Good post, RB. As an avowed non-reader of books, I recommend M. Scott Peck's very brief but rewarding volume. I like the way you expressed the tenuous balance between "obligation" and "generosity".
Getting back to the problem of overpopulation in, shall we say "the Southern Hemisphere", let us remember that the one US-based NGO that is most consistently and roundly criticized by the Religious Right is the very one most involved in addressing this problem. And yes, of course it is a Very Bad Thing. But so is infant mortality, short life expectancy, and low quality of life.
iss, I'm going to assume that your differentiation between "humanity" and "humans" is much more than just a quibble. I look forward to understanding the difference. On the surface, however, I can unite with the idea that what I do to benefit others is not in fact a conscious attempt to benefit
all of humanity, but merely an impulse to offer help where it seems needed, without giving much thought to how wide is the circle of recipients. As I said before, I think this is "human nature". Phil made a very good point when he said:
. . . human beings are, like most other primates, communal animals dependent upon and therefore responsible to the pack to which we belong. The way in which humans have evolved has resulted in a radical alteration in what constitutes a "pack."
