i saw the results of an amateur study claiming to measure which religion cares the most about the homeless by the amount of money dropped into a variety of bowls with each religion labeled and laid out in front of a beggar.
i propose that money is not an accurate measurement of caring in this situation. the following points could also be applied to raising children and/or running our education system... here is my argument:
----------
money is not the most accurate measure of caring in this situation.
for example, if a child has not yet learned to walk, and you want the child to walk (you care) you have these options:
1. use money to pay someone to manipulate the child's legs or build an expensive apparatus that performs the task of walking for the child
2. use knowledge and training to encourage the child to familiarize themselves with the mechanics of walking.
3. do nothing, just observe.
each method may have a different result..
1. the child walks, although this stops when the manipulator stops. this is a solution, although the child probably didn't learn anything. he may have made a new friend, but he is dependent on that friend... payments must be made perpetually to achieve the goal we care about.. alot of money is needed to maintain this type of caring... it may never end because skills may never be learned.
2. the child struggles. the child gets frustrated. the child gets motivated to overcome the frustration. the child's learns how to follow instructions. eventually the child acclimates himself to the mechanics of walking. the child walks. the goal we care about is achieved. we no longer have to concern ourselves with the goal in any way, shape, or form.
3. the child struggles. the child gets frustrated. the child gets motivated to overcome the frustration. the child either falls into desperation and gives up or learns how to be innovative and resourceful.. discovering the mechanics of walking by trial and error.
scenario 1
the throw money at it scenario may be the most commonly accepted form of caring, although it is often the worst at achieving the goals we care about.
scenario 2
the structured training scenario can be good at achieving the goals we care about, although there could still be a level of dependency here if/when new problems are encountered that aren't covered by the training.
scenario 3
the hands off scenario has both the greatest and the worst potential. the goals we care about may be achieved or the subject may be lost entirely. if the goals are achieved, the subject is likely to be very prepared to take on any new or unexpected problems encountered.
the most appropriate approach may be in the form of a combination of scenario 2 and scenario 3... providing knowledge/training to overcome a problem only when the subject is leaning towards desperation/giving up... one must determine, however, whether the subject that has given up can be remotivated.
so you see, lack of monetary donation does not equate to a lack of caring. and i do realize that "training" involves money although it's not money put directly in a beggars bowl.
the measurement depicted seems to be more of an inverse representation of the wisdom and problem solving capabilities of the average followers of said groups