The Long Shadow of War

It has now been 40 days since Russia invaded Ukraine—and who knows when or how that tragic war will end. From the beginning, the Ukrainian people have struggled bravely to defend their country—and have suffered great losses. But the shadow of that war is a long one. 

The Local Effects of the War

It is hard to comprehend the horrors of the death and destruction in Ukraine since February 24. According to the latest figures I could find yesterday (Apr. 4), some 24,000 people have already been killed, and the Ukrainian government claims that around 7,000 non-combatants have lost their lives.

In addition, more than 10,000,000 Ukrainians have left their homes with more than 40% of them having become refugees in other countries, primarily Poland. Twenty-three of the U.S. states have a population smaller than the number of current Ukrainian refugees (approx. 4,200,000).

Further, there is the wanton destruction of houses, factories, infrastructure, farmland, and much more. A sad, sad situation in Ukraine indeed!**

The Global Effects of the War

The shadow of the war in Ukraine is a long one, affecting many millions of people around the world. Consider just two major detrimental global effects:

** Hunger/Starvation

        “War in Ukraine could plunge world into food shortages.” This is a March 25 headline of a National Geographic article.

According to that piece, “Over the past decade, Ukraine, long known as the breadbasket of Europe, has become an agricultural powerhouse for much of the developing world.” Ukraine is “a country of 40 million people, but they produce food for 400 million.”

But sadly, Ukraine will most likely not be able to do that this year because of the war.

A March 21 post by Religion News Service warns, “Ukraine may leave millions hungry.” That was the assessment of Eugene Cho, president and CEO of Bread for the World.

It is too soon to know how intense/detrimental the long shadow of the war in Ukraine will be, but the prospect of increased world hunger/starvation is distressing.

** Poverty

In this country, the most direct effect of the war in eastern Europe is inflation, particularly seen in the dramatic rise in the price of gasoline and diesel fuel. While price increases are a source of widespread complaint, it is a dire problem for those already living in or near poverty.

In the U.S., even in 2020 there were more than 37,000,000 residents who were living in poverty.

A headline on a March 29 post on Business Insider advises, “Americans should budget an extra $5,200 this year to cover rising prices.” But how can that possibly be done by households with a yearly income of less than $26,500 (the poverty level line for 2021)?

And how many more will fall into poverty because of the war?

Then there are the hundreds of millions around the world who are considerably worse off.

The future looks much darker now for nearly all of these people because of the long shadow of the war in Ukraine.

The Personal Effects of the War

If the war in Ukraine doesn’t escalate into a nuclear war—and I remain grateful that Pres. Biden has persistently and consistently sought to guard against that possibility—we who live in North America don’t have to worry about being directly affected by what happens in Eastern Europe.

Most of us Americans, though, will be affected indirectly, mostly by higher prices and perhaps shortages of some commodities. Even that will be no big problem for those of us who are able to bear the extra cost.

But the coming months are going to be a time when many people in this country, mainly those living below the poverty line, and vastly more in the poorer countries of the world, are going to need additional help to buy food and other necessities of life.

Can we—and will we—in the middle class (or above) do more to help the multitudes who are already suffering and who will be suffering more in the long shadow of the war in Ukraine? And will we also support the federal government in providing greater assistance? If not, why not?

_____

** On Sunday (4/3) the news media made public news and images about the atrocities committed against the Ukrainians in Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv. See, for example, this CNN article (with a video).

What about Altruism/Charity/Philanthropy?

Why do people give money to needy people or public causes? Why should people make charitable or philanthropic contributions? What is altruism and how can it best be implemented? These are questions worth careful consideration.  

Give because of Greed?

Some of us grew up in churches that stressed tithing—and I have been a tither my whole life and encouraged tithing when I was a pastor. But I never told people that tithing was a means for receiving God’s blessings and to receive more from God than they ever gave to God and God’s work.

There are preachers, though, who have appealed to people’s “greed” to encourage them to tithe. “If you tithe, God will reward you by increasing your income” was the appalling “pitch” some preachers used, seeking to bolster the church’s financial income.

More generally, there are those who give because of the “greedy” desire for the good feelings they get from contributing to the emotional appeals by charitable organizations and/or needy people.

Perhaps greed is too strong a word to use here, but I simply mean the strong desire to get more of something, such as more blessings and (maybe) money or more feelings of self-satisfaction.

Give because of Guilt?

Historically, two of the most generous philanthropists in the U.S. were Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

Carnegie (1835~1919) made his fortune in the steel industry, and the wealth of Rockefeller (1839~1937) came largely from profits he made from the Standard Oil Company, which he established in 1870.

The philanthropy of those two industrialists is clearly visible in the worldwide Carnegie libraries and the work of the Rockefeller Foundation. And without doubt, multitudes of people have been helped by the philanthropic gifts of those two men .**

However, recently June and I have watched (on DVD) The Men Who Built America, the six-hour miniseries docudrama originally broadcast on the History Channel in 2012, and we have seen an apparently accurate portrayal of the ruthlessness of those two tycoons and the harm they did to so many.

Particularly horrifying were the catastrophic Johnstown Flood of 1889 and the Homestead Steel Mill Strike/Massacre of 1892. The docudrama clearly depicts Carnegie’s culpability in both of those tragedies.

That excellent miniseries, though, fails to note that those catastrophes occurred during the very time Walter Rauschenbusch was pastor in the Hell’s Kitchen area of New York City and beginning to emphasize what came to be known as the Social Gospel (see my 9/30 blog post).

Even though Carnegie had built a few libraries before those events that significantly tarnished his good name, most of his philanthropic work was after them and most likely at least partly rooted in his sense of guilt and his desire to restore his reputation.

Give because of Gratitude?

In the New Testament, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, “Freely you have received; freely give” (10:8, NIV). Accordingly, it is obvious that the best reason for altruistic giving is not because of “greed” or guilt but because of gratitude.

A strong sense of gratitude goads us to give graciously to help others. But how is the best way to give? Just acting upon our subjective feelings may not be best.

In recent years, an “effective altruism” movement has been popular in some circles. It recommends rationally considering ways to give that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people rather than giving on the basis of emotional appeals and feel-good causes.

(You may want to check out this website: Using reason and evidence to do the most good - Effective Altruism.)

Interestingly, two major proponents of effective altruism are non-religious thinkers/writers: Peter Singer (b. 1946) and Steven Pinker (b. 1954). To learn more about them, see Singer’s 2013 TED talk and this 2021 interview with Pinker.

There is also an Effective Altruism for Christians website (see here). I also encourage you to (re)read Guidelines for Charitable Giving, my blog post for Nov. 30, 2010.

Yes, there is much to consider with regard to altruism/charity/philanthropy.

_____

** I wrote about those two outstanding philanthropists in my Sept. 15, 2017, blog post titled “Problems with Philanthropy,” and it is worth reading again.

The Man Who Fed the World

Most of you have heard of the Green Revolution. Perhaps fewer of you remember the man who was behind that revolutionary attempt to combat the world food crisis. That man was Norman Borlaug, who died ten years ago, in September 2009, at the age of 95. 

Norman, the Farm Boy

Norman Borlaug was born in 1914 and reared in rural Howard County in northeast Iowa. His first eight years of school were at a one-teacher, one-room school. He then went to high school in the county seat town of Cresco.

In addition to his schooling, from age seven to nineteen Norman worked on the 106-acre family farm and acquired the work ethic common to farm boys.

Partly because of his skills as a wrestler—and with the encouragement of his grandfather Nels Borlaug, who once told him, “you're wiser to fill your head now if you want to fill your belly later on"—Norman was able to attend the University of Minnesota, graduating in 1937 and then earning his Ph.D. degree there in 1942.    

Norman, the farm boy who became Dr. Borlaug, went on to do far more than fill his own belly. He became known as the man who fed the world.

Borlaug, the Life Saver

In 1944 Borlaug went to Mexico as a research scientist in charge of wheat improvement, working there for sixteen years. Beginning in the 1950s, he began to successfully innovate new, disease-resistant, high-yield crops using genetic modification.

Borlaug’s work transformed agriculture production, first in Mexico and later in Asia and Latin America. His successes produced the “Green Revolution,” which saved millions of people from hunger, starvation, and death.

In 1970 Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his outstanding work in averting world hunger and famine. His authorized biography, written by Leon Hesser, is titled The Man Who Fed the World: Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Norman Borlaug and His Battle to End World Hunger (2006).

According to David Grigg’s 1985 book The World Food Problem 1950~1980, the percentage of the world’s population suffering from acute hunger/malnutrition dropped from 34% in 1950 to 17% in 1980. That dramatic decrease was largely due to the meritorious work of Borlaug.

Some claim that Borlaug “saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived.” The fifth chapter of the 2009 book Scientists Greater than Einstein: The Biggest Lifesavers of the Twentieth Century is about Borlaug. There he is credited with saving 245,000,000 lives.

Some estimate that he saved even far more lives than that.

The Ongoing Challenge

Despite the dramatic decrease in world hunger since 1950, it was estimated that in 2014 eleven percent of the world’s population were still suffering from undernourishment.

And last year a feature article in The Washington Post was titled “For decades, global hunger was on the decline. Now it’s getting worse again—and climate change is to blame.”

While the innovations of scientists such as Norman Borlaug are still badly needed to continue working on the problem, there is also need for people of goodwill to provide the financial means for saving lives right now.

I was impressed by a December 5 article about the Princeton University bioethicist and committed atheist Peter Singer. The 10th-anniversary edition of his book The Life You Can Save was just published on Dec. 1.

In his book Singer (b. 1946) pleads with people of means to give generously in order to save the lives of those suffering from starvation and disease and suggests many charities to which money can be sent with confidence.

In the article mentioned, even though an atheist, Singer declared, “The gospel accounts of Jesus portray him as giving more emphasis to helping the poor than to any other ethical concern, so this should be a top priority for all Christians.”

In this Christmas season, how much will you give to save a life, or several lives?

Guidelines for Charitable Giving

Many people, including many who regularly read this blog, have investment portfolios which they seek to optimize regularly. But what about our charitable giving portfolio? How often do we consider if we are making contributions to the most efficient and effective organizations related to the causes about which we are most concerned?

Most of us perhaps give our tithes and offerings to (or through) our local church, but then we respond to other appeals for financial help. And especially at this time of the year we are  swamped with requests for charitable gifts. Through the requests found often in our mailboxes, by the appeals we receive in our e-mail inboxes, and from personal petitions made by religious or civic organizations, we are regularly asked to be generous in helping other people.

So, how should we decide which charities or causes to support? Do we respond primarily with our emotions, giving to those groups who best stir our feelings of compassion, concern, or guilt? Or do we have a planned charitable giving “portfolio”?

Let me suggest the following guidelines when considering a charitable gift:

(1) Does this gift help eliminate the root causes of problems more than just helping victims of those problems? For example, giving to help feed the hungry is good and important; giving to help eliminate the causes of hunger is better.

(2) Does this gift help solve problems in the future rather than merely meeting current needs? In spite of the needs of many Native Americans now, this is one main reason in my previous posting for suggesting giving to the Native American College Fund.

(3) Does this gift go to (through) an organization that is highly effective and efficient? Perhaps Charity Navigator, the leading independent charity evaluator in the country, is the best way to check the strength and integrity of charities. In their words, Charity Navigator “works to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace by evaluating the financial health of over 5,500 of America’s largest charities.”

(4) Does this gift go to a group that meets the previous criteria but has relatively few supporters as opposed to those groups that have a great deal of support? Some of the charities or causes I support are not on Charity Navigator because they are too small or specialized, but partly for that reason I choose to contribute to them. For example, I recently sent a donation to Associated Baptist Press.

(5) For those of us who are Christians, the first question we should ask is: Does this gift reflect commitment to Jesus’ words, “Seek first the Kingdom of God and God’s righteousness”? Even though I recognize that there are many “secular” groups that are consistent with seeking God’s Kingdom and God’s righteousness, mainly I want the charities to which I donate to be Christian in both how they operate and in the charitable work they do.

What other guidelines or charitable giving suggestions should be added?