We’re All in the Same Canoe: The Social Rationale for Giving

In recent years, both ancient wisdom and modern science have affirmed that people and the planet are deeply interdependent; everything depends on everything else. This reality applies especially to how humans engage with each other, across all our similarities and differences. As Martin Luther King observed in his 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

This means the fate and well-being of the rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, the old and the young, the healthy and the sick, neighbors and strangers, are intertwined—we are all in the same canoe, as New Zealanders like to say. Our fates are aligned, so we should behave accordingly. Life needn’t be seen as a harsh zero-sum game in which the gains to the prosperous inexorably come at the expense of the powerless. Sharing with the less fortunate needn’t be a token gesture that buys a few moments of emotional goodwill, nor should giving generously to those in need be compromised by the false belief that doing so inherently discourages thrift and hard work. Rather, giving should be grounded in a shared sense of empathy and connection, a positive-sum recognition within a “network of mutuality” that everyone matters and that we are all enabled by each other. Regularly giving to others, especially those in need, should also align with the Golden Rule—if you were seriously struggling to get by, surely you would welcome a literal hand up from anyone.

Recognizing interdependence is not just a moral imperative but a lived global reality. Most of us (i.e., readers of this article, including the author!) do not make the clothes we wear, the houses we live in, the modes of transport we ride, the computers we type on, the energy we consume, or the food we eat. If you run a business, your company did not pay for the education of your workforce, the maintenance of the roads or rails that get them to the office each day, the clean air they breathe, or the safe water they drink. Those costs were covered—directly or indirectly—by our forebears, by you, me, and everyone else through trade, taxation, investments, regulations, and the generosity of others.

If we enjoy these benefits today it is because we live in societies that have figured out how to enable the exchange of skills, ideas, and resources within a safe, predictable, and reliable space that is upheld by agreed-upon rules and enforced laws. When we are ill, we can reasonably expect that medical professionals will act in good faith to heal us; if our house is burning or we are in a major accident, first responders will likely be there within minutes; our hard-won savings are kept safe in banks; the contracts we sign are binding to all parties. These are the tangible benefits of functional interconnectedness; they form the foundation of material prosperity across society, which in turn reduces the incidence, severity, and duration of poverty.

In our interconnected world, therefore, lives can be saved via individual citizens supporting two different channels: one direct, fast, and narrow, the other indirect, slow, but broad (i.e., society-wide). The first channel works by directly transferring personal monetary donations, via effective charities deploying proven methods, to specific families or groups facing deep challenges now—for example, by supporting efforts to distribute mosquito nets in areas affected by malaria, or by sponsoring individual children for several years. The second channel operates more indirectly but at a larger scale over longer periods of time, doing so by supporting multilateral development agencies and national government strategies – via citizens’ taxes, votes, advocacy efforts, and spending habits – that help create integrated systems promoting shared, long-term prosperity, such as effective public health and education ministries. On a good day, national and local governments, international organizations, and multilateral agencies embody the world’s collective effort to enhance welfare for all, especially in the poorest and least stable places. 

Prosperity at a national level isn’t achieved by charitable donations alone. It requires the creation of a broad ecosystem of exchange—roads, ports, bridges, banks, courts, schools, electricity grids, telecommunications—characterized by fair, inclusive, and low-cost interactions between people and places, and accessible institutions reducing or managing the many risks of exchange itself and daily life (accidents, injury, illness), such as insurance, regulatory agencies, hospitals, and public health. Despite personal wealth, many people in the top 5-10% in poor countries are materially worse off than the bottom 5-10% in rich countries because the latter live in places where effective service delivery and risk management ensure this exchange happens safely, reliably, affordably, and at scale. 

In principle.

In practice, however, these institutions are imperfect and often unable or unwilling to accommodate the unique circumstances of certain people or groups, such as immigrants, refugees, and minorities, leaving many to “fall through the cracks.” This is a rising problem today in even the richest countries, such as the United States. Moreover, building national prosperity by integrating people and places may come at a high cost to groups like indigenous communities, whose understanding of “progress” and “improvement” may differ significantly from the majority view. Requiring that everyone attend formal school and receive instruction in a national language that is often not their mother tongue, for example, or adhere to modern social norms, medical practices, and monetary systems while complying with complex tax and legal codes… Such practices can deeply challenge ways of life that have been carefully curated and sustained over thousands of years—such as venerating sacred ancestors and regarding the natural environment as the source of life itself, rather than a resource. 

Charitable organizations and individual giving, along with broader citizen advocacy, play a crucial role in preserving and enhancing the lives, livelihoods, languages, and cultures of such people—and, importantly, in enabling constructive dialogue between those with seemingly different perspectives and priorities. Charitable organizations funded by individual donors (or private institutions such as family foundations) also help prevent deaths and reduce suffering while broader service delivery systems are being built, which takes time. The most effective of these organizations are creating opportunities for communities to develop skills to solve problems they themselves have nominated and prioritized, and addressed with their own solutions.

Living in the same canoe doesn’t mean we should all strive to look, think, speak, believe, and behave the same way. Current realities make this neither possible nor desirable: wide variation in human diversity coupled with heightened interaction between different groups is going to be with us through at least the middle of the 21st century. We are all in this canoe, but in the coming years we are likely to find ourselves in an even larger vessel with increasingly diverse passengers taking ever longer journeys, due to opportunities for work and safety (enhanced by digital technology and accessible transport) made necessary by deepening global challenges (aging in rich countries, desertification, rising sea levels) that will intensify mass migration. Getting along and saving lives on these fraught journeys will require a dual approach. With one hand, we should provide direct financial (or other) assistance, through effective charities to individuals or groups in urgent need now. With the other, we should strengthen firms, governments, and agencies working to build robust systems of education, healthcare, finance, housing, justice, and transportation – that is, systems that enhance access to services for all and thereby build collective capabilities to respond to complex challenges at scale. 

In Nigeria, for example, reducing malaria deaths can be achieved by funding bed nets; in contrast, in tropical Florida, almost none of its 23 million residents sleep under such nets due to a highly effective public health system that makes doing so unnecessary. One day, we hope Nigeria will have a similar system, the getting of which will likely require sustained external support; but until that happens, lives can be saved now by providing bed nets.  

Providing both direct targeted assistance and indirect society-wide support will require creating shared spaces for coexistence and learning—and recognizing that others’ misfortune is also ours, and that gains by the less fortunate benefit everyone. Such responses have always been the foundation for saving lives and promoting the flourishing of all. In our interconnected world, the social rationale for giving is clear: By helping those in need, we strengthen the very fabric of the societies we live in and rely on. Generosity is not only an expression of empathy but an investment in building a cohesive global community where everyone can thrive.