering the direction we're moving in. And when I honestly evaluate what I have the power to change in my own life, I have the most absolute power over myself - far more influence than I have even over people who are very close to me.
It's not a moral question of selfishness vs. self-sacrifice as much as it is simply practical and accurate to factor my own interests into my aspirations to help the world. It'd be beautiful if I had no needs or desires or feelings or weaknesses or limitations and I could disappear into service for others, but I wouldn't be a human being anymore. I'd be a god. And I won't make plans that rely on some hubris of me being divine when staring at a human world that is anything but. Everything is shit, and I'm in the shit too.